Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



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

Comment Re: Hell no (Score 1) 379

“Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes.” - commonly attributed to Edsger Dijkstra, but disputed.

[...] Mastery of the advanced studies of your discipline will make you a better than merely someone who can just get the job done.

The caveat being here that a good portion of what goes for CS at universities is essentially "How to use the vast resources of a supercluster as a glorified pocket calculator". I had the dubious honour of suffering through four semesters of so-called CS at my uni, and I can attest that you can be an incredible computer scientist and still be unable to program even modestly simple applications. And that is said without even touching upon the vast difference between CS and software engineering (and the equally vast difference between software engineering and programming, to be fair).

All three disciplines have their place. But CS is not exactly the 'advanced study' of programming.

Comment Re:If it (Score 1) 130

In Germany, a third of the population wears correction glasses (or contact lenses) permanently. More than 60% wear correction glasses or lenses at least part of the time. More than 60% wear sunglasses. And that is just the consumer market.

I could not find numbers on the actual use of protective eyewear in the workplace, but just looking at the most obvious industries, ie. anyone dealing with chemicals, sparks, dusts, body fluids and excrements and so on, there definitely is a market for such a thing. Aircraft mechanics alone would probably form a profitable market, if the value provided is high enough. It could be a real boon in healthcare or construction.

While I agree that this will never reach the ubiquity of smartphones or even MP3 players, I would not discount it so broadly.

Comment Re:Are you for real? (Score 1) 424

What did you expect? That people laud her wisdom? She was somewhere between 30 and 31 years old when she sent a sex video of herself to her then ex partner to hurt him and to other people. She harassed her ex, and by sending it to (I assume) mutual friends she also humiliated him within their social circle. She is not really a victim here. If she could not handle the heat, she should not have lit the fire. No sympathy. Really, none.

To the other commentator who mentions rape culture: Do you have even the slightest idea what you are talking about?

Comment Re:God's chosen people (Score 2) 232

[...] the modern, diverse, multi-racial, secular, civil rights based, gay rights embracing, parliamentary democracy known as Israel [...]

There are two Israels down there? Interesting. The one I always read about in the news is run by a racist militant government violating international law. Oh, sorry, but saying so apparently makes me an anti-semite.

Comment Re:Incitement in Hebrew (Score 1) 232

You probably know, but just don't care, that that organisation did not exactly become popular for no good reason. There is no innocent party here. People have stooped to simply barbaric behaviour on both sides. Israel is acting in blatant violation of international law. Are the United Nations anti-semitic for passing those resolutions?

Comment Re:Russia doesn't need to interfere. (Score 1) 531

Wild conspiracy theories aside, the U.S. and the UK are democracies that guarantee freedom of speech and the press. [...]

Reporters Without Borders rank them between Tonga and Burkina Faso. And in Germany you should have registered the incredibly lopsided reporting on the Ukraine conflict. Or, until a couple of months ago, on the trade treaties. Putin is a right bastard, I have no illusions about him being anything but a cold-blooded fascist. But you have to be more than naive to think our Western governments champions of freedom. Our very own minister of the interior has been pushing for a new crypto war in Germany, for vastly extended powers for the intelligence services, warrantless data retention, the state trojan and quite a few other pieces of nastiness. And some of his colleagues are embroiled in the #nohatespeech train wreck which outsources suppression of legal speech to a questionable bunch of radicals with basically no oversight or way of legal appeal. If there is a champion of freedom here in the German state system it is the Federal Constitutional Court that undoes at least the worst damage our government .

The difference between governments is not black and white. It is a sliding scale of shittiness. And they all seem to cluster quite closely.

Comment Re:Can't see how it works... (Score 1) 205

...because employees don't all see all aspects of the company to make educated "votes" [...]

You say that as if C*Os were any different. They are so far removed from the actual work being done that by the point they see the smoke, half the town is already in ashes. Look at the paths especially CEOs of large corporations have gone through: Most of them switch industries and company types like they change their socks. From manufacturing to banking to tech to pharma... Even if they saw everything, how competent are they to actually make a decision? Are they just looking at numbers and choosing the higher one because it looks prettier? With many, that is the impression I got.

