Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



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

Comment Re:Ha-Ha! (Score 1) 246

That goes all the way back to the telegraph where you could interrupt the sender by opening the circuit.

RS-232 maintains it in the form of the break signal which just pulls the line low for not less than one symbol's time (ass opposed to ctrl-c that just transmits character value 3).

Cut the wire is as good as any I suppose.

Comment Re:One can hope (Score 1) 117

I can tell. There's one scenario where a specific order applies, boot time.

If you can tell, one might expect ypu to make an effort to communicate more clearly. If you find you cannot, then you should clerify your own thinking first.

Boot time is also the only scenario where initializing the system is relevant. All those other systems failed to catch on, probably because non-deterministic system initialization is problematic.

By who?

By the kernel configuration, SuSE, Facebook, Tripadvisor, and a number of other operations using it in production.

Either way, systemd needs to be flexible enough to deal with this sort of thing. It isn't.

Nope the problem was udev ...

SysVinit with udev doesn't have this problem. Beyond that, the absorberthon that is systemd claims udev for itself, so it's their problem now. This was udev's behavior before there was systemd and it is still udev's behavior. It's not like it popped up as a surprise. Pure and simple, systemd neither took that into account nor changed udev to no longer behave that way. Thus, the blame falls squarely on systemd.

Initrd? You mean the thing that is supposed to assemble rootfs devices...

/home is not root. Actually, at one time systemd was supposed to aldo take care of things in the intird/initramfs. It doesn't now because it isn't capable of it due to it's inability to deal with RAID and other systems where some failures are OKish. This is just an example of something very fundamental they didn't think of, didn't build in enough flexibility to make it fixable in configuration, and didn't make it open and modular enough to allow something else to take care of this task for it.

Don't care.

So you don't care about the philosophy that made Linux superior to Windows? You are happy to degrade the usefulness of Linux so you can switch to the losing strategy born from insufficient understanding??

Now there's an appeal to authority...

Referring to one's own relevant experience is in no way an appeal to authority. Particularly after a claim that one lacks relevant knowledge or experience. In other words, you went there and got shot down. In response, for some reason you smashed an egg on your face.

Actually it means that no one was happy with the original.

Sure, it is the most disliked init system ever, other than all of the others.

Comment Re:Ha-Ha! (Score 2) 246

Thanks for the only non-AC criticism here...

Ctrl-C goes back beyond Linux and SIGINT - it has been a system level "stop now" key combo since the 1980s, maybe even longer - and not just on *nix systems, it even applied to BASIC and other languages on the 6502 and 8088 based home PCs.

Submission + - SPAM: It Can Power a Small Nation. But This Wind Farm in China Is Mostly Idle.

schnell writes: The New York Times reports on a massive wind farm in remote Gansu province that boasts more than 7,000 wind turbines but whose capacity goes more than 60% unused. The wind farm epitomizes China's struggles in its efforts to become a world renewable energy leader: the Chinese economy is slumping, leading to decreased energy demand; the country lacks the infrastructure to haul power from remote wind-producing regions to industrial centers; and government policies continue to favor the domestic coal industry. China has 92,000 wind turbines, more than double the US's capacity, but China generates only 3.3% of its electricity from wind compared to 4.7% in the United States.

Comment Re:Ha-Ha! (Score 2, Insightful) 246

Programs trapping Ctrl-C as an exception are exceptionally lazy - there should be a more "front end" way to quit. Originally Ctrl-C was just to kill, not to gracefully shut-down.

I take exception to the summary's bad automotive analogy. I'd say that removing Ctrl-C functionality is like removing the standard brake pedal, leaving the driver to read the manual to discover where alternate brake controls might be found - naturally different locations in different programs.

Comment Re:One can hope (Score 1, Informative) 117

I'm going to assume you didn't RTFM if you're having problems with modules and when they get plugged.

Not KERNEL modules, init system modules.

The right order is stable during one scenario only, a controlled boot.

