A car that gets 2mpg will get twice as far on a tank as a car that gets 1mpg. A car that gets 48mpg will only barely get further than a car that gets 47mpg.
The example shows your bullshit pretty nicely.
2 is twice one. So you go twice as far. 48 is barely more than 47. So you go barely farther.
Now, the example you didn't give : a car that gets 24 mpg goes half as far as a car that goes 48 mpg.
Syslog exists for a long time. But it cannot function on its own with systemd - journald must "forward" stuff to syslogd.
Say an operating system where you could have vi (or other editor) but only after emacs forwards editing commands to vi. That operating system would be called monolithic with respect to text editors.
Meanings of words can have slight twist to them when used in Software Design. I understand it can be hard for the uninitiated.
that an OS architecture that dated from the 1970's was actually totally elite
Well, humans needed to breathe in 1970s, and they need to breathe now. So just because something is from the 1970s clearly cannot be held against that. In fact, we have 44 years (ignoring pre-1970 of course) of evidence that stopping to breathe is a bad idea, and 44 years of evidence about which parts of UNIX philosophy are applicable when and why.
Now your long post didn't address any single problem with the UNIX philosophy. Apple clearly showed that integration for desktop users is not impossible with UNIX, and UNIX philosophy is not even against a user exposed integrated interface.
I will be the first to admit that at times UNIX philosophy is not applicable - e.g. ZFS combining LVM, raid and filesystem in one single monolithic feature is against the UNIX philosophy. But it solves many real problems, without introducing new ones. And it wasn't considered stable for just under a decade after release.
Systemd was considered "stable" within an year or 2. The parts where it breaks UNIX philosophy are clearly where it is NOT good to break it, with a nice bug to show for it.
About as well as you can remove the preprocessor from gcc
And with respect to preprocessor , no one calls gcc non-monolithic.
In the case of journald you can operate it in non-persistent mode, so that it doesn't actually write any logs to disk.
But not giving direct access to syslog, only forwarding to syslog. So with respect to log system - it is monolithic. Say an operating system where you could have vi (or other editor) but only after emacs forwards editing commands to vi. That operating system would be called monolithic with respect to text editors.
Kde is modular, but good luck deleting kdelibs.
KDE is modular in many respects, but not with respect to not needing kdelibs. It is modular in being able to replace window manager, network-manager. At code level it might be modular in replacing some libraries, UI widgets, I am not too sure.
Systemd is NOT modular where it matters. If journald could be completely replaced with syslogd, without the forwarding business, it could have been called modular with respect to log system. Why should one lose the ability to view non-corrupted text logs from bootloader just to get an init replacement?
KDE accessibility project is much much less advanced than Gnome's. Companies like to have default software usable by disabled people - for both ethical and legal reasons. Distributions like to have their default configurations usable by more companies.
Comcast story need not be true because Apple+Google story exists. About laws, i also said "in their primary areas of business" which you completely ignored. And actions of China and Syria will cost them. I don't see a difference.
Companies can displease the majority of voter base and yet thrive. Governments in most countries can't.
I never said about digging coal out of the ground. Try again.
Worrying about carbon will not be necessary, contrary to your statement. BTW the plant to make*C* from co2 that i mentioned, could generate the energy dense fuel currently petroleum products give us, but that is not necessary for your earlier statement to be wrong.
Going by the story, two levels of management were involved. Company can feel free to fire those. In fact, company should be able to counter sue those managers for the loss because illegal activity should be demonstrably unsupported by company if only a manager , like you insist, or 2 like what happened according to the story, are involved.
None of which take away from the game being essentially Calvin - ball. Where do I sign up for following rules I make?
You assume a condition that isn't true.
Followed by "probably". And a wishing away of my point about Google and Apple. Google and Apple's rivalry didn't help the potential job hopping employees.
There are real world counter examples of all your points too, like I already mentioned. Companies having to follow only their own laws in their primary area of business, colluding, non- poaching agreements. But you refuse to see them because it goes against your brainwashing.
Why was the penalty for wrongly firing your coworker so high? Did it take her a year to find a new job?
