Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:With the best will in the world... (Score 1) 19

There's no Nitrogen in the diagram, so I'm guessing not.

Essentially they're reformulating the pollution burning the fuel will put out. In goes CO2 mixed with Hydrogen and Oxygen (at different stages), and out comes the fuel. Fuel burns, out goes CO2 and water. It's in theory a closed cycle, as long as renewable electricity is used to separate the H2O and power the rest of the process.

The major concern I have is that it doesn't look terribly scalable, but I'm not a chemist.

Comment: Re:KDBus - another systemd brick on the wall (Score 1) 112

by squiggleslash (#49559755) Attached to: Linux 4.1 Bringing Many Changes, But No KDBUS

Maybe you're hearing it a lot because you're participating in a group that keeps quoting stuff out of context in order to try to make something look bad. I'm not trying to be mean, but that's a good sign that you're arguing not in good faith, but because of gut feel about something. If SystemD was bad, you wouldn't need the out-of-context stuff, as it'd be easy to point at things that exist, and say "Look, here, that's a problem."

Comment: Re:KDBus - another systemd brick on the wall (Score 1) 112

by squiggleslash (#49559623) Attached to: Linux 4.1 Bringing Many Changes, But No KDBUS

SystemD doesn't in any way resemble the "Windows way", stop being ridiculous.

As for the kernel and SystemD being linked, I don't see a problem as long as the distro makers recognize that and bundle the two together. Kernels are always installed with a group of support files that they hard depend upon, notably the modules. As long as multiple versions of the kernel-dependent SystemD can be installed, and grub is set up properly to ensure each kernel points at the right version, there shouldn't be an issue.

If there ever is, it means a problem with that distro.

Comment: Re:Wounded Not Dead (Score 1, Informative) 112

by squiggleslash (#49559457) Attached to: Linux 4.1 Bringing Many Changes, But No KDBUS

There's nothing stopping you from running Linux with SysV Init. You won't be able to use modern versions of GNOME (but who does?), and you won't be able use the major distros, but if that's what you want, by all means go for it. Linux (in terms of what we're talking about here - ie the thing called "Linux" that has a version number of 4.1) is only one component of the operating system, and doesn't have SystemD as part of it.

But bear in mind that SysV Init has been straining at the seams now for around two decades, probably more. When it was written it was rare for a Unix system to fail to boot for any reason other than a hardware fault or disk corruption. The notion a minor misconfiguration of a networking script could take down a machine was unthinkable back then.

Bear in mind SysV init was never upgraded to take into account changing usage. Take a look at /etc/inittab. Try and find a man page that still describes the format. Ask yourself why it exists. Ask yourself why, bearing in mind it does, inetd is a completely different, unrelated, system. Ask yourself why sshd exists and why those connections aren't managed by inetd or init.

Bear in mind that Linux the kernel has had some major security and process management systems now for over half a decade that SysV init is incapable of using - and always will be. That those security and process management systems, if used, significantly improve both the security and reliability of Linux based operating systems by making it easier to, amongst other things, truly sandbox processes in a way superior to BSD's jails feature. Ask yourself why we should be prevented from using them simply because the operating system's daemon management system doesn't support anything the AT&T kernels didn't support in 1983..

Bear in mind that SysV Init's faults are so obvious to people who actually build operating systems that SystemD isn't even the first try at this, that Upstart was considered "very nearly there" as a suitable replacement, and that the real debate was between SystemD and Upstart, not SystemD and SysV init.

Finally bear in mind that SystemD is a true superset of SysV Init in terms of functionality. This isn't the Wayland/Mir "Let's throw the baby out with the bathwater because there's too much spaghetti code" nonsense, there's nothing you can do with SysV Init that can't be done with SystemD. Except it's much, much, harder now to hose your configuration so badly that it's not going to come up because an NFS share wasn't available when you rebooted your computer.

Comment: Re:Instead... (Score 1) 355

I'm not actually experiencing what you're saying. Where I've seen sites use Bootstrap, or use one of the new Wordpress themes etc, they've actually been pretty usable on a mobile device.

The real problems are getting to be the non-WWW stuff people forget about, like responsive HTML emails.

Comment: Re:systemd is a bad joke (Score 1) 463

by squiggleslash (#49547063) Attached to: Ubuntu 15.04 Released, First Version To Feature systemd

Ask Linux Torvalds what he thought of what people in operating system design (namely, Andrew Tanenbaum, who famously called Linux "obsolete") thought.

I think Linus (not Linux) Torvalds is actually an operating system designer. He's also one of many who disagrees with Tanenbaum. Neither of which has anything to do with anything at this point, he's not the one designing the whole of Ubuntu or Fedora, his work is on a small part of it that doesn't handle the userland start up process.

The people who are designing Ubuntu, Fedora, etc, are saying init, both in its bad System V version, and in its "Scales for everything you need a 386 to do" BSD variant, is not up to the job in a world that has USB, Bluetooth, e-SATA, et al, in it. I think they're right, personally. And to be honest, I think they've been right since the early 1990s, when Internet service protocols were kinda grafted on, moved to inetd, augmented by Sun RPC services, NFS, blah, etc, and the phenomenon of a Unix system that wouldn't boot up due to anything other than hardware failure or disk corruption suddenly became very real and very common.

