Let me guess, when you first found out that MySQL database files are binary, you freaked out and moved your data to CSV format. Later that day you moved your Mediawiki installation to Dokuwiki. On the more serious note, did you know that you can still log stuff in plaintext with systemd?
They did not observe "negative mass". They created a system wherein, under specific circumstances, part of the system behaved as if it mathematically had negative mass.
Sounds about right. Why should Mozilla fix memory issues of other applications. If extension developer writes leaky code, what should FF do? Balcklist or restart extension somehow? And if you have 12 tabs of “web applications” like twitter, should FF reload page?
I'm not saying Firefox is without flaws or anything, but it is a sort of operating system on it's own. Keeping that in mind, we can paraphrase Maxo-Texas statement like this:
Right now I have 12 applications open and they're using 923 mb of memory and 2.7% of cpu (on an i7).
This is hardly scandalous. Without knowing details, just pointing out MBs and tab count is useless
Why are you taking this simpering symcophanitic line that is wildly divergent from reality?
It seems that we are in a misunderstanding. I am not trying to suck up to you. I have no idea who you are and I'm sure this relation is mutual. And I'm pretty sure Lennart isn't reading any of this either.
The guy is no genius and hasn't even been coding for as long as this site has been up.
I never said he is genius or that he is any good at what he does. But apparently he does not share the same vision as you or the loudest/. community members. Please note that having “vision” is not a sign of any kind intellect either.
Seriously, read his blog.
I did read his blog when systemd was the new kid in town. But I don't see how it has to do with my speculations about how people here on/. perceive systemd.
He's trying a very different approach to the earlier init systems and it shows
Indeed it is true. Lennert sees chaos and systemd as a cure. You might see a beautiful diversity and modularity, which the systemd stomps on with the one true way. And both of these views have merit, and both have tradeoffs. Take Linux kernel. It is a monolith and you can't easily swap one subsystem for another and be sure that next version won't brake it. It sucks for some, but the community thinks it is better for Linux. I don't know which is the right call here.
An init system should not be, especially one developed with an aim to run some parts in parallel (obviously not all since it still hangs in some situations where the earlier init (correclty) gave up, reported an error and let the next task run).
At least in theory systemd should kill hung process (of course, if it was crucial for system, then boot will fail). The parallelism is not like “all processes at once”, but dependency based. If you call process P that requires Q and R, systemd will start Q and R in parallel (if they are not dependent among themselves). If the configuration is faulty and Q and R are interdependent, then bug is in the configuration. This can happen in classical init, where by wrong configuration startup sequences will fail (like starting DHCP client before networking).
He knows MS Windows and his development environment as distinct from a *nix production environment.
Not sure about this one. IIRC systemd was inspired by launchd on MacOS. In any case, I don't believe that all *nix idioms are always the right solution. They do hold up pretty well, but when a new solution is proposed that breaks *nix conventions, it's not automatically bad just because it's not *nix way.
Nobody else was paying for as many developers so all the other distros are repackaging RedHat's work.
I agree that RedHat investment helped to develop systemd and that RedHat can force systemd on RHEL and Fedora, leaving it's forks with little choice. But I don't believe that Debian, or Arch or openSUSE adopted it just because Red Hat did. If it was the case, rpm based package management would be on all Linux distributions.
There's still a design of binary logging, and not much of it, with a race condition that would earn a fail in a school project. There's been a stupid move to disable background tasks when a user logs off.
Let me guess, you have read countless discussions on slashdot and elsewhere about how binary logging is awful, then someone points out that plain-text logging is still there live and well. But the only thing you remember from the conversation is “binary logging”.
As for killing user background processes, it's a change of default option. You can change this default with compile flag or in/etc/systemd/logind.conf. In other words, it's up to the distributions to do what they feel is right (and for example, Fedora 25 does not kill by default), and if admin feels that distribution made the wrong choice, they can change one flag. I guess that after a month the only thing you will remember about background processes is that systemd kills them.
As for race conditions, I just don't know. Software as such is prone to such bugs, especially ones written in C, but given that your other examples of shortcomings of systemd where not that accurate, I'm not sure even this is not just some urban legend.
Gnome is the desktop that RedHat is paying developers to work on so it effectively IS the desktop environment equivalent of systemd (it's just far better administered so there are far less complaints than there are about systemd).
