Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:The end for me (Score 1) 887

by evilviper (#47930673) Attached to: Why Atheists Need Captain Kirk

...scratch that. SoylentNews turns out to be just as bad as /. in this regard. They posted this same damn story, too, and the head of the site has stated they don't want to be a tech site at all.

Instead, my last hope rests with pipedot, which is much more like an old-fashioned /. with a focus on sci/tech instead of flamebait crap. Hell, the sci/tech stories even get more comments on pipedot than they do on SoylentNews, which says a lot about the community.

Comment: Re:Simple set of pipelined utilties! (Score 2, Informative) 320

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 3, Informative) 320

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) 320

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 5, Insightful) 320

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:Carpooling should be as free as speech (Score 1) 288

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:Cortana??? (Score 2) 510

by istartedi (#47924791) Attached to: What To Expect With Windows 9

Slashdot is a game of politics and speed. It's speed-writing. Speed-editorializing. Screw-ups happen. It doesn't always play in my favor. Check out my recent history. I totally cratered doing that kind of thing with Apple. It's a game. It's entertainment. Sometimes it exceeds that, like that bit of poetry I wrote about getting a fix of freedom. Mostly though, like I said, it's speed-writing and sometimes you tag the wall.

Comment: Re:Silly design decision (Score 1) 406

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?

Comment: In the past, losers haven't suffered too badly (Score 1) 195

by istartedi (#47917641) Attached to: WSJ Reports Boeing To Beat SpaceX For Manned Taxi To ISS

So much work was done on both sides. They both have a talent pool. I've heard that "losers" often end up getting subcontracts from the "winners" for various subsystems, consulting, etc. Not sure if this will work with Boeing and SpaceX, but that's how it can work with the big MIC companies that were competing on a contract.

It is not best to swap horses while crossing the river. -- Abraham Lincoln

Working...