Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:So basically visa's for sale (Score 1) 128

One of the reasons for having an immigration policy is so that the government-provided services don't get overwhelmed, as seems to be a major fear in Europe with the Syrian refugees. To that end, only a certain number of immigrants are allowed in, to reduce the shock to those services. A wealthy foreigner is less likely to have a large burden on those services, and by spending money in the US and paying taxes to the US governments, may even contribute more than they cost.

It's not fair, and it assumes a large number of variables, but it's not necessarily wrong.

Comment Re:To get more lunatics, I suppose (Score 2) 128

There are certainly easier places, with far less regulation. In some cases, if you have a sign, you have a legal company.

That said, those places aren't "better", because your suppliers and customers are also little more than signs and promises. If a supplier takes your money and disappears, you have no recourse. If an engineer copies your trade secrets and starts his own competing business, the law doesn't protect you.

Every restriction exists because someone abused the system at least once already.

Comment Re:Weird waste of time (Score 2) 145

The key is to find the people who aren't looking for anything, and show them logic first. Then when the quacks come talking about mind control and weather engineering, it sounds as absurd as it really is.

An added bonus is that there's always that one kid who asks "Why not?". We hope that he goes on to do real science in the field of weather or psychology, advancing the state of the art.

Comment Re:Nope, no wealth inequality here (Score 1) 175

I think you missed my point.

Yes, there were standards without Microsoft. There were a lot of them, usually competing and incompatible. Sure, they were open, but vendors still usually picked one based on their own technical preferences, leaving a lot of work to actually achieve interoperability between systems who chose competing standards. Lots of jobs for the programmers writing interface layers, but utter crap for actually making progress.

Microsoft's monopoly forced everyone's hand. Microsoft's way was rarely (if ever) the best way, but it was a clear and well-trodden path, and anyone doing things Microsoft's way could have a reasonable chance that others would follow suit.

Comment Re:What Envirmental Wacko caused it? (Score 3, Insightful) 319

The system itself worked correctly, as the containment system properly contained the leak. The problem is that the "seemingly harmless" substitution wouldn't have appeared harmless to an engineer who knew what was going on, but the person who made the substitution didn't understand the requirements for the part he was substituting.

When I worked on government computers, I often saw similar problems. The developers would specify certain hardware requirements, but over the life of a program, as equipment went obsolete, other people would make substitutions based on the specs of the old part. After a few years, the same software was running on high-end components, at only about 1% utilization. Nobody ever wanted to be the guy who made the system less capable, even though the lower-end hardware would have cost far less.

Comment Re:Nope, no wealth inequality here (Score 1) 175

He might very well have created Microsoft, then abandoned it when the maximum he could get from it was approaching $10 billion.

Without Microsoft having continued so far, computing would be very different today. If Microsoft had stagnated (Anti-Microsoft jokes elsewhere, please) with Windows 95, and left computing to newer upstarts, I expect we wouldn't have anywhere near the compatibility and interoperability we have today. Even among non-Microsoft OSes, interoperability is a mandatory feature. In contrast, I'm reminded of the pre-Windows days where particular software was written for a particular system, and that was it. Now, we have OpenOffice, Wine, and Samba, all from different projects united in the goal of slaying the Microsoft beast.

Microsoft is certainly no longer the only option, but computing environments are all still affected by Microsoft's legacy. I detest Microsoft's monopoly as much as anybody, but I think the cohesion that came out of it is a good thing, overall.

Back to the point, that's one of the philosophies of capitalism: The more people work (economically, meaning an investment of labor, capital, or advice), the more they should make. Artificially limiting the return on investment disincentivizes the amount of work they will do, which in turn reduces the efficiency of the economy. Limiting Gates' return on his Microsoft investment would very likely have also limited how much he invested in Microsoft, and in effect also limited what Microsoft could contribute to the economy. Sure, Gates would be less wealthy... but so would most others who have been employed by the company.

This assumes, of course, that Gates wouldn't have just continued investing anyway. He seems like he's trying to be a nice guy, outside of business, so perhaps he would have just let Microsoft keep growing, regardless of its return. That's a fundamental difference between capitalism and communism: Communism assumes that all people are good-hearted helpful folks contributing to the welfare of society, and capitalism assumes that everyone is a greedy selfish individual who won't do anything without getting paid. Neither assumption is wholly correct, which is why thought experiments like this one are rather useless at predicting a person's behavior.

Comment Re:Wrapper, not replacement (Score 1) 538

Maybe that's the problem... The demographic is old enough to fit the "cranky old man" role, but not enough to be the "wise old man".

There's a point where things change just as soon as you get it figured out, and that's a jarring and uncomfortable time. There's also a point where that's happened too many times already, and you just don't care any more.

