Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:PID1 - A Controllable Master Control Program (Score 1) 750

by gbjbaanb (#47755397) Attached to: Choose Your Side On the Linux Divide

this speaks of the new dawn where we might not be able to hack our shell scripts to do whatever, but we can write higher level code to effectively manage their operation.

w00t, no more writing shitty bash shell scripts, now we can write proper code in Python!...

oh no, wait.... we replaced everything for that?

Comment: Re:Choosing Sides (Score 2) 750

by gbjbaanb (#47751431) Attached to: Choose Your Side On the Linux Divide

1. ok, so it needs a bit of rework to multithread its process-starting system. I that significantly more difficult that rewriting the entire loader?

2. So it needs an extension to monitor services. Technically, I think this is better handled by a different task, one that is more into monitoring rather than blindly just continually-restarting a service that's crashed due to some external dependancy failure. Again, its not much of a task to add this than it is to rewrite the entire loader.

3. Individual services should be the ones to care about their configuration. Why would the loader be the one-stop place for all kinds of stuff that should be part of the OS or part of a processes dependancy tree. This is probably the worst bit, making systemd significantly more monolithic than before.

Comment: Re:I forced myself to watch it (Score 1) 296

by gbjbaanb (#47749407) Attached to: Put A Red Cross PSA In Front Of the ISIS Beheading Video

There's a bit of a difference between reporting on something, and having it turned into a good-v-evil, or commentary on America foreign policy, or just how evil the West is. The current ISIS video is a lot more than reporting, the reason they did it in the first place is entirely propaganda on their part,

Comment: Re:Okay... and? (Score 1) 314

by gbjbaanb (#47741737) Attached to: For Microsoft, $93B Abroad Means Avoiding $30B Tax Hit

Hey! Can I myself also claim that I paid my share through the taxes paid by the companies who made a profit with my money?

But they don't pay taxes, remember, the argument is that taxes are paid by you because of the money you earn thanks to the companies just being there.

So I rather think that its more like that if I've already paid Microsoft's taxes via my salary then I can consider it perfectly ok to take as much of Microsoft products for free.

Comment: Re:tax by transaction (Score 1) 314

by gbjbaanb (#47741691) Attached to: For Microsoft, $93B Abroad Means Avoiding $30B Tax Hit

including every transaction made on the stock markets which counts in the hundreds of millions if not billions a day

sure about that? The LSE says about 500,000 transaction per day (about £3bn per day but the proposal was per transaction)

Visa says about 200 million txns per day., with Mastercard (100m) and Amex (14m) you're still way off "trillions".

so overall, I make that less than 400 million - $4m in tax revenue per day, still quite a bit short.

(other stat I found said 26.2 billion credit card transactions per year in the US alone.)

Comment: Re:Here's the interesting paragraph (Score 1) 375

by gbjbaanb (#47727915) Attached to: Would Scottish Independence Mean the End of UK's Nuclear Arsenal?

We do have precedent - Czechoslovakia is now 2 countries, as is Sudan and Yugoslavia.

I just hope Scottish independance goes better than the latter two.

Scotland may have some issue if they decide to get out of the nuclear game, mainly because of the number of jobs that will be lost when the base (and supporting businesses) gets closed.

At that point, Britain will almost certainly move the base to somewhere else in the UK, probably somewhere with lots of unemployed, ex-heavy industrial workers. As a result, they do have very good political value.

There is talk of just scrapping it completely, and relying on nuclear cruise missiles and bombers instead. I'm not sure how practical this is, but given the relatively stable state of nuclear politics (ie who would we potentially nuke today with our deterrent?) it doesn't seem so bad an option. The money could be funneled into traditional forces that end up being heavily used for peace keeping and humanitarian purposes.

Comment: Re:Here's the interesting paragraph (Score 2) 375

by gbjbaanb (#47727877) Attached to: Would Scottish Independence Mean the End of UK's Nuclear Arsenal?

Salmond thinks exactly one thing would change on independence - he'd become king.

I think this is the reason he has zero alternative plans, he's too busy running this wet dream over in his head.

Spain for one will stop Scotland joining the EU, they don't want to give the Basque and Catalan regions any ideas.

Comment: Re:Why focus on the desktop? (Score 1) 720

by gbjbaanb (#47715939) Attached to: Linus Torvalds: 'I Still Want the Desktop'

Its true, and the reason that happens is (partly) because those devices are pretty fixed hardware, hence pretty fixed device driver requirements.

When you go to most desktops you have to support a lot of different bits of kit, which Linux does support, but the lack of a stable kernel interface for drivers makes vendor support difficult (to them), and as a result, you get sub-standard drivers for a lot of devices

the PC became popular because you could mix and match whatever you wanted to put in there, upgrades for everything. Until you can go to the shops and buy a new graphics card and install the driver that came with it (because the vendor refuses to open source their driver) then Linux will never be fully ready for the desktop.

Comment: ABI (Score 1) 102

by gbjbaanb (#47713481) Attached to: Interviews: Bjarne Stroustrup Answers Your Questions

Well, I'm slightly disappointed he side-stepped the issue of an ABI as I think its probably the most unglamourous but most essential aspects of a platform. Its not a cool language feature, but for big software comprising lots of modules, it would make life much easier and I think C++ adoption more popular.

I work with C# as well, which has such a thing as an ABI, and using libraries is a real doddle - just drop the assembly dll in the bin directory, add a reference to it with a corresponding #import in the source files you want to use it... and you're done. C++ lacks this, though I would be fine having to include a header file too, its the ubiquity of dynamically loaded modules that could be written in any language (or more likely, they calling into my c++ library).

When you have several hundred modules in your program, you realise how nice it would be.

The issue of vendors is a non-issue I think. I recall building a program using Sun's compiler, then we upgraded and nothing would link - because Sun had changed their ABI between versions. I think Microsoft doesn't change it, but only because its stable, not for any other reason. Standardising wouldn't be much of an issue anyway - they'd probably have a flag that said "generate old or new" exports and leave it up to the user if they wanted the old, compatible ones (doubt it, most people recompile everything every time anyway due to the lack of an ABI!).

Meanwhile Microsoft comes up with their own versions (first COM, now WinRT) and they're inferior, being based on a funny sort of C for the first, and a funny sort of C# for the latter, leaving C++ binaries only practically accessible to other C++ programs.

Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is too dark to read.