Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:It's a question of mindsets (Score 2) 314

I may be wrong, but isn't it that systemd also depends on things like dbus?

And again the problem is the mindset. Even though it might be possible to run systemd in a sane way, distributions now package it with all sorts of crap. The opposition against systemd is not about systemd itself, it's about people who constantly try to re-invent the wheel while not having understood the problem or how to solve problems in general. Just look at alsa and pulseaudio which were both attempts at fixing the previous state of the art... and making it somewhat worse. (i.e. Alsa created unfathomable device names which were written differently in every application instead of the simple /dev/dsp OSS provided, or pulseaudio added crap like software mixing so you'll enjoy the fun of quantisation noise while it won't allow you to automatically switch the number of output channels based on the number of channels your software outputs)

Comment It's a question of mindsets (Score 0, Troll) 314

In the spirit of "Do one thing and do it well", systemd's goal is "manage services and dependencies".

If it was it wouldn't include its own DNS server, or it's own timeserver, or it's own logging infrastructure.

The problem with systemd and the whole Freedesktop crowd is that they are trying to solve problems that do not exist anymore. For example you now have hugely complex systems just to make sure your soundcard will only be usable by users logged in locally. While this is, in theory, a great security benefit, most machines today are single user. So in effect it's lots of code that's useless at best and a potential security problem at worst.

Everybody goes through a phase where they think they can re-invent the world and design something cool and complex with the technologies they have just heard of. In the past only large companies could afford such an effort. Microsoft, for example, implemented many of the "new" ideas in Windows. This is why you have things like OLE with it's offspring of OLE automation, or a logging system nobody uses because it's essentially unusable. Windows being so unusable, particularly in the 1990s, was a big push for Linux for "serious" applications.

Now we have a new situation, it's "fancy" to have some work on a Open Source project on your CV, that's why there's a huge pressure for mediocre and bad developers to do something with Open Source. Those mostly are people who still having gone past their "coimplexity is good" phase and don't understand yet, that it's not a good idea to require 5 daemons in the background just to have a GUI running.

Ideally we should take a step back and look at what we _really_ need. Do we really have to have such a complex service management system? Shouldn't it be enough for a desktop system to just have a single shell script booting up X and the window manager and setting up the network? Why do we have a wireless subsystem that needs a "wpa-manager" just to set up the keys to encrypted networks? Why do we have a modem manager that reliably is unable to access your cellular card after a upgrade?

Have you ever tried to write your own minimalistic init-system? I once turned an old SuSE installation into an X-Terminal. It took a shell script of 5 lines and it booted in a few seconds... on an Pentium 90! You can get much faster if you cut all that crap you don't need.

Comment That's like claiming... (Score 1) 173

... that their new movie is as good as "Manos Hands of Fate", or speaking English as good as "Günther Ã-ttinger".

Seriously, _all_ mobile operating systems are shit when it comes to security. Android has the theoretical advantage that you can root it and hypothetically install iptables. That's not a lot, but it can help you to make sure your device only tries to talk to your server and not other servers.

Comment No cash will mean the prosecution of people (Score 1) 394

Now if you live in a country where, for example, homosexuality is illegal, and you want to go to a "gay bar" you can't, because no cash means no way to anonymously pay for your drink.

The same goes for many other areas where people have opinions that may be illegal but not morally wrong.Cash is essential there.

Comment The problem is that the idea never got any chance (Score 1) 330

It started right away with "big budget" devices. Devices that were hard to program and had to sell huge numbers to recover their investments. Those devices were then aimed at the "fitness tracker" market and nothing else. Not even displaying the time was a priority any more. Also screens have been to small compared to their sci-fi counterparts and nobody bothered about the input problem. In fact in order to use (=program) all of those computers you had to use a separate computer with a special development environment. Any idea you have for such a device will be eliminated by the frustrating experience of installing that environment and actually doing the programming. Also, since most of those devices run fully fledged bloated operating systems, they needed to recharge quite more often to be useful.

What we would need is a simple system centred around the software a digital watch would usually run, then add hooks to allow people to hook their own code to experiment with the system. This sort of "experimental phase with geeks" is rather important, but the modern smartwatch industry tried to skip it.

Comment Unfortunately SystemD isn't the only one (Score 4, Interesting) 508

The whole "FreeDesktop" Movement seems to be about making Linux more and more incomprehensible.

My theory for why this is is like this:
There are lots of people now growing up when Windows kinda worked (since about 2000). At the same time, involvement in "Open Source" software is seen as a good career move. So they churn out some shitty badly designed code as potential recruiters cannot tell good from bad code. Also they take part in design processes without the experience necessary for this. The result are overcomplex buggy solutions which suck in manpower to maintain them.

Take a look at the *BSD people. The team maintaining OpenBSD is probably smaller than the SystemD team, yet they manage to maintain a whole operating system.

Comment It's a sign of continuing centralization (Score 1) 207

In the past it was trivial to just mirror websites as they typically only consisted of some HTML pages and some images. If something like that happened in the past, you'd just have mirrors popping up everywhere.

Today websites are much more complicated. Even something as simple as a blog is now dynamically generated every time its loaded. You cannot simply mirror that.

Comment Well about the "Frogs" (Score 1) 73

There were no references to French people as such particularly since nation states apparently did not exist any more. There was one reference to "Frogs" being a kind of animal. In the series there were just blurry shapes with glitter. There actually was a French version of that series which seemingly got lost in the mists of time. Only one fragment exists.

The reason why there were only so few episodes was that it was _really_ expensive to make. Multiple German TV stations had to cooperate to finance it. Since it was filmed just before TV stations invested in colour, it didn't get sold abroad very much. There were plans to make a second series in colour but those were abandoned.

What really drew new generations of viewers to that series are the sets and the dancing. Both incredibly goofy even for a 1960s show.

Comment Re:Most techies have no real free will to do so (Score 1) 537

Well most 'technies' are also unable to solve any decently complicated problems because of incompetence.

You don't need to be a good software developer to write the 457th version of Candy Crush, but you may need to be one to actually solve an important problem.

I mean there would be lots of things like building a secure mobile device. The problem is that your average "Java jockey" won't understand that their desire to make everything complicated is part of the security problem.

Also most problems in the world cannot be solved by technology. You cannot solve the problem of few people owning most of the world with technology. In fact if you are an incompetent "techie" you commonly even make it worse. A typical example are websites today. HTML used to be something simple, something everybody could do. Today it becomes more and more complex, so complex that there's just a hand full of working browser engines around.

Comment I couldn't get past the first episode (Score 2) 75

I mean realism is not everything with those shows, but it hurts when they include segments that make no sense in he context and are historically inaccurate.

I'm specifically talking about the "reverse engineering the IBM PC" bit. That bit involved reading a PROM with switches and LEDs... those LEDs came in colours unimaginable back in the 1980s. That wouldn't be bad if the whole scene would have made no sense. You can read out that PROM with the BASIC Interpreter provided with the computer... and the rest was documented in the manuals. The IBM PC was, essentially, open source (but not free). That's why it áfas to popular. There was no need to reverse engineer.

So spending a large part of your episode showing something that made no sense... and showing that very badly, kinda killed it for me.

I don't know how the other episodes went, but this kinda pissed me off. In a time where we have TV series like Silicon Valley or Mr Robot we shouldn't applaud a props guy ordering some C-64s.

Slashdot Top Deals

Can't open /usr/games/lib/fortunes.dat.