Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Take advantage of Black Friday with 15% off sitewide with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" on Slashdot Deals (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment Re:Wrong way around (Score 1) 703

Better explanation:

sysvinit is widely considered awful by most distro maintainers.

How do we know this? Well, because distro maintainers have been trying to get away from it for years. Even when everything was run from 'init' there have been multiple refactorings of /etc/*.d to try to produce a better start up environment.

At some point, some distributions, notably Ubuntu, switched to an initd replacement called Upstart. Because they were desperate to get away from sysvinit. ChromeOS, possibly the most widely used Desktop GNU/Linux distribution, was also an early adopter of Upstart. Again because it was considered better - more reliable, faster, etc - than horrible old init.

So why are they switching to systemd? Because systemd is considered better than Upstart (which in turn is considered better than sysvinit.) systemd has a better process model, and doesn't ignore required functionality (yes, the same program that configures devices at start up probably should configure USB devices that are plugged in dynamically, and the same processes that configure the network based upon what devices are plugged in at start up should probably configure the network based upon what devices become available later, etc. So yes, this supposed "monolithic" approach is basic common sense.)

Most of those complaining about systemd are actually fighting an argument they lost in 2006, when Upstart became part of Ubuntu 6.10. They've lost it not just in the GNU/Linux world, but also in, say, the Mac OS X world, where sysvinit was unceremoniously ejected back in 2005. Or the Solaris world. etc.

You know, I could understand this if we were actually losing anything by switching to systemd. The desire to remove X11 from *ix, for example, replacing it with a dumb graphics engine with a fraction of the functionality, I think is genuinely a tragedy. We'll lose much of what made *ix what it is if and when Wayland is adopted. But systemd doesn't remove anything. It's fast, efficient, and it fixes huge holes in GNU/Linux, problems we've been aware of since the mid-nineties but haven't had the spine to fix.

It's something to be welcomed.

Comment Re: he should know better (Score 1) 268

The First Amendment to the ...


It is sad and sickening to see so called liberals ...

Also correct.

BUT ... it does not matter. In the end it is up to the business whether it will run X or not.

By way of example: if I paid you $10 to put a sign on your lawn saying X would it be wrong for you to refuse to put a sign saying Y on your lawn for $10?

And that's where we are at with this. The theatres refuse all religious / political ads. That way they do not endorse X or Y. Nor can they be seen as supporting Y.

Comment Re:W.C. Fields Does Politics (Score 1) 8

What could they possibly reveal about Trump that is worse than what everyone already knows about him? He's widely known to be Mafia connected, and he's made statements at Republican primary TV debates about bribing politicians.

(And add to that the fact that any "scandal" is likely to be another thing the establishment cares about and nobody else does.)

I doubt, at this point, even dead girl/live boy would do it.

Comment Re:Holy crap ... (Score 1) 66

The security difference between chip-and-signature and chip-and-PIN matters in only one case, and that is if your physical card is stolen from your wallet. Skimmers, data breaches, shoulder-surfing, all the hacking attacks won't yield the secret key inside the chip, preventing it from being counterfeited. If you don't like the security of your chip-and-signature card because you're afraid your card might be stolen, ask your bank to issue you a chip-and-PIN card instead. If your bank won't, there are plenty of other banks who will, and who will be grateful for your business.

Visa and the retailers originally figured U.S. customers would prefer chip-and-signature because it makes selling things "easy". But that's a pretty stupid attitude, because lots of people (including you and me) are wary about identity theft. Customers need to complain to their banks so that they learn we'd rather have PINs than signatures.

Overall credit card security will still remain terrible for a long time to come because static mag stripes still exist, and online card-not-present transactions still use static authentication data like CVV2 codes. What really needs to happen to actually improve security is that mag stripes and static numbers like CVV2 need to be flat-out outlawed. The recent "liability shift" is the opening salvo in the conversion, but we're probably still a decade away from actual security.