I mean that systemd essentially took linux distribution world by storm, and not because RH was behind it. Init system had flaws and while other init systems did try to fix those problems, systemd swept away both the competition and the SystemV because distribution maintainers preferred it. We might argue about what makes software objectively good, but as far as adoption is concerned, if there will pop up a desktop environment that will be far superior than GNOME, it will be adopted and GNOME will be pushed sideways. RedHat is not known for NIH mentality and I'm sure they will drop systemd and GNOME if something better comes along.
Thanks for the article. However, Daily Mail is not that good with statistics. In this case the “216,000” or 4,5% who where “sexually victimized” [0], but the 90,479 were rape cases. To be precise, sexual victimization includes rape, but also groping[1].
Methodology is also different. The prison stats were obtained by surveys, but general population stats are registered cases with police. Since rape is notoriously under-reported this number does not represent count of actual rapes.
The whole "rape culture" propaganda points a finger at men in general, ignoring that many men are also victims. For some reason it's politically correct to say that the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists, but at the same time "men" in general are guilty for the alleged rape culture, even though the rapists are a tiny proportion of the male population.
Even though men are also victims, the perpetrators are still mostly men. Can women rape men or other women? Yes, but men do it more. Perhaps I am reading different media, but the feminist propaganda I get is about cultural norms that make rape acceptable (when a guy rapes a girl, she must have behaved slutty and deserved it; if a girl rapes a guy, it just funny). If you listen carefully, feminists usually blame “patriarchy”, which, believe it or not, does not mean “all men”. There are women who prop up this culture and there men who fight it. We can discuss it in detail, if you want to.
On a personal note, I believe tackling rape in prisons is as important as tackling rape in general population. However, methods might be different, since the environments are so very different. Anyway, what are we arguing about?
[0]I used a bit newer material form BJS
[1]Sexual victimization -- all types of sexual activity, e.g., oral, anal, or vaginal penetration; hand jobs; touching of the inmate’s buttocks, thighs, penis, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way; abusive sexual contacts; and both willing and unwilling sexual activity with staff.
If something better comes along (like, systemd for desktop environments), then yes, GNOME might get pushed sideways, however, GNOME is already the default on Feodra, Debian and SuSE. Add Ubuntu to that and only Mint and Arch Linux are left. Are there any reasonably good recent statistics on install base on desktops for these distributions. Mint an Arch are getting a lot of noise in/. comments, but are they actually widely used?
If you feel that age discrimination laws are outdated, get organized, find others that feel the same way and get lawmakers to update the outdated law. If your political activism is limited to “how dare they work on solving problem X, while they ignore solving problem Y”, it might look like you are fine with problem X and just using Y as an excuse.
If the goal is terror, then killing everyone in the basement isn't necessary.
I dunno. If I lived in a war zone and only safe place to sleep was basement and that is no longer safe, then that would increase my level of fear. In any case, I have not lived in a war zone, nor do I understand the reasoning behind such government terror. I am pointing out that false flag is not the only reasonable explanation.
And the chance of getting a bomb dropped on your head at any time is any better?
Conventional bombs kills that which is above the ground, gas kills those below or at ground level.
Since sarin is heavier than air, it is good at attacking basements, which tend to survive conventional bombing. Yes, you could use bunker busters, but those are expensive. And don't forget the effectiveness of terror itself. Colourless, odourless silent killer? That helps to sleep tight at night.
This is a good principle to get a list of suspects, not enough to find the guilty party.
For his opposition it was a field day.
If you suggest the opposition (whomever those are) did it, then it is a risky move — what if they get caught? That would be a disaster for their PR. Now, since we have Cui bono? principle, perhaps the Assad really did it, thinking that it is so absurd to think that he you gas his own people, that the rebels would be blamed.
absolutely nothing to win by using chemical weapons
How so? It is effective at killing people and since no one seemed to care enough about hundred thousand killed so far, why not?
Right. But since when was "we could not get approval to do it our way" a valid reason to do away with international law?
The law itself looks more or less fine, but it is difficult to take it seriously, since the arbiter is not independent.
Mind you, this is not to say that under certain circumstances, it isn't permissible to say "fuck it", and just do what you have to do. But to me, it would not seem that all possible options had been exhausted before the use of deadly force.
I understand that neither of us is international policy expert, but given the situation as it is, what other options are there?
But there is a reason that military action normally requires international agreement. Say, a UN resolution, or something.
Yeah, sure. Now if we could just convince Russia (permanent member of UN security council with veto rights) to allow military action against its allay.
