Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:BSD is looking better all the time (Score 1) 728

it is the Unix way that is preventing it from going further

So you are saying any violation of the Unix philosophy will make it "go further"? Probably not, but if yes, I give up on you.

If no, are you saying linux kernel, or other "good" non-systemd things never violate the unix philosophy? If so, you are wrong. ZFS, and Btrfs violate the Unix philosophy quite spectacularly by merging filesystem, LVM, checksum etc. into one monolithic piece. Linus himself was against this initially (especially in the context of encryption), but he has come to terms with reality. Looked at very narrowly, emacs is a violation of the Unix philosophy because of being large, complex and multi-functional. But there are good reasons for those violations.

So smart violation of Unix philosophy is already underway. The remaining argument is about whether systemd stuff is violating Unix philosophy in a smart or a dumb way. Let us define smart to be something that improves the software rather than increase profits of a company while making lives of users/customers/administrators miserable.

I don't see an argument from you about how systemd kind of violation of Unix philosophy is a smart. If not, systemd's existence itself could be the "crime" here.

Comment Re:Bullshit (Score 1) 728

He had a mouthful to say to Poettering and rest of the systemd committers when they contributed code to the kernel. They were even banned from contributing to kernel, if I remember correctly.

Linus doesn't and shouldn't interfere with things out of his scope - systemd is emphatically outside of his scope. Kernel and git are definitely within his scope and he hasn't minced words to defend them.

Comment Re:Are you trying to imply that systemd is faster? (Score 1) 728

Flinging poo at systemd is like yelling "get a horse!" when seeing a car, back in the 1900s. True at the moment, but in time proven to be shortsighted.

Do you have credible proof that it will be proven to be shortsighted? If not, you might want to say the following, much less exciting statement:

"Flinging poo at systemd might be like yelling "get a horse!" when seeing a car"

Or do you believe in proof by analogy? By this proof methodology, you could have proven in 1944 that there won't be any nuclear bomb explosion next year, because a nuclear bomb is like the proof of Fermat's last theorem - it hasn't been built yet and won't be by next year.

Comment Re:As much as possible (Score 1) 350

Like-for-like, a comparable Dell comes in at around 60-80% of a new MBP

That is if you start with an MBP. If you start with Dell - cheapest 16 GB business Dell Laptop (i5558-8574SLV) sells for $859 on Newegg. NOW try to get MBP that matches it - cheapest MBP with 16 GB RAM is $1799 on Apple's website ($1889 on Newegg so ignoring that).

Dell ends up costing 47% of MBP, in other words, less than half.

Chose memory for two reasons -
1. /. story is about memory.
2. Increasing tendency of Apple to solder memory.

Comment Re:Why not start now..and take if further? (Score 1) 373

For example, do you include clothing weight? If so, expect passengers to start stripping when they are on the borderline of a cheaper weight bracket. Like boxers do.

If they intend to carry along the stripped clothes, it counts as luggage and the charge should be almost[1] the same as if it were on their bodies.

If they don't intend to carry along the clothes, airport might charge them for waste disposal if it is a huge tonnage of clothing but otherwise not a problem.

As far as naked people making others uncomfortable, this problem pops up even without charging people for weight, so neither surprising nor insoluble nor unheard of in the service industries.

[1] Luggage can be slightly cheaper than live human bodies because it is easier to tie down and distribute. Luggage also doesn't shout when it is separated from its "friends and family" to adjust center of mass of the aircraft.

Comment Re:Why not start now..and take if further? (Score 1) 373

Charging for weight may not be discrimination. Most restaurants already charge extra for people who eat more. The others, the all-you-can-eat buffets, "discriminate" against anorexics by charging same for any amount of food eaten. Hell, hospitals charge ONLY the people who get sick - no hospital ever charged me for being healthy, but many of them charged me for being unhealthy.

It is even less likely to be considered discrimination if the price is fixed price + (weight in pounds)*(few cents).

Currently airlines are afraid to charge for weight because then wider people will start demanding their full quota of space. Charge for weight would justify their girth, at least in their own opinions. Separate charge for width is complicated to explain to users, and aircraft seating configuration is not easy to change for a single flight.

Comment airlines (Score 1) 394

After some major disasters, airline disaster begged the governments to regulate them so that users could trust them again. Otherwise in "free market" there is no way new airlines can be blocked from taking some risks with users' safety for saving a few bucks and thus scare users into avoiding ALL airlines.

Advertisers know there are bad apples in the lot, their own brethren. They don't do anything to protect the user. So they are distrusted. So Adblock.

If they want to get back into users' trust, it is their job to figure out how. But taking a leaf out of airlines' book would at least be considered an attempt to win back trust.

Before you dismiss these as dissimilar cases, think this.
Use of a typical advertisement poses a lot less risk than an airline - chance of computer infection vs dying in a fireball. Discontinuation of the use of an advertisement is also a lot easier than that of an airline - installing adblock once vs travelling 5-10 times slower. The ratio of "ease of avoidance" vs "value" is not very different between airlines and advertisements.