Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:What's wrong with Windows Server? (Score 1) 274

by drinkypoo (#47813833) Attached to: You Got Your Windows In My Linux

It seems like that problem would be most simply solved by creating a command line tool called 'parallel' that lets you run several commands in parallel, and then returns when it is done. Something like 'parallel cmd1 cmd2 cmd3.'

A wrapper, which can be written as a shell script itself, would look for dependency information in the init scripts, probably in a comment or perhaps in a variable. When the wrapper runs, it checks the status of any required init scripts which share the same first line, using the functionality built into each init script. If they are all running then it fires off the daemon and exits. Else, it blocks if it is critical or not if it is optional, and either way it loops and waits for deps for a decent amount of time. If it is critical the boot process is interrupted, if it is optional then something else happens (script-dependent.) Dependency information could also be stored in a variable in a config file (e.g. in /etc/default) and when not present, the daemon can be treated as critical and blocking. All the other elements of the system remain unchanged, down to symlinks establishing daemon launch order. This requires changes only to init scripts, and even then only for daemons which are expected to launch in parallel. Is there some obvious reason why this wouldn't work?

Comment: Re:Troll much? (Score 1) 274

by drinkypoo (#47813765) Attached to: You Got Your Windows In My Linux

-Bake in more advanced log processing to mitigate the need for log analysis tools.

What was wrong with log analysis tools? One can bang them out with perl in a minute or two.

Starting up /bin/sh hundreds of times during boot is wasteful and slows boot.

No, it really isn't. Process creation is cheap on Unix, and the shell will not only be cached during boot, but one or more copies of it will be present in memory at all times. Running the shell hundreds of times today is a triviality compared to running the shell dozens of times on Unix machines from the 1980s, on which that was in fact not a big deal, because process creation is cheap on Unix. This is just not a real consideration for any modern system, especially given the plethora of lightweight shells available for low-memory or otherwise limited systems.

Sequential startup of services is silly when many can be started in parallel.

This is really the argument that something new was needed, but frankly, it would have been simple enough to handle this without a whole new init system. A shell script wrapper would probably have done this job. Some distributions are already recording dependencies in init scripts; sequence information would be simple enough to add. If this is the best argument for systemd, and so far as I can tell it is that, then it's a really crap argument.

Comment: Re:The Future! (Score 1) 274

by drinkypoo (#47813727) Attached to: You Got Your Windows In My Linux

Great! That is all we need. More fragmentation in the community! As if choosing a distro wasn't confusing enough as it is for newcomers!

It should be relatively simple to create tools to permit systemd to automagically support normal Unixlike config files.

THIS is the reason why Linux will never be a mainstream desktop.

The truth is that nobody but Ubuntu has ever really tried for the mainstream desktop, and they have serious flaws involving ignoring their users; Microsoft and Apple already fill that niche.

Comment: Re:I PC game, and have zero reason to upgrade (Score 1) 93

by drinkypoo (#47811643) Attached to: AMD Releases New Tonga GPU, Lowers 8-core CPU To $229

We had a growth bubble. Most corporations depend on endless growth to be healthy. When they stop growing, they start dying. When the PC market maxed out, both AMD and Intel suddenly had no idea where they were going next.

When the new Intel processors come out on the new process and we get to see how low they can get power consumption, we'll see if Intel is going to continue to kick ass in the next iteration, which is going to have to be mobile.

Comment: Re:What does taxi service cost the public? (Score 1) 232

by drinkypoo (#47811543) Attached to: Uber Now Blocked All Over Germany

0ne of the costs is for licensing is administration of the testing & licensing itself, as well as any oversight, inspections, etc.

Germany already has inspections, and the driver already pays for the inspections. If the problem is inadequate inspection, send the vehicle for more inspections. This is not a cost to the people, because the driver already pays the cost. If there is no significant additional licensing, there is no significant additional licensing cost.

Some cities build taxi pickup lanes and other infrastructure to facilitate the service in specific areas.

Yes, and those costs are seen as a benefit to the city, because they ease congestion.

Comment: Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal (Score 1) 232

by drinkypoo (#47811529) Attached to: Uber Now Blocked All Over Germany

Taxis are commercial services and part of their fees are used to maintain roads and public facilities they use more heavily than private drivers.

They use them more frequently, but they don't use them any more heavily. If you were taxing vehicles based on the damage they do to the road, buses and trucks would pay basically all the taxes, and passenger vehicles would pay basically none.

They are also required to provide equal access and maintain a certain percentage of handicap accessible vehicles available at all times.

