The existance of the GR and how quickly it collected seconds puts the lie to your claim that systemd has 'overwhelming' support.
As for being a big blob, no, it isn't a monolithic binary, rather it is a hairball of dependencies welded on to a bit that can't be moved from PID 1 (even when containerized in a sandbox like docker).
The GR is all about not letting the hairball expand for any reason. No more making unrelated things like the window manager depend on systemd.That way, when a superior init comes along it will still be practical to drop it in.
I don't see why we can't get a better functioning OS that adheres to the Unix way. Step one is to not let systemd get itself wedged in place through dependencies. If that happens, there can be no progress. I see nothing in systemd that can't be done as well or better while respecting Unix. As for the inevitable "what are you waiting for", the answer is for the cgroups kernel API to stabilize (there are changes in the works) and to make sure it wouldn't be frozen out by a wedged in systemd.
The funny part is that systemd has nothing to do with making a good desktop system with things papered over. Once the whole cgroups kernel interface will be stabilized, I would expect any number of improvements on the SysV init to take place.
Start with the parallel init already available in Wheezy and add a simple daemon manager called in the init scripts to stick a system daemon in a cgroup and manage it and you have every advantage systemd offered and none of the drawbacks.
If desired, that manager could support the "I'm ready" callback through a passed FD (a pipe endpoint). For non-Linux systems, the wrapper can support the callback and skip cgroups.
My big concern over systemd hasn't been that SysV would go away, but that a mediocre at best replacement would wedge itself in through crazy dependencies and prevent the better solution from even starting.
Lol.. Just because it is not does not mean it cannot be. But do you really want to end up like these hellholes? [wikipedia.org] I mean seriously, it's like you fell in love with the word socialism and have no clue about how horrid it is in practice.
You're the one who said the regulation was legitimately about preserving power capacity. Either it can be handled through competition with adequate regulation to assure the power is up to specs and isn't sold at a loss to kill competition or it cannot be and we should admit that there isn't a market solution in that situation.
The thing with wind power is that once the start-up costs are sunk, there are very few cases where it makes sense to cease operations.
So either they cannot let market forces do what they do and we need to admit that the market isn't going to work there or we need to boot out the corrupt regulators who are distorting the market to benefit their cronies. It is notable that Texas (being Texas) has also not connected to either the Eastern or the Western grid.
Many highly successful countries with high standards of living selectively socialize where it makes the most sense.
The point you are missing WRT to value pricing is that where there is adequate competition there can BE no value pricing. Competition will force the price to approach the marginal cost of production. There especially cannot be a case where features are built in to all models in the line and disabled for the 'value' models. Market forces should force the price down to the price of the cheapest model and then force all features to be enabled at that price (since clearly they CAN afford to do so profitably). A market that doesn't do that in short order is an unhealthy market.
If you're going to dig back top find blame, look to the hospital, the nursing school, and the general culture of American medicine for teaching her to defer to a doctor's expertise.
On second thought, the CDC itself seems to find it concerning. That's why they initially said to the news that she shouldn't have flown and they are now interviewing the other passengers.
Actually, it SHOULD define terrible quite explicitly so you can judge if you would ever meet the criteria. It is already done to some extent. If you are terrible enough it becomes criminal.
At some point terrible crosses the line to fraud and costs a lot of people a lot of money for crappy service or no service at all. Do you suggest we let every would be fly-by-nighter have at it?
Still not a problem with the Constitution. It is an update with new events. That is all. Let's see if they start taking things seriously now. But the nurse should NOT have been traveling while self-monitoring for a deadly disease.
It does support my point about the actual quality of healthcare in the U.S. They treat ONE patient and manage to create two more in the process. They're doing better than that in the 3rd world.
So if it can't be capitalism and have reliable power, perhaps it's time to admit it and socialize power production.
Of course, if they have assured power production now, then more players bringing more capacity isn't going to reduce the reliability, now is it?
A recurring theme I see is market after market that somehow fails to be healthy. If you see 'value pricing', then the market is unhealthy, for example. It's hard to find a healthy market anywhere.
You want to build a MEGAWATT thermopile? Do you have any idea what the efficiency of a thermopile is? Answer: Not very. You would never even generate enough power to keep the reactor running (assuming it operates as claimed), much less have something to put into the grid.
You clearly have NO idea what is involved in an efficient steam turbine. Simple goes out the window due to the temperatures involved and the speed the turbine runs at. Then you have to deal with the cooling side.
Either way, you will NOT be able to just plug the output into the wall unless you wish to start a (very short) new career as an arsonist.
All of that is leaving out the contract negotiations, safety inspections, etc etc. The local utility isn't going to let you feed a MEGAWATT into the grid from a residential or small commercial hookup. The reason? They hate it when wires melt and transformers explode. That and workmen touching unexpectedly energized lines isn't nearly as funny in real life as it is in cartoons.
