I just couldn't stomach the idea of up-voting all of the ding-dong the witch is dead comments, no matter how much I wanted to blow all my mod point here. Instead I'll just add to the crush of Ellison hate, especially considering the whole notion of copyrighting APIs that the smug dickface motherfucker is trying to pander to make a few quick ones from Google.
"Oh wait you're serious, let me laugh harder!" It's always funny how Futurama quotes so aptly apply to trolls.
And yeah, syslog and how it works is indefensible. So if you're writing your DB logs to the same place init is writing, you've got bigger issues about your Unix administration and why you are writing banking transactions to syslog and not its own log. Unless the point was to take a completely unrelated topic and try to shoehorn it into the conversation.
The complaint is that the process at PID 1 should be simple.
That's just passing the buck. What you don't do in PID 1, needs to be done by PID 2 or 3 or 4...
One has to understand that system start up is a complex task. Systemd, sysvinit, launchd, and what-not are just a matter of optics, no matter which one you choose, you are only changing how you look at the problem, you aren't making the problem any easier. That's the important thing to remember, that all of these inits are just different views on how to solve the problem. No matter how many times you break the process up (into PID 4 through 380), it's still a complex task that needs to get done.
That said, sysvinit comes with the idea that you're going to have a lot of people looking inward at what's been done historically, they're going to make really useful tools, and the expectation is that those that follow will use those tools. That's nice and there is a real benefit for that, but that's not what vendors are going after, that's not what third-parties want, and that's not what end-consumers want. The only people that sysvinit caters to any more is developers and neck-breads. Vendors are going to write their own tools for start up. Third-parties are going to package up the process into something that can be simply delivered to the customer. Standard end-users just don't give a shit so long as the screen comes up. Heck, even server admins won't really care so long as management can still log in. There just isn't clientele for the old way. That's not to say that the old way isn't useful, but honestly you are asking a bunch of Pepsi drinkers to switch over to Coke for just the sake of "it is easier to make."
SystemD puts all the cards closer together, this allows smaller teams to do useful stuff, and let's face it, the number of people writing kernel, sub-system, and start up code is only going to keep dropping. The hotness is much, much higher up. Vendors like systemd because it works better than script->call program in their deployment cycle. Now they can use systemd reporting to bubble back up into the UI as oppose to writing to some arcane log file. No one can defend the old log files, they seriously were so confusing that there are companies that you can hire and tools that you can buy that can turn your log file into something easier to read. That's just indefensible. I'm not saying that systemd is some magical power that's turned a turd into gold (starting up a system is still a pain in the ass), but it serves a wider group that more than likely (as all the neck-beards die off from old age) will be maintaining this whole thing in the longer term and simplifies something that has gone from, "it was good and easy" to "holy crap! The log file is 23MB!!" Back when we were starting up an FTP server and that's about it, it was great, but now that every sub-system from the kernel feels a need to write to the log on top of everything else that you vendor starts up, it's just a flipping mess.
It's important to remember the Unix way, but systems have gotten so complex we just don't do it that way in reality anymore.
Agree, this is obvious troll bait. There are multiple photos of the iPhone with the camera nub visible on Apple's site. Editors, seriously, WTF?!
I guess the more insightful comment would have been. "I want my technological device to contain stuff I CHOOSE, not stuff chosen for me. This is going to become an ever increasing problem as every f***ing company want ever intrusive ads so you always have an opportunity to buy something."
The problem is not Apple's alone. We are increasing our cross section of our daily lives with technology, thus with a wider cross section, there's bound to be more and more interactions between us and some sort of marketing or ad gimmick that a company has paid for. While I get that no one wants that crap (and neither do I), this ad revenue does prop up some services that we take for granted for some folks.
Perhaps the conversation we all should be having is, are we okay with becoming an end point for ads, in exchange for really useful stuff? Or do we need things like email and search to take a more HBO approach to things?
Both those products are using a composite of graphene, just saying.
Where the ISP argument breaks down is that, ESPN forced people who wanted their content to either pay or have a cable subscription. So if I didn't want to pay and didn't have cable, I'd have to find my "ESPN fix" (like I would have one) elsewhere, which most likely I could at something like any other flipping news site. But let's say that I can't do that. Well, then I guess I'll have to invent something to compete with ESPN. The flip side of that equation is if I don't like my cable company, I'm basically fucked. I have no other option and I cannot build something to compete with them (in the cable biz at least) because my county has laws on the books that prevent that kind of crap.
