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:One can hope (Score 1) 113

So the "don't boot if a single filesystem in fstab fails to mount" policy would have been a tweak to the mountall script (or better, one of the mount helper shell functions).

Or you define your filesystems correctly as something that is important to boot the system or something that is not. If it needs to be automounted then why would any sane boot process not fail? The previous behaviour is what generated a shitton of filesystem related problems from programs that started blindly reading and writing to directories that didn't exist on file systems that weren't mounted.

Anyway this is irrelevant since this is a bug in btrfs, and no other redundant FS fails this way with systemd. I do understand though, some people prefer not only having enough rope to hang themself with, but for the noose to be pre-tied. Hence why so many guides told people to setup filesystems withautomount despite what a stupid idea that was, and you get bug reports from people complaining that their system fails to boot when a USB stick isn't present.

RTFM

Comment Re:One can hope (Score 2) 113

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

I can tell. There's one scenario where a specific order applies, boot time. It's also a time you don't normally find yourself. So having an entire process manager with hard coded order is asinine and is the number 1 "feature" that every single other init system has removed.

BTRFS hasn't been listed as experimental for some time now. It is considered usable in production

By who? Certainly not the project team who say that only the physical disk format is stable, and the rest of the project is still under heavy development including the caveat that bugs may creep in.

The problem wasn't BTRFS, the problem was systemd trying to be clever when it really isn't.

Nope the problem was udev (nothing to do with systemd itself) and the fact that even when the options are passed in fstab to mount degraded that it doesn't report back to udev that a valid UUID is present. Systemd then tries to boot a system with a filesystem that has a valid UUID and does what every good system should do when fundamental hardware is missing in the boot process: fails to console.

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.

Initrd? You mean the thing that is supposed to assemble rootfs devices before a system tries to boot from them? Colour me surprised. Amazed. Gobsmacked! What a revelation!

The Unix philosophy

Don't care.

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

Now there's an appeal to authority no one gives a shit about. Sorry but you're still just a name on the internet.

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.

Actually it means that no one was happy with the original. The only problem was that up until this point people couldn't agree on what the replacement was supposed to look like. Hence we ended up with 5 different distros with 5 different init systems all under parallel development all of them got traction in their own way. Fortunately one project came along that actually offered the benefits of most of them and appeased them enough to all focus the efforts on a single replacement.

Comment Re:One can hope (Score 1) 113

Yeah it's almost like a fundamental part of the system can have two purposes. Amazing isn't it.

Instead try and look up what it does and why it does it rather than championing the name of a domain which is hosting their documentation.

Comment Re:Ha-Ha! (Score 1) 157

You may have missed that MS is no longer run by an evil genius but rather someone who tries to build just enough value to run companies into the ground.

I don't believe the current management collectively have the braincells to implement EEE. Hell Balmer failed that too and he was significantly more strategic than the current degenerates.

Comment Re:I get this... (Score 1) 225

Hotel room at The Mirage just last week: $79 (yes, nice rooms. If you want to go all out on a suite I recommend the Hard Rock Towers)
Absolutely awesome ~$70 steaks: The Homestead at Caesar's Palace
Really good breakfast buffet: The Wynn (~$25 or so I think, was a few years ago I stayed there) ... also, I enjoyed the Blue Man Group in 2008. YMMV.

Comment Re: Shorter summary (Score 2) 115

Hypocrisy- I don't think that word means what you think it means. Well that or there is a lot more to this story than what is printed on this page.

Even if we buy into the suggestion that the GP is a "lock her up" fan (there is evidence in word or text of law of wrong doing, Comey inserted a mens rea test into the application of a law which the law in question specifically avoids in order to say no charges are warranted because Hillary didn't mean to break the law. The only people not questioning that are Hillary supporters and never trump'rs) , I still don't see the hypocrisy here- or even a connection to the new AG or some Alt Right team member- whatever that is supposed to mean anyways.

Comment Re:CEO is shown lying by his company's own actions (Score 1) 115

If the first was true, the second wasn't necessary.

Not at all true. If I have a budget of $5m and dedicate $2m to security, $1.9m to operations, and $1.1m to other then security is still my top priority, even though spending on it can be increased and it could be made better.

Absolute security is not a thing.

Comment Re:Top priority? Always? (Score 1) 115

If your companies top priority is to keep data secure, they how/why did you get hacked. They always say that, but clearly that is not the Top Priority

I see you're doing your part by not using dangerous apostrophes where they are needed!

Implicit in any company's statement that security is their top priority is the large bundle of compromises that don't go away whether or not that is your top priority. They could make the data perfectly secure by disconnecting the servers and putting them in a bank vault. They could make sure the data can't be breached by simply destroying all of it. See?

Security can be your Top Priority, but it has to be done in the context of things like still making it available to users across the internet. Doing it while not going bankrupt. Making the service competitively priced so that it can actually be afforded and put to work.