“False flag” does not answer “then who”, but more importantly, what war crime can't be written off as a false flag operation? If an army bombs a hospital either by mistake or as a tool of terror, just label it as “false flag”. It would be stupid to do it, so someone else did it. Who exactly? I dunno, must be the enemy.
Using gas to poison your own population makes twisted sort of sense — use terror to subjugate people. The more horrific the crime, the more effective it is. I personally don't believe it is true, but this line of thinking is rather widespread. Using such terror tactics is risky because of repercussions from the “international community”, but a week ago Syria had direct support from Iran and Russia, diplomatic support from China. From the west, Assad was already isolated and no one was interested in “Starting WW3”, especially since Trump had taken the “Stay out of Syria” line. If there ever was a time to use chemical weapons, this was it.
When you say According to [...] statistics, it is only polite to include sources. Link to a free paper would be awesome, just name of the paper would suffice.
Let me ask then, how many Catholic converts where there in IRA? And how about David Russell, who was a protestant member of IRA?
More importantly, you have not addressed my main point, which is that while statistically Catholics are targeting Protestants, viewing the conflict as religious is misguided, since at the root of it are national grievances. Protestants were not killed because they didn't believe in transubstantiation. They were killed because they were [at least perceived to be] loyalists that supported occupying government which was viewed as repressive.
Posting as AC because I did mod you down and unashamed of it.
Do you really think that I was trolling? As in, trying to upset people by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages? I'm not denying the suffering of those involved, or making fun of them. You might mod me down as “overrated” if you believe that I am wrong, but most posts in/. are misguided. Since my post by default was hidden anyway, there was no need to mod down anyhow.
Yeah, it's totally a coincidence that the IRA were all Catholics. Nothing to do with religion whatsoever...
And how many Englishmen where there in the IRA? When you have conflicts all the differences will be drawn in, be those ethnic, religious, language, colour, whatever else you can find. You might argue that maybe it wasn't a religious conflict to begin with, but now it is. However, if we look at the Good Friday agreement, it is a political one. Religion is only mentioned in so far as “lets respect each other, ok?”. Paining the IRA as a religious terrorist organization gives a false understanding on how to resolve the conflict. Yes, the fact that they were Catholics can help to mediate peace (look up work of Alec Reid), but the solution is not to convert the Queen to Catholicism.
I'm not suggesting artificially raising the barrier, but if the people contributing don't understand type-safety, pointer-safety, etc. then does stripping all that out so they can contribute actually make better code?
Why would you assume that good pointer/type safety skills makes a “better programmer” in a situation where type/pointer safety is a non-issue? I don't see how a SQL script writer would benefit from understanding pointer arithmetic or tracking of resources.
As for argument that this is an artificial barrier that would discourage “bad programmers” from even trying, a) rust has quite a steep learning curve and b) if need for understanding type safety was any deterrent, JavaScript would not be popular by any metric. It seems that enforced type safety is hostile to novices.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me guess, when you first found out that MySQL database files are binary, you freaked out and moved your data to CSV format. Later that day you moved your Mediawiki installation to Dokuwiki. On the more serious note, did you know that you can still log stuff in plaintext with systemd?
They did not observe "negative mass". They created a system wherein, under specific circumstances, part of the system behaved as if it mathematically had negative mass.
Man, you are gonna be angry when you find out about negative temperature.
"disable extensions" or "You're wrong"
Sounds about right. Why should Mozilla fix memory issues of other applications. If extension developer writes leaky code, what should FF do? Balcklist or restart extension somehow? And if you have 12 tabs of “web applications” like twitter, should FF reload page?
I'm not saying Firefox is without flaws or anything, but it is a sort of operating system on it's own. Keeping that in mind, we can paraphrase Maxo-Texas statement like this:
This is hardly scandalous. Without knowing details, just pointing out MBs and tab count is useless
Firefox is the single biggest memory hog on my machine
And what else is running? XFCE with bunch of terminals running vi and ssh?
Why are you taking this simpering symcophanitic line that is wildly divergent from reality?
It seems that we are in a misunderstanding. I am not trying to suck up to you. I have no idea who you are and I'm sure this relation is mutual. And I'm pretty sure Lennart isn't reading any of this either.
The guy is no genius and hasn't even been coding for as long as this site has been up.
I never said he is genius or that he is any good at what he does. But apparently he does not share the same vision as you or the loudest /. community members. Please note that having “vision” is not a sign of any kind intellect either.