The former is an issue, but cabbies are well-known to choose their fares racially in many countries, why wouldn't they do the same in Germany? It's very difficult to prove. As for accessibility, the market will provide if competition is permitted. The only reason to have such a requirement is that licensed taxis were collectively granted a monopoly on transport for hire, and this restriction on competition in the market prevents market forces from working.

They also have to carry the proper insurance because if they skirted the law on this point, the rest of us would end up paying.

This is solved easily enough with laws requiring more insurance for hire vehicles, and doesn't require a taxi permit system.

Comment: Re:Would it really be worse without patents? (Score 2) 68

by drinkypoo (#47811487) Attached to: SpaceX Challenges Blue Origin Patents Over Sea-Landing Rocket Tech

Patents are still useful for small businesses because it provides protection against someone else coming along and patenting your product after the fact.

Not really. They grant patents which conflict with existing patents all the time, and you still need to be able to take a suit to court to prove that the subsequent patent should not have been granted, which means you still need millions of dollars in your legal fund.

Comment: Re:Too simple (Score 1) 414

by drinkypoo (#47811457) Attached to: Low-Carb Diet Trumps Low-Fat Diet In Major New Study

That's the best response to his post you got?

It's the only necessary response.

His response tried to clarify that for you and the other readers and to respond to your fallacy, the No True Scotsman:

Actually, USDA took over the name "organic" by force without consulting those who coined the term. You're using a pretty pathetic determining factor, sheep.

Comment: Re:The diet is unimportant... (Score 1) 414

by nine-times (#47809895) Attached to: Low-Carb Diet Trumps Low-Fat Diet In Major New Study

English is my mother-tongue.

Somehow I'm not convinced.

I mean, is this guy [] healthy or not?

He certainly seems to have health problems, and will continue to have health problems. He may be relatively healthy, considering his condition. He may be inspirational in various ways. But ultimately, no, he's not completely healthy.

The placebo effect is caused by the will.

No, it's not. Just speaking of the science, it's really not caused by the will. This is where you seem to misunderstand what the placebo effect is. It's is not connected to what you *want* or what you *choose*, but what you *believe*. I can want to feel less pain, and a can choose to persevere in spite of pain, but neither of those are connected to the placebo effect. The placebo effect is when you believe that something will cause you to feel less pain (or some other negative symptom), and as a result of the belief and expectation, you feel less pain.

It's also important to note that as powerful as the placebo effect is, it's also very limited. The effects are generally temporary. It can't actually cure diseases, e.g. if you have cancer, the placebo effect won't help. The effects are usually limited to allowing people to feel less fear/pain/stress.

Comment: Re:Who will come to the defense of 4Chan? (Score 1) 193

by nine-times (#47808765) Attached to: Interview: Ask Christopher "moot" Poole About 4chan and Social Media

It's funny, because every once in a while, something bad is traced to 4chan, and you see people on the news talking about it like it's some kind of horrible monstrosity with no redeeming value. But then they'll spend 15 minutes covering some stupid Internet meme that may have had its roots in 4chan, if you traced the evolution of the meme back far enough.

I think the bizarre thing about 4chan is how pretty much no normal people know what it is, in spite of having a massive influence in our culture over the past several years.

Comment: Re:The diet is unimportant... (Score 1) 414

by nine-times (#47808603) Attached to: Low-Carb Diet Trumps Low-Fat Diet In Major New Study

I am indicating that health is the ability to use your will.

Again, sounding a bit cult-leader-y. Are you a non-native English speaker?

It is not correct to say that "if you're healthy, you can use your will"

Being unhealthy can certainly have an adverse effect on decision-making, in various ways.

because it indicates that health is the cause of will power, and that's not so. If it were the case, there would be no placebo effect to speak of.

That argument doesn't make sense. The placebo effect doesn't describe people getting better because they have a strong will to get better. It's describing when people feel better because they believe that they will feel better. That is to say, it's not a matter of will, but a matter of being fooled.

So I guess that by your logic, when people are fooled into believing they are healthy, they are healthy.

Comment: Diet is very important. (Score 1) 414

by nine-times (#47807383) Attached to: Low-Carb Diet Trumps Low-Fat Diet In Major New Study

Also, what the hell is a "hipster" diet? I think this is a big sign that people need to stop talking about "hipsters". Since when were "hipsters" known for being fat?

I've really come to believe that the word "hipster" doesn't mean anything anymore. It's just an adjective that you attach to things you don't like.

Testing can show the presense of bugs, but not their absence. -- Dijkstra