Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Binary logs (Score 1) 403

by funky_vibes (#47987255) Attached to: Debian Switching Back To GNOME As the Default Desktop

Such a radical change, like binary logs should at least require a couple of years of maturement time as an RFC, while it gets implemented by all relevant tools across the board. And even then, it should always be optional, and support multiple formats.

Text parsing isn't all rosy either, there are large amounts of security/performance problems that are neatly hidden.

Comment: Re:Good. IndieGoGo should do it too (Score 1) 203

by funky_vibes (#47979057) Attached to: Kickstarter Lays Down New Rules For When a Project Fails

Surely you can see that idea is a disaster to begin with. I mean, heavy traffic running on and wearing down expensive PV equipment...
Those regions where it would work well are already sparsely populated, and could easily install more efficient PV units next to the road.

Comment: Re:Back in the days... (Score 1) 203

by funky_vibes (#47979009) Attached to: Kickstarter Lays Down New Rules For When a Project Fails

Exactly, it's great if you've got a house to risk. By the time people pay off their mortgage nowadays their bones will have turned to dust.

The baby boomers are sitting on most of the money, or act as VCs or angels to rip people off, so of course things'll have to be done differently by younger generations.

Comment: Re:What was wrong with OpenRC? (Score 1) 826

by funky_vibes (#47763111) Attached to: Choose Your Side On the Linux Divide

Containers have nothing to do with an inability to multitask. They're about, well, containing changes. That is, if I update glibc I don't have to worry about testing 47 different services on the host to ensure they all work before walking away. Instead I only have to test one, since that glibc is private to a single service. They do consume more RAM, of course, since less is shared in memory. That is the tradeoff.

As I said, they are just unnecessary bloat. The problem you are trying to solve is self-serving and endless. let's say you need to update glibc, then you add containers, now you need to update your container software so you add container-containers, then next you need to update your container-container software, so you need container-container-containers. No matter how long you keep up, you're still going to end up with the same problem and additional ones. But by now, the system has devolved into a slow mess that no one wants to touch. So you go and buy a new server and hope things are different this time.

The whole point of a robust design is that it makes errors harder to commit, and handles them better. If nobody wrote bad code we wouldn't need process memory isolation either.

Memory protection is a basic requirement for security in a multi-user environment.

That is the problem - the files are editable. That means that every time you update a package you have to re-merge the stock scripts with all your changes. With a systemd drop-in you can override a configuration setting without editing any file owned by a package.

Assuming there even is such a config setting in systemd, and that it works.

You can run scripts from a systemd unit if you need to, but the point is that 95% of the time you don't have to.

Problem is, for the most part people want to get rid of behaviour in systemd, which doesn't work for them or is otherwise useless. And in many cases it simply isn't possible.

You're basically arguing about the merits of procedural programming over declarative programming

Not really, both would work, but fewer people are good at declarative which means it's bad for system tools. I'm arguing flexible design over monolithic when it comes to something like init. You never want to reboot for minor system changes, so init needs to be as flexible as possible, to accomodate any kind of change. Systemd, the monolithic binary that links all the way up to GUI layers. You'll need to reboot for just about every software update.
It really is the worst solution anyone could ever come up with for a problem that never existed in the first place. I'm not sure I could come up with something more stupid.

Comment: Re:What was wrong with OpenRC? (Score 1) 826

by funky_vibes (#47760697) Attached to: Choose Your Side On the Linux Divide

You may look at things differently and therefore my response may sound harsh, but the way any normal *nix person sees these "improvements":

>1. Doesn't support being run in a container (though this is being worked on).
Apparently it now does. But I couldn't care less since containers and virtualization are an exercise in bloated pointlessness. Most operating systems can already run multiple processes simultaneously.
>2. Is slow to start up, which is important for containers.
Slow startup is a result of huge scripts and their interpreters. You really can't have it both ways.
>3. The network setup scripts could use improvement.
No idea, never used the default ones.
>4. It tends to leave orphaned processes lying around.
Haven't seen this except in faulty scripts.
>5. It doesn't care about exit status for anything.
What should it do with it? It's a config issue.
>6. It can't shut down without leaving read-only filesystemd mounted.
This might be a bug
>7. It takes quite a while to actually shut down.
Again a config issue.
>8. It lacks support for service monitoring.
I assume you mean respawning? It's usually not a good idea, but openrc supports it.
>9. Doesn't support minor tweaks to init script configuration like adding ionice without merging changes on every package update.
Don't know what you mean, all the files are editable, and you're not supposed to just blindly replace config with defaults.

The point is, openrc (just like sysVinit) is a generic tool that doesn't make unnecessary assumptions about what you're trying to do with it and due to its scripted nature has no imaginary boundaries.

I can imagine using something similar but much less bloated than systemd for simple embedded devices, but not if it's made by Mr. Poettering & co. who have a long history of bad (and anti-unix) design decisions at every corner.

Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success. -- Christopher Lascl