Seriously, read his blog.
I did read his blog when systemd was the new kid in town. But I don't see how it has to do with my speculations about how people here on /. perceive systemd.
He's trying a very different approach to the earlier init systems and it shows
Indeed it is true. Lennert sees chaos and systemd as a cure. You might see a beautiful diversity and modularity, which the systemd stomps on with the one true way. And both of these views have merit, and both have tradeoffs. Take Linux kernel. It is a monolith and you can't easily swap one subsystem for another and be sure that next version won't brake it. It sucks for some, but the community thinks it is better for Linux. I don't know which is the right call here.
An init system should not be, especially one developed with an aim to run some parts in parallel (obviously not all since it still hangs in some situations where the earlier init (correclty) gave up, reported an error and let the next task run).
At least in theory systemd should kill hung process (of course, if it was crucial for system, then boot will fail). The parallelism is not like “all processes at once”, but dependency based. If you call process P that requires Q and R, systemd will start Q and R in parallel (if they are not dependent among themselves). If the configuration is faulty and Q and R are interdependent, then bug is in the configuration. This can happen in classical init, where by wrong configuration startup sequences will fail (like starting DHCP client before networking).
He knows MS Windows and his development environment as distinct from a *nix production environment.
Not sure about this one. IIRC systemd was inspired by launchd on MacOS. In any case, I don't believe that all *nix idioms are always the right solution. They do hold up pretty well, but when a new solution is proposed that breaks *nix conventions, it's not automatically bad just because it's not *nix way.
Nobody else was paying for as many developers so all the other distros are repackaging RedHat's work.
I agree that RedHat investment helped to develop systemd and that RedHat can force systemd on RHEL and Fedora, leaving it's forks with little choice. But I don't believe that Debian, or Arch or openSUSE adopted it just because Red Hat did. If it was the case, rpm based package management would be on all Linux distributions.
There's still a design of binary logging, and not much of it, with a race condition that would earn a fail in a school project. There's been a stupid move to disable background tasks when a user logs off.
Let me guess, you have read countless discussions on slashdot and elsewhere about how binary logging is awful, then someone points out that plain-text logging is still there live and well. But the only thing you remember from the conversation is “binary logging”.
As for killing user background processes, it's a change of default option. You can change this default with compile flag or in /etc/systemd/logind.conf. In other words, it's up to the distributions to do what they feel is right (and for example, Fedora 25 does not kill by default), and if admin feels that distribution made the wrong choice, they can change one flag. I guess that after a month the only thing you will remember about background processes is that systemd kills them.
As for race conditions, I just don't know. Software as such is prone to such bugs, especially ones written in C, but given that your other examples of shortcomings of systemd where not that accurate, I'm not sure even this is not just some urban legend.
Ubuntu and all the others are just falling in line behind the Red Hat mafia.
Here is another example of “Hate on whatever's mainstream”, in this case, Red Hat. Why the hate?
Gnome is the desktop that RedHat is paying developers to work on so it effectively IS the desktop environment equivalent of systemd (it's just far better administered so there are far less complaints than there are about systemd).
I mean that systemd essentially took linux distribution world by storm, and not because RH was behind it. Init system had flaws and while other init systems did try to fix those problems, systemd swept away both the competition and the SystemV because distribution maintainers preferred it. We might argue about what makes software objectively good, but as far as adoption is concerned, if there will pop up a desktop environment that will be far superior than GNOME, it will be adopted and GNOME will be pushed sideways. RedHat is not known for NIH mentality and I'm sure they will drop systemd and GNOME if something better comes along.
Thanks for the article. However, Daily Mail is not that good with statistics. In this case the “216,000” or 4,5% who where “sexually victimized” [0], but the 90,479 were rape cases. To be precise, sexual victimization includes rape, but also groping[1].
Methodology is also different. The prison stats were obtained by surveys, but general population stats are registered cases with police. Since rape is notoriously under-reported this number does not represent count of actual rapes.
The whole "rape culture" propaganda points a finger at men in general, ignoring that many men are also victims. For some reason it's politically correct to say that the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists, but at the same time "men" in general are guilty for the alleged rape culture, even though the rapists are a tiny proportion of the male population.