Comment Re:Wrapper, not replacement (Score 3, Insightful) 538

There are already the usual anti-systemd flames and complaints about how it's absorbing ever more functionality.

As for the server itself, that is roughly the current plan. The devil's in the details, though, when it comes to handling errors in detecting the network configuration and mounting the remote filesystems. For example, as node A initializes, it should try to connect to (and mount) nodes B, C, and D, but if a node is down, the other node connections should function normally until the missing node returns, at which time that connection should be established and the data synchronized among the nodes.

Writing standard scripts to handle the process isn't an intractable problem, but it'd be much simpler with a more robust environment. I'm curious (and a bit hopeful) to see whether systemd can provide the necessary functionality without extensive custom scripting.

Comment Re:Another brilliant, walled-garden idea (Score 1) 275

Nowhere in your post did you even mention the telemetry that everyone else is complaining about.

Why should I? That's a popular topic for discussion elsewhere under this story, but not in this thread.

Personally I find the objection to telemetry to be ridiculous, as it's based on the paradoxical trust in Microsoft's software, but not Microsoft's corporate governance. Frankly, if Microsoft was intending to do something nefarious, they wouldn't label it "telemetry" in the changelog. If a government wanted to spy on you, they wouldn't seek Microsoft's overt help. On the other hand, if you want your systems to improve based on the collective experiences of others, data collection is essentially necessary now. Better controls would be nice, but that just opens the door to still more paranoia.

You conveniently avoid it at all that microsoft has lied [w]hen they called somethnig a security update and it was actually spyware/telemetry.

Why not both? Offhand, a good example of this would be the SmartScreen filtering. To a security-focused person like me, having a hash check on files from the Internet is a good thing, because it's an additional layer of defense against malware, and that's worth the incredibly-minor loss of privacy. To a more paranoid observer, any usage information sent to Microsoft is spying for ulterior motives, and the loss of privacy is unforgivable, no matter the possible security improvements.

So either you are having a different conversation that the rest of the people here or you are trying to spin somethnig.

There's a third option that you're neglecting to acknowledge: that the conversation isn't as one-sided as you seem to prefer. My motivations are apparently different from yours. I prefer system security over user preferences, while you appear to prefer privacy over data-driven management. As a result of those different preferences, we want different things from the same product.

Ive seen many shills come through here and not a single one has ever admitted to it. Not saying you are but circumstantial evidence is pretty compelling.

Alternatively, you've seen people with different perspectives, and you stubbornly refuse to believe that they might know a bit better than you. Not saying you're an ignorant buffoon, but the circumstantial evidence is pretty compelling.

Mockery and derision aside, you should go look through my comment history. Some of the more scathing anti-Microsoft posts are rather far back, but they're there. As far as "circumstantial evidence" goes, I suspect you're looking at this one single opinion on one single issue, and using that to infer my opinions on all matters. You don't even know my circumstances at all.

Comment Re:Wrapper, not replacement (Score 5, Insightful) 538

Yep. That won't stop the hivemind from shouting against it, though. According to Slashdotters, everything must be done as it's always been done, regardless of any externalities.

Meanwhile, I have a server (based on an ugly inherited design) that has to figure out its remote filesystems based on the network structure, as determined by a user-run script. The process I inherited was to boot the server, run the script, then mount the filesystems it reported needing. Then and only then could the main daemon be started manually.

Fuck that.

An upcoming rework will automate the process with scripts, but it seems like the sort of thing that falls right in systemd's wheelhouse. Systemd's goal is to start the system services, which would reasonably include my daemon. It therefore also seems reasonable that systemd could have access to mounting functions, to ensure the system is ready to start that daemon.

Comment Re:Another brilliant, walled-garden idea (Score 1) 275

1. Promises != reality. Their patch engine is broken if it can't scale from a machine up to date 24hours ago to fresh RTM installs.

I never mentioned scaling. What doesn't scale is the idea of testing a factorial number of patch combinations.

2. End users don't have a "support rep".

Actually, they can. Microsoft has online and phone support for end users. Companies do have more thorough (and more expensive) options, but most users have options as well.

most of these policies became SOP because of these inherent flaws in windows going back to the 90s. If patching isn't going to help this, then what's the point of patching at all? Assuming the machines are admin'd properly (users not running as admin should be enough for sane systems), such malware would have to abuse vulnerabilities to escalate.

Patches are still a last line of defense. The first defense should be a firewall/proxy to stop threats from reaching your users. Then your users should be educated, preventing the malware from being executed. Then you have antivirus and active scanning to prevent the malware from doing anything bad, followed by restricted admin rights to reduce the damage the malware can cause. Then finally, you have patches, which prevent malware from working around the admin restrictions and permission checks that are already designed into the system.

Slashdot Top Deals

Success is something I will dress for when I get there, and not until.