Forgot your password?

Comment: I Can't Agree More (Score 1) 323

by organgtool (#47927049) Attached to: Torvalds: No Opinion On Systemd
Much of the systemd debacle has been a clash of mindsets between the old Unix guard and a newer generation of developers focused on integration. The old Unix philosophy of each module doing one thing and doing it well allows developers to take a bottom-up approach and glue existing modules together to provide solutions rapidly. However, as Linus alludes, this method doesn't scale well, especially as many modules are cobbled together to implement much more complicated tasks. At a certain point, a top-down approach works a lot better for those larger tasks. The top-down approach provides a more user-centric look at how to create a well-integrated solution and may use existing modules just as would be the case in the bottom-up approach. Since it is more focused on the user's perspective (rather than the developer's perspective), it tends to realize shortcomings in existing modules earlier and therefore may lead the developers to make the decision to write some of their own modules rather than mostly relying on extending modules well-beyond their intended purposes.

Systemd takes a top-down approach, and while some may argue that it's design leaves a lot to be desired, that doesn't mean that a bottom-up approach is automatically better. Based on the dependency tree, this appears to be a project that started out with few requirements and quickly grew after it was deep in the implementation phase, which is a problem regardless of either development approach. And then you have just bone-headed moves on top of that such as using binary logging. In any event, it's being widely adopted, it's here to stay, and I'm sure it will continue to remain controversial.

Comment: Re:It did? (Score 1) 129

by organgtool (#47909971) Attached to: Chrome For Mac Drops 32-bit Build

So stop quibbling and use modern software.

Running this version of Chrome requires that I install a new OS which means that I need to back up all of my application settings spread out across the entire system, install the new OS, and then try to put all of the pieces together again. And that's if the new OS supports my old hardware. So it's not as easy as you make it out to be unless you're willing to pay for my new hardware.

Comment: Re:All hostages to the last mile providers (Score 1) 85

by organgtool (#47816809) Attached to: Amazon's Plan To Storm the Cable Industry's Castle
You beat me to it. Since most of the cable companies are also ISPs, they have full motive to throttle the connections of any threatening content providers into oblivion. After all, every minute spent watching content from another provider is a minute not consuming the cable company's channels or their ad-laden video-on-demand. And since we have no net neutrality laws, there is no legal reason for them not to throttle competing content providers. With the current situation, if you want to be a major content provider in the U.S., then you had better be prepared to roll out your own nationwide fiber optic network.

Comment: Re:Apparently the trolls are out here, too (Score 1) 1262

Then you would be removing an option for people who are victims to tell their stories anonymously. The current system appears to be working - all of the anonymous trolls are being modded down to oblivion and rational posts are being modded up.

Comment: Re:Provisionally, I'm OK with this: (Score 1) 261

by organgtool (#47769961) Attached to: DoT Proposes Mandating Vehicle-To-Vehicle Communications
That is how the technology will start but as it improves, it will surpass humans. For example, we already have numerous systems to assist drivers: blind spot warnings, lane stability control, and front-end collision detection. Most of these systems have been around for several years and over time they will be refined to the point that they're better at detecting danger and reacting than humans. For the time being, I'm with you in that I wouldn't trust a vehicle to take control away from me, but we're rapidly reaching a point where we will have to admit that the technology is better than we are. But we're going to need to test the hell out of these systems to be sure that they're reliable and secure.

Comment: Re:WRONG (Score 0) 261

by organgtool (#47769849) Attached to: DoT Proposes Mandating Vehicle-To-Vehicle Communications
You either failed to read TFS or you simply glossed over the most important detail:

NHTSA believes that V2V capability will not develop absent regulation, because there would not be any immediate safety benefits for consumers who are early adopters of V2V

The point is that given the current situation, there won't be any standard because there is no motivation for car manufacturers to develop such a system since there would initially be so few cars that could communicate with each other in the first place. Even if you got past that barrier, it would require the independent cooperation of competing car companies to implement in order to build a feasible system. Worse yet, if you did manage to get companies to voluntarily cooperate, their cooperation could easily turn to collusion as they could lock out smaller car manufacturers from participating in the creation of the standard or they could develop a closed standard altogether.

No, this is the precise situation that government should be getting involved in. The current situation has little to no financial incentive to motivate the private sector to implement, so making it mandatory and letting them participate heavily in the creation of the standard is the next best option.

Comment: Re:Display server (Score 3, Interesting) 826

by organgtool (#47751685) Attached to: Choose Your Side On the Linux Divide
In addition to that, it is theoretically possible to get RDP in Wayland working similar to X-forwarding. RDP has superior performance to X since it supports compression and it can be used to share a single application or an entire desktop, just like X. At that point, X will hold absolutely no advantages over Wayland.

Comment: Tolerable With Limits (Score 2) 611

by organgtool (#47720079) Attached to: Study: Ad-Free Internet Would Cost Everyone $230-a-Year
I am reluctantly tolerant of ads since I realize that they pay the people who provide the content I'm consuming without charge, but if I'm reading a text article and a video ad with sound pops up, I kill the sound by closing the tab. I won't tolerate that rudeness when there are so many other sources of news that don't expose me to such tripe.

Comment: Time For Cynicism (Score 3, Insightful) 155

by organgtool (#47713363) Attached to: Google Receives Takedown Request Every 8 Milliseconds
The rightsholders have claimed copyright on birdsong, a public transmission of the space shuttle launch, and many other claims of complete nonsense, proving that their algorithms are way too aggressive in flagging videos and that they can't even be bothered to review the "infringing" material before issuing a takedown notice. So who wants to bet that the legislative resolution to this issue has nothing to do with harsher penalties for fraudulent requests and everything to do with harsher penalties for "pirates" who happened to have a radio or television playing in the background when they caught something unusual on video?

Comment: Re:who cares? (Score 4, Interesting) 97

by organgtool (#47712385) Attached to: How Patent Trolls Destroy Innovation
It's even worse than that. Some companies don't even want to sell their products in the U.S. out of fear of patent litigation. I had a feeling this would eventually happen, but I didn't think it would happen this soon. The U.S. is losing ground in the tech sector and the worst part is that it's our own fault.

Comment: Re:How the Patent System Destroys Innovation (Score 4, Informative) 97

by organgtool (#47712285) Attached to: How Patent Trolls Destroy Innovation

Well yes and no, patent protects innovation because you have a monopoly on your idea.

While I agree with most of what you have said, I have to make a pedantic statement about a common mistake that you have made that infuriates me - you can not patent an idea! You may patent an implementation of an idea, otherwise known as an invention, but you are not supposed to be able to patent the underlying idea.

You're never forced to patent your idea tho (see Coca-Cola, never patented, receipt never given).

This is true, although you've used a bad example since recipes are not eligible to be patented. But otherwise, you are correct - unpatented ideas can be protected as trade secrets.

Wasn't there something about a PASCAL programmer knowing the value of everything and the Wirth of nothing?