Surely if the permit process kept me out of the market you wouldn't be there either (and so no wind power since the coal burners aren't going to do it). But if there is an A, there can be a B, C, and D as well. Sure if the permit process went away there might be hundreds more but there shouldn't be zero competition unless there is corruption in the permit process. That may well be, it's all too believable, but that's not regulation.
Lower taxes can help an economy too. So force the polluter to clean up and then lower taxes since demand for healthcare will go down. The great thing about that is that the healthcare was costing the public more than the polluter was benefiting (a frequent condition where costs are externalized), so the net result for the people is more money in their pockets.
Note that if the people have more money, power gets relatively cheaper. So now you have a healthier population with more money and cheaper power. The only loser in the deal is the people who were killing people to boost profits. Surely you will agree that is as it should be.
The thing is, market capitalism is supposed to drive the price down to the marginal cost of production. You claim it won't happen here, so you necessarily claim market capitalism won't work here.
What regulation keeps another wind farm from coming along and undercutting you forcing you to undercut them in return?
Except the NSA guy will never testify, ever. If you drag him to the stand he'll claim to be the janitor. They will never admit to obtaining the data because the next question is "how?" (and it does matter because it goes to the certainty of the accuser). He can't answer "how?" without admitting to a big pile of things the U.S. government has claimed don't exist.
In short, No Such Agency would rather let Ulbricht walk than testify. Further, given recent history of perjury before Congress they aren't the most credible witness.
Since the state is the people living in the state, they are exactly equivalent. Either way, the polluter is harming the state for it's own profit and should be stopped or at least forced to pay for the real externalized costs.
Of course, they could go full on socialist and nationalize the polluter in order to make the needed changes.
The monopolies in power are in connection to "the last mile" and the grid itself. Generators generally compete.
If joe blow charges $50 and i make the same product for $10, i'm still charging $49 or $50 dollars because there is _no _real _competition. You just pay more and i profit more.
If the problem is that the two can't be distinguished by the end consumer and so there can be no competition, then capitalism has indeed failed in that market and cannot succeed. Your argument sounds thoroughly socialist.
Slashdot Mirror
The existance of the GR and how quickly it collected seconds puts the lie to your claim that systemd has 'overwhelming' support.
As for being a big blob, no, it isn't a monolithic binary, rather it is a hairball of dependencies welded on to a bit that can't be moved from PID 1 (even when containerized in a sandbox like docker).
The GR is all about not letting the hairball expand for any reason. No more making unrelated things like the window manager depend on systemd.That way, when a superior init comes along it will still be practical to drop it in.
I don't see why we can't get a better functioning OS that adheres to the Unix way. Step one is to not let systemd get itself wedged in place through dependencies. If that happens, there can be no progress. I see nothing in systemd that can't be done as well or better while respecting Unix. As for the inevitable "what are you waiting for", the answer is for the cgroups kernel API to stabilize (there are changes in the works) and to make sure it wouldn't be frozen out by a wedged in systemd.
I don't think there would be too many such cases, most of the init scripts are primarily boilerplate.
The funny part is that systemd has nothing to do with making a good desktop system with things papered over. Once the whole cgroups kernel interface will be stabilized, I would expect any number of improvements on the SysV init to take place.
Start with the parallel init already available in Wheezy and add a simple daemon manager called in the init scripts to stick a system daemon in a cgroup and manage it and you have every advantage systemd offered and none of the drawbacks.
If desired, that manager could support the "I'm ready" callback through a passed FD (a pipe endpoint). For non-Linux systems, the wrapper can support the callback and skip cgroups.
My big concern over systemd hasn't been that SysV would go away, but that a mediocre at best replacement would wedge itself in through crazy dependencies and prevent the better solution from even starting.
Lol.. Just because it is not does not mean it cannot be. But do you really want to end up like these hellholes? [wikipedia.org] I mean seriously, it's like you fell in love with the word socialism and have no clue about how horrid it is in practice.
You're the one who said the regulation was legitimately about preserving power capacity. Either it can be handled through competition with adequate regulation to assure the power is up to specs and isn't sold at a loss to kill competition or it cannot be and we should admit that there isn't a market solution in that situation.
The thing with wind power is that once the start-up costs are sunk, there are very few cases where it makes sense to cease operations.
So either they cannot let market forces do what they do and we need to admit that the market isn't going to work there or we need to boot out the corrupt regulators who are distorting the market to benefit their cronies. It is notable that Texas (being Texas) has also not connected to either the Eastern or the Western grid.
Many highly successful countries with high standards of living selectively socialize where it makes the most sense.
The point you are missing WRT to value pricing is that where there is adequate competition there can BE no value pricing. Competition will force the price to approach the marginal cost of production. There especially cannot be a case where features are built in to all models in the line and disabled for the 'value' models. Market forces should force the price down to the price of the cheapest model and then force all features to be enabled at that price (since clearly they CAN afford to do so profitably). A market that doesn't do that in short order is an unhealthy market.