Probably in the hope that it would avoid another wrong firing of another coworker? If that coworker found another job in 2.261 seconds for which the salary comes to 9.745 dollars, that wrong firing manager might consider it a reasonable cost to make people "respect" her.
Yes, businesses can be less powerful than governments. But your arguments for it are faulty.
They have to follow laws
Laws which they helped write.
you can always leave an abusive employer
Unless they blacklist you. If Comcast can ask an employer to fire an employee, it can also ask them to not hire him. Or like Apple and Google "agreed" to not poach each other's employees. Or was it Microsoft? I keep losing track of which company did which illegal thing.
Now, essentially same arguments can be made for governments : 1. Governments have to follow constitutions. 2. You can always vote out an abusive government.
From third party derived distributions point of view - Ubuntu, Knoppix etc., Debian is not meta. From Debian owned branches like educational, media etc., it is.
And third party derived distributions have never been more important than Debian (including sub-projects, of course) itself.
Looking for system logs of PAST events, and expecting them to be not corrupted? Can someone be less forward looking than that? Talk about obsession with the past. Forward looking guys need no logs of the past. Next feature in systemd is a log file from future.
Slashdot Mirror
Protip 1 - coal is not the only CO2 generating fuel.
Protip 2 - your argument has nothing to do with a future point where converting to CO2 neutral technologies stops being necessary.
Tell us again why we would waste our time burning coal in the first place.
How can I tell this to you "again", when I didn't tell this even once?
you have no idea about my rod
A car that gets 2mpg will get twice as far on a tank as a car that gets 1mpg. A car that gets 48mpg will only barely get further than a car that gets 47mpg.
The example shows your bullshit pretty nicely.
2 is twice one. So you go twice as far.
48 is barely more than 47. So you go barely farther.
Now, the example you didn't give : a car that gets 24 mpg goes half as far as a car that goes 48 mpg.
There is no problem with mpg that gpm solves.
you can do this alongside or instead of systemd's native log format.
Not using syslog independently - but only through journald. Why such an abomination was considered a good idea, you know better than me.
Syslog facility does continue to function, but not in a way you are implying. Not independently. Journald must forward stuff to syslogd.
Do you understand why this is a bad idea?
Syslog exists for a long time. But it cannot function on its own with systemd - journald must "forward" stuff to syslogd.
Say an operating system where you could have vi (or other editor) but only after emacs forwards editing commands to vi. That operating system would be called monolithic with respect to text editors.
Meanings of words can have slight twist to them when used in Software Design. I understand it can be hard for the uninitiated.
that an OS architecture that dated from the 1970's was actually totally elite
Well, humans needed to breathe in 1970s, and they need to breathe now. So just because something is from the 1970s clearly cannot be held against that. In fact, we have 44 years (ignoring pre-1970 of course) of evidence that stopping to breathe is a bad idea, and 44 years of evidence about which parts of UNIX philosophy are applicable when and why.
Now your long post didn't address any single problem with the UNIX philosophy. Apple clearly showed that integration for desktop users is not impossible with UNIX, and UNIX philosophy is not even against a user exposed integrated interface.
I will be the first to admit that at times UNIX philosophy is not applicable - e.g. ZFS combining LVM, raid and filesystem in one single monolithic feature is against the UNIX philosophy. But it solves many real problems, without introducing new ones. And it wasn't considered stable for just under a decade after release.
Systemd was considered "stable" within an year or 2. The parts where it breaks UNIX philosophy are clearly where it is NOT good to break it, with a nice bug to show for it.
About as well as you can remove the preprocessor from gcc
And with respect to preprocessor , no one calls gcc non-monolithic.
In the case of journald you can operate it in non-persistent mode, so that it doesn't actually write any logs to disk.
But not giving direct access to syslog, only forwarding to syslog. So with respect to log system - it is monolithic. Say an operating system where you could have vi (or other editor) but only after emacs forwards editing commands to vi. That operating system would be called monolithic with respect to text editors.
Kde is modular, but good luck deleting kdelibs.