"We" haven't done much about it since then largely due to a combination of inertia and the fact an average Unix admin was skilled in shell scripting. The latter hasn't been true, however, for a good ten years, which is why Apple has LaunchD, and why Ubuntu also threw out init in favor of modern alternatives, initially Upstart, and now SystemD.

Comment: Re:So, where's IBM in all of this? (Score 1) 77

by squiggleslash (#49546993) Attached to: Amazon's Profits Are Floating On a Cloud (Computing)

No idea, but just because you don't see their name on the product doesn't mean it's not their's. In the past they've been very big on data centers, leasing the equipment and supporting it. You wouldn't know that just because Amazon's name is on the product, any more than you would know IBM's hardware powered Ford's data centers when you bought your Ford Escort.

Comment: Re:It is a cycle. (Score 1) 77

by squiggleslash (#49546877) Attached to: Amazon's Profits Are Floating On a Cloud (Computing)

I'm not seeing that. There was a gradual move to decentralization that peaked in the late eighties/early nineties, but then it's been gradual centralization, partially due to ubiquitous office networking (early nineties), and then due to ubiquitous Internet connectivity (mid nineties on.)

There may have been slight ripples during that time that affected the acceleration of the curve, but the broad curve itself was never interrupted.

My history would show:

1950s-1970s: Era of the highly centralized mainframe, with minis used in occasional scientific applications.
1970s-1980s: Increasing use of minicomputers, plus rise of the micro, some of which made their way into businesses. It's slightly less centralized but users are still sharing common computer resources.
1980s-late 1980s: Rise of the home/micro and PC, almost all applications local save for occasional use of Terminal emulators to access "legacy" applications on a central mainframe or minicomputer. Most new development is of decentralized, disconnected, tools.
Late 1980s-1995: Rise of the network. Client-server application development starts to take off. Development in business starts to be for partially distributed, but partially centralized, applications.
1995-2005: Rise of the Internet and associated standards. Businesses start to move all their core applications to the web, leaving a handful of Office type apps as the sole remaining decentralized stuff.
2005+: Rise of the cloud. Driven by a combination of mature web standards, the explosion of interest in non-PC devices, the increasing use and popularization of hosting services, and businesses that run data centers finding they're both hellishly expensive (yet unavoidable) and inevitably end up with huge amounts of unused capacity, there's a huge movement to move core business applications to services like AWS.

If there's a move against the grain (either towards centralization before the late 1980s, or away from centralization after 1995) I missed it.

Don't be fooled, if you have been, by the occasional post-1994 move towards more client devices, frequently out of control of IT (such as the BYOD movement), those initiatives only work because the core business applications are centralized and accessible using standard clients.

Comment: Re:Instead... (Score 1) 355

Every other new site I see developed these days tends to be written using Bootstrap. Older sites have the entirely reasonable excuse that overhauling an existing design takes time. But I'm seeing older sites switch over to newer technologies. Newer default Wordpress themes are also generally responsive by default, and I assume the same is true of other CMS systems.

Bootstrap isn't perfect but it's pretty good at making it easy to set up a professional looking website that happens to be responsive too.

Comment: Re:systemd is a bad joke (Score 2) 463

by squiggleslash (#49545679) Attached to: Ubuntu 15.04 Released, First Version To Feature systemd

Ubuntu isn't adding another. They're switching from Upstart, which they were pretty much the only user of left, to SystemD.

BSD init isn't remotely scalable, and requires knowledge of shell scripting from any admin configuring their system or installing software the OS's maintainers didn't plan for. It's actually a worse choice than Sys V init. Hence Apple's (absolutely right) decision to do LaunchD.

You'll have to ask the maintainers of SystemD as to why specifically they saw the other solutions as lacking, but at a guess LaunchD is too tied to Mac OS X and BSD, SMF to Solaris/BSD, and Upstart doesn't solve all the problems SystemD is designed to solve.

Comment: Re:systemd is a bad joke (Score 3, Insightful) 463

by squiggleslash (#49545243) Attached to: Ubuntu 15.04 Released, First Version To Feature systemd

the rest of us who have used and managed unix since the 80's have to dump WHAT WORKED WELL and move to some new shit that clearly has issues, does not fit in or belong very well and is being forced on us.

SystemD replaces components that Ubuntu already replaced long ago. The question here for the Ubuntu team was:

1. Do they keep LaunchD, when it offers few, if any, advantages over SystemD, and they're the only people using it and thus they have to maintain it, and Ubuntu stays non-standard.
2. Do they switch back to "init" because it used to be the standard, and it kinda works, except it's kind of convoluted and a huge source of problems, which is why LaunchD was written in the first place.
3. Do they look at what everyone else is switching to (ie SystemD), see if it does the same job as LaunchD just as effectively, and switch to it?

They chose 3. I'd chose 3 too. There's nothing wrong with SystemD, it's just the developers have no PR skills, and some old Unix people are harking back to a past that was never actually that great to begin with. SysV init sucked. It didn't suck, but it definitely CNEWS sucked. Complicated, over-burdened by shell scripts and hacks to try to keep it going. SystemD isn't perfect, but it's undeniably an improvement.

Elliptic paraboloids for sale.