They could have said that the system could only be used on equipment they ship to their clients, connected to the back end through a hardware-based dedicated VPN with biometrics, dongles, and constant nagging by three-factor comms surrounding every time someone hits the enter key ... and of course nobody could or would want to use the system or pay the monthly fee needed to keep something like that alive.

They may very well put security at a higher priority than chipping away at a long list of UX updates, performance under load, documentation, multi-language support, and a thousand other things. Doesn't mean that doing so means they'll be perfect in their security results. Ever run a business like that? No? Give it a whirl. Make security your top priority, and then start paying attention to what that decision means in real life - including in your ability to get and retain customers during that balancing act.

Comment Re:PC is NOT dead and not even dying (Score 1) 392

The only thing that can kill the PC is a better product, with a more reliable operating system, and I see nothing on the horizon that prohibits that evolutional step.

You could say the same thing about the Automobile or the personal car or boat. Nothing on the horizon prohibits that evolutional step.

Nothing on the horizon shows that evolutional step will happen, either.

The demand for PCs will still exist, Until such time as a superior replacement can meet all the demand. An open platform for software development, running software, and creating things, are some of the things PCs are demanded for that nothing else provides.

  Even if PCs become a niche market whose buyers are only computer scientists, engineers, makers, and other tinkerers, they still exist.

Comment Re:Well, duh. Mass transportation is a slush fund. (Score 1) 370

The problem is that individuals are miopic, and we really need to have long term strategies for solving problems, rather than just reacting to current issues. Planning and construction take time, and you must project ahead to make the project useful for its life when complete.

Comment Re:Raspberry Pi (Score 1) 392

Slick, hadn't seenthe OLinuXino, and my off the cuff response would have been because it makes it more expensive... but I was wrong! Personally, I am still looking for a 802.1af single board computer for stupid little tasks. POE switches have come down in cost to the point that it is an ideal solution for a number of use cases.

Comment Re:One can hope (Score 2) 113

With sysvinit, I can easily plug modules at will.

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

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

The right order is stable during one scenario only, a controlled boot. It was a good idea in the 70s, but it's a truly horrible way to run a system of interdependent daemons, especially when boot time is such a rare state to be in for a server.

I was testing a system with BTRFS doing mirroring. As part of the test, I dropped one of the disks to simulate a failure.

So you were using an experimental filesystem and complaining that your system didn't boot in degraded mode? It's quite telling that when you search online for the issue it is noted that this ONLY happens with BTRFS and not ZFS or mdadm. BTRFS's design is to not mount in degraded mode by default, and the fact that when you force the mount it doesn't act like every other file system, or indeed itself in a healthy state (which leads to udev not getting the device UUID) is a BTRFS bug / "feature". Maybe don't use an experimental filesystem if you're worried about your system.

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

So literally anything systemd can do could already be done using sysV-init, a whole host of other programs, a shitload of scripts re-written and customised for each and every daemon .... except for the myriad of things you can't do with sysV-init. The fact that you think it can just shows how little you know of the topic. My guess is you don't even realise that systemd isn't the first attempt to work around the many shortcomings of sysv-init and the things it *can't* do, it's not the 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th either. It's somewhere in the double digits, and based around a combination of the way 2 different UNIX systems manage processes.

Those last two words are key, since it's something that sysV-init can't do.

Comment Re:One can hope (Score 1) 113

systemd is bad for servers. It adds nothing, just makes everything brittle and clunky.

That's funny given that it was primarily designed with servers in mind. Oh it boots quickly and that makes you think it's "desktopification". How silly.

Comment Re:One can hope (Score 2) 113

Systemd has turned out to be one of the best advertising campaigns for the *BSDs.

And yet it's market share is quite stable measured at 0.00% and has for the past 3 years for internet servers.
As much as I see this message come up over and over again, the number of people who legitimately shifted to BSD can be counted using your appendages. In the real world BSD's market share increased by only a few people who got upset because they refused to read a manual and decided that changing the OS was the only way forward.

Hurrah.

Comment PC is NOT dead and not dying (Score 2) 392

Just because the exponential growth of sales has ended, thus the PC is now in structural decline....
does not mean the PC is dead.

All it means is that New people who never owned computers before are no longer getting in at a fast rate.
There's a huge population now who have purchased desktops more than 4 years ago, but less than 8 years ago,
who already have all the Laptops and Desktops they will need for years to come. We're largely still running Windows XP and
Windows 7, if we can, or perhaps Linux, and we don't like changes Microsoft made in Windows 8 and Windows 10.
New operating systems are no longer a reason to upgrade hardware.

Our personal computers are lasting longer between upgrade cycles, and we need new ones less often.

This is a good thing for consumers, and a terrible thing for the hardware and software industry.

Industry in decline, or no longer exponentially growing does NOT mean the product is dead, it means a thing called
Market saturation was reached, new growth will not be possible, since everyone who would demand it has already
has bought it, and does not mean there is no future demand for PCs. They are rather ubiquitous in fact.....

Slashdot Top Deals

The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is the most likely to be correct. -- William of Occam

Working...