Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:define (Score 1) 290

by swillden (#47931151) Attached to: German Court: Google Must Stop Ignoring Customer E-mails

What a content-free quote. You can easily find a dozen quotes from Google -- including in their privacy policy, which is legally binding -- which show they don't share any individual user data at all. If you can find a way to prove they're lying, you can get both the SEC and the FTC to take legal action against them.

Comment: Re:More importantly (Score 2) 237

by swillden (#47931049) Attached to: Is the Tesla Model 3 Actually Going To Cost $50,000?

Also, Brakes and Tires are functionally identical between a BMW and a Tesla, and, on the Model S

Sort of. The tires, yes. The brakes are functionally identical, but should wear much more slowly on the Model S thanks to regenerative braking. How much less depends on driving style, obviously.

Comment: Re:Fear of changing code.... (Score 1) 203

by swillden (#47930845) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Have You Experienced Fear Driven Development?

I have also seen/heard of circumstances where "doing the minimum to keep the thing working" is allowed but actually improving the code is not because improving the code counts as "new work" and comes from a different budget than maintenance. Seems stupid but that's how some shops operate.

"The minimum to keep the thing working" nearly always implies improving the code. All developers need to realize this and stop this silly false dichotomy between "maintenance" and "refactoring".

IMO, developers know there isn't a difference but management does not.

Does management review the diffs?

Comment: Re:Anti-math and anti-science ... (Score 2) 673

by swillden (#47929687) Attached to: ISIS Bans Math and Social Studies For Children

There are obvious differences between Christianity and Islam that make Christianity able to coexist with a modern secular state while Islam is showing all over the world that it can't.

This is only because Christianity has changed. Christianity as it was during the era of the crusades, and for hundreds of years after them, not only could not coexist with a secular government, it couldn't even coexist with an ostensibly Christian government which espoused a slightly different form of Christianity.

Note that I'm not bashing Christianity here... I am a Christian. But let's not whitewash the history of Christianity.

can you imagine the Pope leading a frenzied crowd in the St. Peters square in chants of "death to infidels"

Well, historically, the Pope doesn't lead chants. Instead he just issues orders to root out and forcibly "convert" infidels via torture, to save their souls. Of course, popes haven't done that for centuries because it has become unacceptable to Christians.

Comment: Re:they will defeat themselves (Score 1) 673

by swillden (#47929619) Attached to: ISIS Bans Math and Social Studies For Children

That said, what would really make it tough for them is a lack of opposition. Their tactics tend to be very self defeating when the larger powers don't overreact and get drawn into conflict with them.

Not from any evidence I've ever seen. No larger power had given them any attention for the past year, and their numbers, financial resources, and power swelled unchecked; they only become a greater threat with time.

That's only because they're riding the wave created by previous overreactions and conficts, and the (reasonable from their perspective -- and probably correct) that if they keep at it they'll get the reaction that will justify their existence.

Comment: Re:Simple set of pipelined utilties! (Score 2) 279

by drinkypoo (#47928733) Attached to: Torvalds: No Opinion On Systemd

Xorg, which on desktop is as critical as init to keep running, is not really simple.

Never go full retard. X is not even remotely as important as init. For one thing, if X dies, who will restart it? And do we really want computers that explode when the GUI dies? I, for one, would like network services to terminate gracefully. The whole idea of TCP/IP networks, the dominant network used with Unix, is peer-to-peer. I may well run both services and clients on my machine. If X dies, the clients may die (if they're not text and running in screen) but the servers won't.

kernel, which is also as critical as init to keep running, and it is *much* *much* more complex than systemd. systemd is not at the "bottom layer" of the system, there's the whole of kernel underneath still.

So the argument is that since the kernel is complex, we should add more complexity, or that more complexity won't matter? That's an ignorant, illogical argument.

And one common myth is that systemd has these so many features and systemd is pid 1 therefore pid 1 is this huge bloated monster that does udev, logging and NTP, right? Wrong; actually, just the core bits of systemd run in pid 1 and the rest is compartmentalized in a bunch of separate daemon processes.

Systemd still has to be more complicated so that it knows how to run these other processes, which wasn't even necessary. init was never meant to manage daemons. daemons were meant to manage themselves, or be run from inetd. If you want more complexity, inetd is the place to add it. And for handling daemons which don't adequately manage themselves, there's daemontools. There was simply no need whatsoever for this to happen.

So, this "increased complexity" issue is not really as bad as it sounds, realistically.

It is bad, because PID1 is now responsible for a bunch of things which could have existed in any other daemon. And rather than roll the things which actually make sense in together, everything is getting rolled together. So now not only do we depend on a complex kernel, but we depend on a needlessly complex init system. There was no good reason to put all of this stuff into the same daemon.