You prefer an out of control boot? Not sure what you mean there.

BTRFS hasn't been listed as experimental for some time now. It is considered usable in production now. The problem wasn't BTRFS, the problem was systemd trying to be clever when it really isn't. It would refuse to even attempt to mount btrfs until all disks showed present. It offered no timeout. I did have the degraded option set, such that when systemd inevitably dropped me to a shell, I could just type mount /home and POOF, there it was.

systemd never did solve the problem for MD RAID devices, it's just that the initrd now assembles the RAID before systemd gets a chance to screw it up.

The Unix philosophy has always been small tools that do one job well combined to do nearly anything. That's how it's SUPPOSED to be.

Systemd COULD have been designed to play well with others. It's whole process management thing could have been called by /sbin/init to take care of whatever was configured under it and leave everything else to the rc scripts (or whatever other modules might be called by init). Instead, it's a hairball. It reminds me of Robin Williams joke about God getting stoned and creating the Platypus just to fuck with us.

Since I actually wrote an init system for bproc nodes, I probably know a hell of a lot more about it than you do.

You know what it usually means when dozens of "new and improved" replacements fail to replace the original? It means the original is actually a lot better than you think it is.

Submission + - Gambler Phil Ivey Sued For Being Too Good (thefederalist.com) 2

schwit1 writes: “The Borgata alleged that Ivey’s actions, which the casino agreed to in advance, constitute cheating. In fact, they merely constitute a gambler getting a legitimate advantage over the casino. In this age of cozy cooperation between the state and the gaming industry, that’s something that’s just not allowed.”

Submission + - Ask Slashdot: Are Headphone Cables Designed To Fail Within Weeks Of Purchase? 3

dryriver writes: I'm a heavy headphone user. It doesn't matter what headphones I buy — Sony, Philips, Logitech you name it — the headphones typically fail to work properly within a few weeks of purchase. It is never the headphones/earbuds themselves that fail. It is always the part of the headphone cable where the small wires connect to the almost indestructible 3.5mm metal headphone jack. Result? Either the left or right ear audio cuts out and you need new headphones. Putting 1/2 a cent worth of extra rubber/plastic/metal around that part of the cable to strengthen it would likely fix the problem very effectively. The headphones would last for a year or even longer. But almost no manufacturer seems to do this. I keep trying new models and brands, and they all have the same "cable goes bad" problem — earbuds that came with a Sony MP3 player I bought developed the problem within 15 minutes of first use. My question to Slashdot: Do headphone manufacturers do this deliberately? Do they think "We'll sell 40% more headphones each year if the average pair doesn't last beyond 3 months of normal use" and engineer a deliberate weakness into the headphone cable? How can these major brands with all their product engineers not be able to strengthen the most obviously failure-prone part of the headphone cable a bit?

Comment Re:One can hope (Score 4, Informative) 117

Actually, I want to to use other tools to help boot the system. With sysvinit, I can easily plug modules at will.

because something was done in the wrong order.

I know it sounds like a really radical idea, but howsabout just specifying the right order?

But here's an example: I was testing a system with BTRFS doing mirroring. As part of the test, I dropped one of the disks to simulate a failure. Systemd flatly refused to start in degraded mode. It dropped to the shell every time. There was no way to tell it "Just mount the damned thing and let me worry about it". So much for high availability. Under sysV, I just added the degraded option and it worked every time. If I want to wait an arbitrary amount of time for all the drives to spin up, I can do that in the mount script with no difficulty.

Literally anything systemd can do could already be done using simple helpers called by sysV. You even provided an example yourself.

Comment Re:One can hope (Score 5, Informative) 117

The old pile of shit was willing to keep its fingers out of other people's pies if you wanted to try something else along side it.

It also understood imperatives. If you tell it run something NOW, it does just that, every time.

Slashdot Top Deals

You can not win the game, and you are not allowed to stop playing. -- The Third Law Of Thermodynamics

Working...