That is the big difference. A content provider tries to extort fees and we can find something else. A cable company randomly asks to fuck you in the ass and you have absolutely no choice about it. There literally is no one else. So this "mega" edge threat they are bitching about is not even a flipping issue, it's not even remotely an issue. To make the argument that the cable companies are making here would be like to argue how highways compete with airports. Yes they both have paved surfaces, but if you don't understand how one gets you to the other, then you're a fucking insane money twat.
I think at this point Comcast should just start cycling commercials showing Brian Roberts on his mega yacht looking real sad saying, "if you don't give me a total monopoly on the Internet, then I won't be able to expand my six bedroom, three bath yacht. I mean c'mon, if I can't do that, then how will my other 23 fucking houses that I own all over the world feel?" Because at this point, this guy is just going for bragging rights over how much he can truly extort from people.
PS: If you can't tell I have a very large dislike for Comcast/NBC and good comment there guy.
If the bulk of human history isn't a lesson. Pretty much no one does anything until all hell is breaking loose. I don't know if it is in our genetics or what.
At any rate. A lot of "technical" folk will say, let's use NAT! And that will work for maybe a few years, maybe a decade or so, but then eventually that will break down. Finally, people will just shrug their shoulders and say, "Well, I guess it's finally time we switched over to IPv6." IPv6 is indeed the solution, but we've first got to do every other solution just because for some reason that's who we are.
So IPv4 isn't going away any time soon but for all the wrong reasons. So they will continue to not listen to any specialists till ALL other options are completely exhausted. Then after all of that we'll finally get to move on to the next big thing that was purposed twenty years ago.
Agreed. My job has me driving roughly 2500km a week. Plus for the addition of 100kg, having ~3000km stored in a non-user rechargeable, isn't a good trade. 100kg is a serious increase for an electric car, it needs to have a better justification.
Yeap, this guy had a golden chance to make a cause and blew it by standing by people who kill other innocent people. Having a cause is one part knowing what to do and three parts getting the general public to like your cause. Using people who kill that general public tends to make them not like you all that much.
Holy crap! I want to be a cop that gets paid $100k a year when including benefits!!! Cops, especially beat cops, are like the lowest of the low in the police food chain. City I live in, the ones pointing a radar gun at you and responding to 911 calls typically make $24k a year. Include some of the crappiest health care (HSA for the fund yourself insurance type of person) and $10k life insurance policy (for when you eventually get shot, enough to put you in the ground, maybe)
No cities look at cops as the grunts to go out there and make them money, they are paid crap, worked till they're about to pass out, and given next to zero chances to actually excel in anything except maybe get more tickets. I'd say total box, a police officer in my neck of the apparent hood, makes about as much as your average shift leader at Wal-Mart plus with the added privilege of being shot at.
Also you can find that nation wide, the average is roughly $57k. Some cities actually treat their cops well with good benefits. The city I live in does have the up side of, if you make it to age 65, you can retire on pension. But also, many cops supplement their pay, by other things, like security, doing parades, funeral service, and stuff like that.
But hell, if there was a cop job being paid $100k, I would be seriously considering a field change.
You all use the help function? What company do you work for? Typically, if a user can't figure it out by just looking at it, then its a help desk issue. You can only imagine what it was like going from 2003 to 2007. Can I come work for you, it seems your users actually want to seek out help before jumping ship. Mine just tend to call my seven digits non-stop. Also, the MS Office help is on-line as well. So slow connection would be a problem there too.
Agreed, we are very bad at it because no one wants to be good at it. Just good enough to be profitable. A company can run a good plant and still make profit, just not the pie high in the sky kind. We've got little choice in the matter, we're going to either have to get good at nuclear or just accept insanely huge energy costs as norm in the next five to six decades.
I love solar and wind, but that's going to be an uphill battle with the coal and oil folks for at least the next 30 years. At least nuclear has already made it past the trail of fire. We just need to really focus on LFTR designs and how to overcome some of the still remaining challenges there.