Comment: Re:Simple set of pipelined utilties! (Score 2) 279

by drinkypoo (#47928683) Attached to: Torvalds: No Opinion On Systemd

You can't seriously claim that systemd provides nothing that can't be done by script based init systems, shell scripts and existing daemons

Yes, yes I can. And I did.

logind is just one example

Does nothing a script can't do

But it would be an interesting project to make a Linux SysVinit distro that tried get feature parity with systemd, so that daemons could utilize the kernel "namespaces" and "capabilities"

Systemd doesn't even fucking use capabilities, just cgroups. Which we could use before systemd. Systemd manages permissions in lieu of using capabilities, e.g. apparmor or selinux.

Isn't that argument just trying to make a virtue out of the fact, that SysVinit and the like, are totally crude and primitive init systems that are unable to anything much of interest?

No. That is the virtue. They are simple. Simplicity is still a virtue.

All the analyses I have seen shows that moving crucial processes into PID2, just makes everything more fragile and opens up security holes.

Making PID1 more complex makes everything more fragile and opens up security holes.

I think that there are actually very good design reasons for why systemd is designed like it is.

NIH

It only runs one process as PID1, the daemon "systemd" which is rather small. This daemon however, is capable of "talking" with with several other processes, which gives it many advantages,

This is making init do stuff it doesn't need to do, which makes it more complex, which makes it more fragile. You should not need a detailed explanation to understand why this is a bad thing.

Comment: Re:Are you even aware of SystemD works? (Score 4, Informative) 279

by drinkypoo (#47928579) Attached to: Torvalds: No Opinion On Systemd

You don't seem to understand how SystemD actually works. The PID 1 is relatively simple -- it uses all sorts of separate (i.e. non-PID 1) helper processes to do all the heavy and complicated lifting.

Lifting which should not be done by PID 1. And PID 1 has to be more complex than it should be just to handle those external programs.

SystemD currently does a fuckton of stuff no other currently usable init system on Linux does.

It does a lot of stuff the init system shouldn't do.

(Reliable process supervision which cannot be evaded,

cgroups existed before systemd.

sane handling of process stdout/stderr

Up to the init script.

proper handling of dependencies at runtime

Already handled by several init systems.

socket activation

We call it inetd.

I don't particularly care which init system my system runs, but I want those features and currently only SystemD can deliver them.

That is ignorance at best, or perhaps a lie.

Please stop spreading FUD about things you know next to nothing about.

You have no idea about anything, that didn't stop you. I see why you didn't log in.

Comment: Re:Simple set of pipelined utilties! (Score 2, Insightful) 279

by drinkypoo (#47926333) Attached to: Torvalds: No Opinion On Systemd

If you really buy that principle and want to enforce it religiously,

It's not a religion, it's a principle. When it makes sense, you put it aside and get work done. The argument against systemd is that it doesn't make sense. systemd is a simple case of NIH because it provides absolutely nothing which could not be implemented with the existing daemons and some small shell scripts.

That't the issue: Every single person who hates SystemD because "UNIX PHILOSOPHY!!" has no problem violating that philosophy to actually get things done in a whole bunch of other areas.

That's right.

That's not even bringing up the fact that SystemD is.. wait for it... built from a bunch of individual utilities that can actually be used by non-systemd programs.

That's not the complaint. The complaint is that the process at PID 1 should be simple. You people running around screaming about a bunch of different processes are only compounding the proof that you do not understand Unix. It's not a problem to have many processes.

Comment: Re:The UK Cobol Climate Is Very Different (Score 1) 238

by swillden (#47926027) Attached to: College Students: Want To Earn More? Take a COBOL Class

yield to a hateful culture where we judge people by arbitrary qualities of the clothing they wear is an awful feeling

All cultures do that. Try being the guy at a t-shirt and sandals development shop who likes to wear a suit or even business casual. Personally, I like the t-shirt and sandals approach, but don't make the mistake of thinking you're not judged for your conformity there.

Comment: Re:Carpooling should be as free as speech (Score 1) 287

by drinkypoo (#47925191) Attached to: California Declares Carpooling Via Ride-Share Services Illegal

Of course it's who they approve of - because the point of carpool lanes is to effectively remove significant traffic and air pollution, and they felt that Uber doesn't qualify.

Bullshit, they're still letting licensed commercial vehicles use the HOV lane. The fact is that HOV lanes are shit. They're a waste of space which accomplishes none of the stated goals. Simply adding another general lane does more to reduce emissions, because it does more to reduce congestion, and thus reduces idling — where vehicles without start-stop systems get 0 MPG and thus are producing pure pollution. They're always trying to justify the existence of HOV lanes with bullshit like this, but they still are unjustifiable.

Comment: Re:Silly design decision (Score 1) 389

by drinkypoo (#47922187) Attached to: Apple Edits iPhone 6's Protruding Camera Out of Official Photos

Phones have big screens now, so they need armor anyway. So since you're going to put armor on the phone, you want the phone to get thinner, so that the phone with a case on it is still thin. Just making the phone thin allows the user to put whichever case on it they like, so they get to personalize their phone and you don't have to try to anticipate their needs, instead letting the whole world do that. And that's why having the camera really doesn't matter. In fact, having the bezel around it protrude from the camera probably helps protect that side from scratches. What's the problem, planned to slot-load the phone?

This system will self-destruct in five minutes.

Working...