KDE is modular in many respects, but not with respect to not needing kdelibs. It is modular in being able to replace window manager, network-manager. At code level it might be modular in replacing some libraries, UI widgets, I am not too sure.
Systemd is NOT modular where it matters. If journald could be completely replaced with syslogd, without the forwarding business, it could have been called modular with respect to log system. Why should one lose the ability to view non-corrupted text logs from bootloader just to get an init replacement?
Ok, give me journalctl without init replacement.
And supporting the 3rd party distributions like Ubuntu has been Debian's primary mission for about 17 years.
You have repeated this lie multiple times now. But it remains a lie.
whatever Red Hat wants to push WILL be in Debian, like it or suck it users!
Note WILL, in capital letters. Typically used to denote future tense.
So desktop Linux has only ever existed at the whim of Red Hat?
Emphasis mine, on "has" and "existed". Typically used for past tense.
Take a reading comprehension class first.
KDE accessibility project is much much less advanced than Gnome's. Companies like to have default software usable by disabled people - for both ethical and legal reasons. Distributions like to have their default configurations usable by more companies.
Yes, these arguments are valid in most places.
Comcast story need not be true because Apple+Google story exists. About laws, i also said "in their primary areas of business" which you completely ignored. And actions of China and Syria will cost them. I don't see a difference.
Companies can displease the majority of voter base and yet thrive. Governments in most countries can't.
I never said about digging coal out of the ground. Try again.
Worrying about carbon will not be necessary, contrary to your statement. BTW the plant to make*C* from co2 that i mentioned, could generate the energy dense fuel currently petroleum products give us, but that is not necessary for your earlier statement to be wrong.
Going by the story, two levels of management were involved. Company can feel free to fire those. In fact, company should be able to counter sue those managers for the loss because illegal activity should be demonstrably unsupported by company if only a manager , like you insist, or 2 like what happened according to the story, are involved.
So what? There are three things to observe.
None of which take away from the game being essentially Calvin - ball. Where do I sign up for following rules I make?
You assume a condition that isn't true.
Followed by "probably". And a wishing away of my point about Google and Apple. Google and Apple's rivalry didn't help the potential job hopping employees.
There are real world counter examples of all your points too, like I already mentioned. Companies having to follow only their own laws in their primary area of business, colluding, non- poaching agreements. But you refuse to see them because it goes against your brainwashing.
What was called magic earlier has happened later. Many times.
There is nothing fundamentally infeasible about it either - flying of metal boxes was considered fundamentally infeasible yet it happened.
With that in mind, yes, when magic happens like earlier.
Why was the penalty for wrongly firing your coworker so high? Did it take her a year to find a new job?
Probably in the hope that it would avoid another wrong firing of another coworker? If that coworker found another job in 2.261 seconds for which the salary comes to 9.745 dollars, that wrong firing manager might consider it a reasonable cost to make people "respect" her.
Yes, businesses can be less powerful than governments. But your arguments for it are faulty.
They have to follow laws
Laws which they helped write.
you can always leave an abusive employer
Unless they blacklist you. If Comcast can ask an employer to fire an employee, it can also ask them to not hire him. Or like Apple and Google "agreed" to not poach each other's employees. Or was it Microsoft? I keep losing track of which company did which illegal thing.
Now, essentially same arguments can be made for governments :
1. Governments have to follow constitutions.
2. You can always vote out an abusive government.
From third party derived distributions point of view - Ubuntu, Knoppix etc., Debian is not meta. From Debian owned branches like educational, media etc., it is.
And third party derived distributions have never been more important than Debian (including sub-projects, of course) itself.
For one thing there is no point at which converting to CO2 neutral technologies stops being necessary.
It does. When reverse conversion to *C* and O2 becomes cheap, scalable and easy.
I asked 2 questions. Do you mean to ask me if I believe the questions? I don't see how believing questions works.
Of good sense. So how can anti-abortion people be not anti-systemd?
Exactly. You hit the nail on its head.
Looking for system logs of PAST events, and expecting them to be not corrupted? Can someone be less forward looking than that? Talk about obsession with the past. Forward looking guys need no logs of the past. Next feature in systemd is a log file from future.