Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Back for a limited time - Get 15% off sitewide on Slashdot Deals with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment Re:FSF choices (Score 1) 734

that's a bit unfair. emacs might have everything including the kitchen sink, but at least it strives for (and mostly achieves) exellence at everything it does.

systemd, OTOH, has a pretty good init system ruined by dozens of half-arsed crappy extensions doing all sorts of things that don't belong in an init system.

Comment Re:Congratulations! (Score 3, Insightful) 153

What makes you think your digital trust chain will be in any way enforcable in a nation that has collapsed so far that it doesn't even have a "proper land registry"?

In that situation, a gun would be far more useful than some bits on a computer somewhere. And that's only if someone else doesn't have bigger and/or more guns.

BTW, Nakamoto didn't invent the idea of decentralised trust chains. He borrowed the idea from existing public key encryption.

Comment Moronic (Score 1) 220

That's just fucking stupid - a link is a reference, not a copy.

If you can't reference copyrighted works, nobody can legally say "I read **CENSORED** the other day, it was great". Similarly, movie reviews would be banned. and telling people about newspaper or magazine articles they read. and lots of other everyday fair-use references to copyrighted works.

Comment no. (Score 1) 568

They shouldn't be called, or call themselves, Engineers unless they actually have an engineering degree and are a member of the appropriate national engineering organisation.

ditto for "architect".

This was settled decades ago, long before programmers started big-noting themselves with professional titles they don't deserve - in many countries it is illegal to call yourself an engineer or architect (or doctor or lawyer etc) without both the qualification AND the membership in the relevant association.

Illegal, but not enforced often these days.

Comment Re:Well, at least someone is willing to say it! (Score 1) 572

I doubt if many of the people who object to systemd have any problem at all with it as an init system. As init, it's fine. In fact, it's even good (but so is upstart or openrc. or even sysvinit, with all it's minor flaws).

It's everything else that systemd is borging that is the problem. Dozens of low-level system functions (like logging, udev, logging-in, session management, console, network setup, time sync, cron, and many more) that have no business being in an init daemon are being taken over by systemd - and the systemd implementations tend to be half-arsed and incomplete and only suitable for the simplest of cases that the systemd authors have personally experienced.

if systemd devs had limited its functionality to just providing a better init system, it wouldn't be in the least bit controversial...for the same reason that neither upstart nor openrc were controversial. they did one job and did it well.

people might have complained about bugs in openrc or upstart, or annoyances about the way they worked. but nobody objected to them in principle.

Comment Re:The message in question: (Score 1) 572

> Mind you few people will ever say a system is easier if that system
> is new and requires them to read a man page. Change is never easy.

Many people change when the new tool is better, even if it requires learning new ways of doing things. Many new and improved tools make a serious effort at backwards-compatiblity to make the transition easier (systemd does not do this). That's why, for example, many people switched from syslogd to rsyslog or syslog-ng. why many changed from ncsa or cern httpd to apache. why many changed from csh to posix sh (or bash or ksh or zsh). Many of these people who have gone through all these changes and more are the same people complaining about systemd, so their objection is clearly not because they are afraid of or too lazy to change.

> The only acid test would be sitting a few people who've not used
> linux before in front of both systems. Then you can determine
> which system is easier to administrate.

you are making the classic mistake of confusing 'easy to learn' with 'easy to use'. nano is an easy to learn editor, but hard to use for complex editing tasks. vi is moderately hard to learn but extremely easy to use once you've learnt a few basic things about it.

It is easier to change the specification to fit the program than vice versa.