Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment: It Almost Makes Sense (Score 4, Insightful) 230

by organgtool (#48629989) Attached to: "Team America" Gets Post-Hack Yanking At Alamo Drafthouse, Too
I find it funny that a movie that is a social commentary on how America does whatever it wants with complete disregard for the consequences of its actions on anyone else in the world is being pulled because a few people in a country that we don't even like are upset. I guess it's appropriate since the themes of the movie apparently aren't as relevant today.

Comment: Alright For Limited Use Cases (Score 1) 567

by organgtool (#48573167) Attached to: The Case For Flipping Your Monitor From Landscape to Portrait
The examples shown are mostly for browsing web pages in maximized windows. If that's your primary use case, you could probably get away with using this configuration, or even a tablet. But if you want to use multiple overlapping windows to do things such as side-by-side comparisons, then widescreen is definitely the way to go. But for me, this is a moot point. I try to keep my eyes fixed on a particular spot on the screen and use the scrollwheel to move the content to my focal point. A more useful feature would be having content organized in columns similar to newspapers and magazines since they are easier to read. If that was the case, then you would definitely have a stronger reason for using your monitor in portrait mode.

Comment: Re:Open Source not a silver bullet (Score 1) 73

by organgtool (#48572519) Attached to: Why Open Source Matters For Sensitive Email

We've seen over the last year many open source, power in numbers projects have critical vulnerabilities waiting to be exposed. Those defects were sitting there for years, yet being open source didn't magically fix them.

I can't deny that - the "many eyes" argument hasn't quite held up over the years. However, the reason I prefer an open source solution is because they tend to acknowledge and fix the issue much faster than their closed source counterparts. Most of the serious security issues in open source software have a fix released within 24 hours. It takes many closed source organizations much longer than that to even admit that the problem exists. Worse yet, some vendors will deny the problem indefinitely or tell you to migrate to their new platform (which is obviously incredibly costly). With open source, you're free to fix the issue in-house or contract someone to do the work if the vendor is uncooperative.

Over the last year, I've learned that the key to internet security is that it doesn't exist.

That's the sad reality and it's completely independent of the licensing model of the software you use.

Comment: Re:depends where you live - some figures (Score 1) 516

by organgtool (#48466657) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Why Is the Power Grid So Crummy In So Many Places?
Since not everyone specializes in utilities benchmarking:

SAIDI: System Average Interruption Duration Index (average duration of interruption measured in hours)
SAIFI: System Average Interruption Frequency Index (average number of interruptions each customer experiences per year)

Comment: Re:Systemd Is Inevitable (Score 2) 581

by organgtool (#48417161) Attached to: Debian Votes Against Mandating Non-systemd Compatibility

From what I gather, it's not *that* bad - most apps depending on systemd do so for the cgroups support.

That's the case now but soon desktop environments will start using logind and applications may start using journald. As systemd continues to offer more tightly-coupled modules, applications will likely start relying more on these modules until the point that systemd will likely be a requirement for almost all applications and desktop environments.

Comment: Systemd Is Inevitable (Score 1) 581

by organgtool (#48416877) Attached to: Debian Votes Against Mandating Non-systemd Compatibility
As the tentacles of systemd reach out and penetrate more areas of the system, more applications will inevitably require systemd which means that a Linux installation without systemd will only be able to run a small subset of Linux apps. Even though there are alternatives currently in the works for the init portion of systemd, applications are beginning to depend on the tightly-coupled processes that systemd requires which means that the only viable replacement for the entirety of systemd is another implementation of tightly-coupled procs which defeats the purpose of writing an alternative in the first place.

Comment: Re:Thanks, Backblaze! (Score 2) 142

Perhaps they are obvious to a System Administrator but to someone who is not an admin, everything in SMART probably looks like an error. In addition to that, the article describes common errors that sound indicative of a drive failure but are actually relatively benign. So there is definitely value in this information.

Comment: Thanks, Backblaze! (Score 1) 142

As someone who is suspicious of a couple of hard drives, this data will help me to determine just how concerned I should be. I don't know what Backblaze gets out of making this information public (except publicity), but it is refreshing to a company release information such as this rather than guard it as a trade secret or sell it.

Comment: Re:Whatever (Score 4, Insightful) 450

by organgtool (#48343031) Attached to: Joey Hess Resigns From Debian
Please speak for yourself. We developers are often horrible at recognizing what users want, but we are often excellent at recognizing poorly engineered software and systemd reeks of poor engineering. I'm all for tighter integration of components in the operating system so long as they make sense, but systemd tightly couples all kinds of components that should be optional and, in general, pisses all over basic engineering principles such as KISS. I started out very neutral in the systemd debate, but the more I learn about how it is implemented, the more I understand why there are so many people who vehemently oppose it.

Comment: Nothing New (Score 4, Insightful) 200

by organgtool (#48321285) Attached to: Net Neutrality Alone Won't Solve ISP Throttling Abuse, Here's Why
FFS, we've been over this a thousand times. No one is suggesting that Net Neutrality does away with ISPs performing QoS. Net Neutrality just means that ISPs can't prioritize traffic for their services of video/VOIP/etc over competing video/VOIP/etc. It's one of the few problems that has a relatively easy solution and the only reason we haven't implemented it is because there are enough special interest groups with enough power and money to make sure that they're not forced to play fairly with their customers' traffic.

Thus spake the master programmer: "Time for you to leave." -- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"