Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Linux? Secure? Towelroot? (Score 1) 385

by emil (#47930819) Attached to: Torvalds: No Opinion On Systemd

I am sure that, if you have a talk about Linux security with Samsung/HTC/LG... you will hear some unprintable commentary on Linux security.

To a great extent, it's correct. While a lot of phones have been broken wide open, the same flaw can be used by a hostile app to own your phone (to say nothing of what could be done to a vulnerable enterprise system).

Comment: systemd is objectionable because: (Score 3, Interesting) 385

by emil (#47930571) Attached to: Torvalds: No Opinion On Systemd
  • - UNIX admins have been able to ply their trade for the last 40-odd years with a stable set of userland utilities, which systemd consigns to the trash heap.
  • - systemd has removed the old userland (init, inetd) without providing good documentation and examples for doing the old things with the new tools (seriously, the top systemd-inetd example uses ssh, which nobody does - how about ftp or pop3?).

It seems that there are lots of new capabilities with systemd, but it has come to market with lousy documentation. The purveyors are receiving a thorough flogging at the hands of the greybeards, which they richly deserve.

Comment: "What's coming out of our high schools." (Score 1) 528

by emil (#47767637) Attached to: Limiting the Teaching of the Scientific Process In Ohio

Recent comments by Alan Greenspan paint a dire picture of primary education in the United States:

"We cannot manage our very complex, highly sophisticated capital structure with what's coming out of our high schools."

"If we're not going to educate our kids, bring in other people who want to become Americans."

Under such dire circumstances and an existential threat, now is not the time for bias.

Comment: If we're poking holes in the accepted dogma... (Score 1) 109

by emil (#47684709) Attached to: Why the Universe Didn't Become a Black Hole

...then how about this one?

One mystery which has not been solved as of 2009 is the absence of red dwarfs with no metals. (In astronomy, a metal is any element heavier than hydrogen or helium.) The Big Bang model predicts the first generation of stars should have only hydrogen, helium, and trace amounts of lithium. If such stars included red dwarfs, they should still be observable today, but none have yet been identified. The preferred explanation is that without heavy elements only large and not yet observed population III stars can form, and these rapidly burn out, leaving heavy elements which then allow for the formation of red dwarfs. Alternative explanations, such as the idea that zero-metal red dwarfs are dim and could be few in number, are considered much less likely as they seem to conflict with stellar evolution models.

Porsche: there simply is no substitute. -- Risky Business

Working...