Comment Re:release notes should have informed users (Score 3, Interesting) 351

That's not really a low end desktop, not even today. Most desktops are still being sold with 4Gb of RAM, and when it comes to tablets, the situation is even worse.

My tests are on a Thinkpad X100e which originally came with Windows 7 and ran it fine, with 4Gb, and a HP Stream 8 which originally came with Windows 8.1. Both have, independently, had large numbers of BSoDs since the Fall Update. Responsiveness on both is pretty bad, though has improved with the FU, but still, more often than not, trying to bring up the Start menu takes more than 10 seconds (and sometimes more than a minute) on the X100e, and is a frequent occurrence on the tablet. The notifications bar usually takes so long to come up on both I usually give up on it.

(Want to see smooth and responsive? Try Windows 8.1 on a tablet. Made me never want to use an Android tablet again.)

For obvious reasons, I've not accepted by employer's offer to switch to Windows 10, nor have I upgraded my main PC. This is terrible. Yeah, I get people saying "Well, on my low end bargain basement $10,000 desktop, an 12GHz 16 core Intel i9 with 32Gb of RAM (I mean, who uses anything less these days, right?!" (I kid, but not by much...) "it works fine!" but when you have two devices in front of you that really suck thanks to the Windows 10 update, you tend to believe your own eyes.

Honestly, I still think Microsoft should have released Windows 8.11 (8.1 with a start menu) and then spent a year polishing Windows 10 until it was ready. It shows potential, but in its current form it's garbage.

Comment Re:W.C. Fields Does Politics (Score 1) 8

The more I've seen, the more I've become convinced it's a scorched earth attempt to get the Presidency. I don't think it's an attempt to split the Republican base, and I suspect you'll find he's fairly formidable against Clinton because he'll be combining the anti-immigration nonsense he is now with policies that many on the left would find appealing.

Add to this the fact that Clinton is really, really, unpopular, and...

We live in interesting times.

Comment Re:release notes should have informed users (Score 1) 351

This is another thing that's really pissing me off about Windows 10 - quite honestly, if it wasn't for the fact Windows 10 is slow and bug ridden (Fall update helped a little with the first, but made the latter much, much, worse), I'd have turned off updates completely by now. How does Microsoft expect us to trust them with automatic updates if they're not going to tell us what those updates are supposed to do?


Journal Journal: Trump - a warning from the present 8

I don't believe for a second Trump believes a word he's saying.

What I am concerned about is that Trump could, very realistically, be elected because of the views he's espousing. That says something terrible about too many people at the moment, and also makes possible the frightening scenario whereby someone who believes what Trump is currently saying could be elected too.

In the mean time, Trump is also validating the opinions of many extremists.

Comment Re: Good! (Score 1) 363

The only way to fix this problem is by taxing the products when they enter the country.

Except we have treaties that forbid us from doing that. If we violate trade agreements, other countries will retaliate, and the world economy will spiral downward. For an example of this scenario actually happening, Google for "The Great Depression".

It's ridiculous to allow corporations to hide billions overseas.

It is ridiculous for America to tax profits on a product made in England and sold in France. It is ridiculous to have absurd tax laws that encourage companies to move jobs overseas. We should tax domestic sales, or domestic revenue, or domestic payrolls, or even domestic profits. But instead we tax worldwide profits, of only companies domiciled in America, giving them a huge incentive to go elsewhere. No other country has a tax like that. It is economic self-sabotage.

No, that's the price these companies need to pay if they want to enjoy the strongest IP laws in the world. If they want to have HQ in China or India, let them. Viagra is about $25 a pill here in the US, because Pfizer has patents and strong laws to back it up. The same pill is about 30 cents in India. Some of that is due to "what the market will bear" and some is probably due to inflation caused by most patients having no idea what a drug actually costs. But India's policy on drug patents (they don't recognize them as valid) has quite a lot to do with it also.

Put not your trust in money, but put your money in trust.