If you're going to dig back top find blame, look to the hospital, the nursing school, and the general culture of American medicine for teaching her to defer to a doctor's expertise.
On second thought, the CDC itself seems to find it concerning. That's why they initially said to the news that she shouldn't have flown and they are now interviewing the other passengers.
If we had a vaccine, that might be a good idea, but there isn't one.
Silly rabbit! Only the rich get compensated by the government when they are inconvenienced. If you actually need the compensation, you're screwed.
Some people are quite happy to have the Mob take over the neighborhood. The government needs to stop picking on the Wise Guys.
Actually, it SHOULD define terrible quite explicitly so you can judge if you would ever meet the criteria. It is already done to some extent. If you are terrible enough it becomes criminal.
At some point terrible crosses the line to fraud and costs a lot of people a lot of money for crappy service or no service at all. Do you suggest we let every would be fly-by-nighter have at it?
The market would open up for less terrible companies to move in?
Still not a problem with the Constitution. It is an update with new events. That is all. Let's see if they start taking things seriously now. But the nurse should NOT have been traveling while self-monitoring for a deadly disease.
It does support my point about the actual quality of healthcare in the U.S. They treat ONE patient and manage to create two more in the process. They're doing better than that in the 3rd world.
We at acmecorp treat all of our humani-bots equally (shitty).
So if it can't be capitalism and have reliable power, perhaps it's time to admit it and socialize power production.
Of course, if they have assured power production now, then more players bringing more capacity isn't going to reduce the reliability, now is it?
A recurring theme I see is market after market that somehow fails to be healthy. If you see 'value pricing', then the market is unhealthy, for example. It's hard to find a healthy market anywhere.
You want to build a MEGAWATT thermopile? Do you have any idea what the efficiency of a thermopile is? Answer: Not very. You would never even generate enough power to keep the reactor running (assuming it operates as claimed), much less have something to put into the grid.
You clearly have NO idea what is involved in an efficient steam turbine. Simple goes out the window due to the temperatures involved and the speed the turbine runs at. Then you have to deal with the cooling side.
Either way, you will NOT be able to just plug the output into the wall unless you wish to start a (very short) new career as an arsonist.
All of that is leaving out the contract negotiations, safety inspections, etc etc. The local utility isn't going to let you feed a MEGAWATT into the grid from a residential or small commercial hookup. The reason? They hate it when wires melt and transformers explode. That and workmen touching unexpectedly energized lines isn't nearly as funny in real life as it is in cartoons.
Surely if the permit process kept me out of the market you wouldn't be there either (and so no wind power since the coal burners aren't going to do it). But if there is an A, there can be a B, C, and D as well. Sure if the permit process went away there might be hundreds more but there shouldn't be zero competition unless there is corruption in the permit process. That may well be, it's all too believable, but that's not regulation.
Lower taxes can help an economy too. So force the polluter to clean up and then lower taxes since demand for healthcare will go down. The great thing about that is that the healthcare was costing the public more than the polluter was benefiting (a frequent condition where costs are externalized), so the net result for the people is more money in their pockets.
Note that if the people have more money, power gets relatively cheaper. So now you have a healthier population with more money and cheaper power. The only loser in the deal is the people who were killing people to boost profits. Surely you will agree that is as it should be.
Why does the lower price benefit the state?
I know no corporation runs at a loss and I don't see where anything I said would suggest otherwise.
The thing is, market capitalism is supposed to drive the price down to the marginal cost of production. You claim it won't happen here, so you necessarily claim market capitalism won't work here.
What regulation keeps another wind farm from coming along and undercutting you forcing you to undercut them in return?
Except the NSA guy will never testify, ever. If you drag him to the stand he'll claim to be the janitor. They will never admit to obtaining the data because the next question is "how?" (and it does matter because it goes to the certainty of the accuser). He can't answer "how?" without admitting to a big pile of things the U.S. government has claimed don't exist.
In short, No Such Agency would rather let Ulbricht walk than testify. Further, given recent history of perjury before Congress they aren't the most credible witness.
I agree that they should have named and shamed.
Since the state is the people living in the state, they are exactly equivalent. Either way, the polluter is harming the state for it's own profit and should be stopped or at least forced to pay for the real externalized costs.
Of course, they could go full on socialist and nationalize the polluter in order to make the needed changes.
The monopolies in power are in connection to "the last mile" and the grid itself. Generators generally compete.
If joe blow charges $50 and i make the same product for $10, i'm still charging $49 or $50 dollars because there is _no _real _competition. You just pay more and i profit more.
If the problem is that the two can't be distinguished by the end consumer and so there can be no competition, then capitalism has indeed failed in that market and cannot succeed. Your argument sounds thoroughly socialist.
If you're that into making the victim the bad guy, fine but don't pretend it's anything other than "the bitch was asking for it"