Comment Re:This is news? (Score 1) 35

The rationalisation I could come up with is that Fedora is what RHEL will be, so if F25 brings in fundamental changes, people who need to support RHEL might want to take a look as early as possible to see where the whole thing is going to get a head start. But frankly, even as a Fedora user I do not think this is /. worthy.

Comment Re: Does not replace mount (Score 1) 541

Firstly: I deliberately said supporters, not users.They are not the same thing. It very much is a choice, whether you want to call it political, that is up to you. I am a systemd user, I have it on my Fedora laptop, two Ubuntu servers and soon on one or two desktops, probably also Fedora or maybe Mint. That I use it does not make me a supporter or proponent. I use it for certain purposes. For other purposes on other machines, I do not use it and never would. Do not mix those two up. Most people who use UNIXoid systems professionally also have to use Windows machines at some point. That does not make them Microsoft supporters. Having a Dell monitor does not make me a Dell supporter.

Secondly: Your grand-standing about computer literacy is not exactly a sound counter-argument to what I wrote. Most system admins are incompetent (not as a judgement but literally lacking the technical competence to properly manage all aspects of running systems), I agree. To some extent I belong to them, I luckily do not run servers for a living, I can rely on others to do that for me. But people like me are not the benchmark here. People worth listening to do not complain about systemd in the belief that stuff never breaks. Quite to the contrary! Assuming breakage is the baseline from which you work up everything else. The issue I have with systemd is that it treats breakage as normal, working around it and trying to apply band-aids automagically. There are use cases for that, ie. the desktop (in most cases) and a certain portion of the server user base. But on my servers I do not want the system to route around damage unless I specifically set up fail safe mechanisms and fall backs myself. I want my machines to fail. So I know where trouble is brewing. And from my experience systemd has made it harder for me to debug issues. It is an opaque layer between me and the basic system functionality, and punching through has been more trouble and work than it should be. I like to compare it to NetworkManager: When that was introduced, it sucked. By now I love it on the desktop. On the server it is the first thing I purge from the system, because it has consistently caused problems and made things a lot more complex to set up and debug.

Thirdly: Do not confuse resistance to systemd with resistance to change. sysvinit has been showing its age for a long time. As have X11 and a few other parts of the ecosystem. I am happy to leave init scripts behind for a more sensible mechanism. But systemd is not the only kid in town. There are other initiatives to solve the issues we face, and most of them have taken a much less radical approach and far smaller scope. This is the way for me on the server side. This does not diminish the benefits some use cases draw from systemd right here and now. But it is not the holy grail some of its proponents make it out to be.

Comment Re: Does not replace mount (Score 1) 541

There is actually a second aspect that I missed: I know, systemd is more or less modular, not one monolithic binary etc. Still from what I have seen in recent distros, if you get systemd, you get the whole shebang in one go. On a server the common philosophy is not to have anything that you do not explicitely want on it. Whether this auto-mount and some other desktop-oriented systemd features are trivial to disable is beside the point: On a server they should not even be there without someone actively installing them. This is not really systemd's fault but the distros', since they should package it according to system scope or role; still I have seen this change in mindset coincide with the introduction of systemd. There does seem to be a systemic 'corruption' of the ecosystem going on where we all unlearn the lessons of the past.

Comment Re: Does not replace mount (Score 3, Insightful) 541

No. My argument is that on the server, many of systemd's components are either solutions in search of a problem or trying to solve real problems the wrong way. It started with things like accepting log corruption in return for faster performance. On most desktops, that is a justifiable trade-off. On a server, it is a minority use case. With a really tiny minority on whose servers I for one would not be willing to rely.

As I said: systemd is acceptable for desktops or other user-facing systems. Things that you expect to break anyhow because of user dumbness, hardware failure or spilled coffee, where reinstallation or replacement is cheaper and more practical than investing in reliability. There it brings you net benefits due to its design trade-offs. On a server I want to be able to retrace why something failed, not just have the system go back to some mostly functional default state or take a guess at what might be the best way to proceed. On a server I need to trust the system to do exactly what it is supposed to do, and to do it not just once or twice but every single time.

I know that it has become a bit of a trend to treat servers like just another machine and simply redeploy instead of fixing issues. For many business cases this may be the more economic solution. It is not the one I consider sensible and future-proof.

Slashdot Top Deals

UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever things. -- Doug Gwyn

Working...