Even though men are also victims, the perpetrators are still mostly men. Can women rape men or other women? Yes, but men do it more. Perhaps I am reading different media, but the feminist propaganda I get is about cultural norms that make rape acceptable (when a guy rapes a girl, she must have behaved slutty and deserved it; if a girl rapes a guy, it just funny). If you listen carefully, feminists usually blame “patriarchy”, which, believe it or not, does not mean “all men”. There are women who prop up this culture and there men who fight it. We can discuss it in detail, if you want to.
On a personal note, I believe tackling rape in prisons is as important as tackling rape in general population. However, methods might be different, since the environments are so very different. Anyway, what are we arguing about?
[0]I used a bit newer material form BJS
[1]Sexual victimization -- all types of sexual activity, e.g., oral, anal, or vaginal penetration; hand jobs; touching of the inmate’s buttocks, thighs, penis, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way; abusive sexual contacts; and both willing and unwilling sexual activity with staff.
If something better comes along (like, systemd for desktop environments), then yes, GNOME might get pushed sideways, however, GNOME is already the default on Feodra, Debian and SuSE. Add Ubuntu to that and only Mint and Arch Linux are left. Are there any reasonably good recent statistics on install base on desktops for these distributions. Mint an Arch are getting a lot of noise in /. comments, but are they actually widely used?
If you feel that age discrimination laws are outdated, get organized, find others that feel the same way and get lawmakers to update the outdated law. If your political activism is limited to “how dare they work on solving problem X, while they ignore solving problem Y”, it might look like you are fine with problem X and just using Y as an excuse.
If the goal is terror, then killing everyone in the basement isn't necessary.
I dunno. If I lived in a war zone and only safe place to sleep was basement and that is no longer safe, then that would increase my level of fear. In any case, I have not lived in a war zone, nor do I understand the reasoning behind such government terror. I am pointing out that false flag is not the only reasonable explanation.
And the chance of getting a bomb dropped on your head at any time is any better?
Conventional bombs kills that which is above the ground, gas kills those below or at ground level.
he'd just drop conventional bombs
Since sarin is heavier than air, it is good at attacking basements, which tend to survive conventional bombing. Yes, you could use bunker busters, but those are expensive. And don't forget the effectiveness of terror itself. Colourless, odourless silent killer? That helps to sleep tight at night.
world isn't watching or doesn't care.
Watching? Yes. Cares? Not in any practical sense.
Cui bono?
This is a good principle to get a list of suspects, not enough to find the guilty party.
For his opposition it was a field day.
If you suggest the opposition (whomever those are) did it, then it is a risky move — what if they get caught? That would be a disaster for their PR. Now, since we have Cui bono? principle, perhaps the Assad really did it, thinking that it is so absurd to think that he you gas his own people, that the rebels would be blamed.
absolutely nothing to win by using chemical weapons
How so? It is effective at killing people and since no one seemed to care enough about hundred thousand killed so far, why not?
Right. But since when was "we could not get approval to do it our way" a valid reason to do away with international law?
The law itself looks more or less fine, but it is difficult to take it seriously, since the arbiter is not independent.
Mind you, this is not to say that under certain circumstances, it isn't permissible to say "fuck it", and just do what you have to do. But to me, it would not seem that all possible options had been exhausted before the use of deadly force.
I understand that neither of us is international policy expert, but given the situation as it is, what other options are there?
But there is a reason that military action normally requires international agreement. Say, a UN resolution, or something.
Yeah, sure. Now if we could just convince Russia (permanent member of UN security council with veto rights) to allow military action against its allay.
Historically such interventions have not been cheap or ended well
Would you consider the current non-intervention as cheap or going well?
I already have listed USA as a terrorist org
This statement caught my eye. Can you name some other “terrorist countries”?
“False flag” does not answer “then who”, but more importantly, what war crime can't be written off as a false flag operation? If an army bombs a hospital either by mistake or as a tool of terror, just label it as “false flag”. It would be stupid to do it, so someone else did it. Who exactly? I dunno, must be the enemy.
Using gas to poison your own population makes twisted sort of sense — use terror to subjugate people. The more horrific the crime, the more effective it is. I personally don't believe it is true, but this line of thinking is rather widespread. Using such terror tactics is risky because of repercussions from the “international community”, but a week ago Syria had direct support from Iran and Russia, diplomatic support from China. From the west, Assad was already isolated and no one was interested in “Starting WW3”, especially since Trump had taken the “Stay out of Syria” line. If there ever was a time to use chemical weapons, this was it.
When you say According to [...] statistics, it is only polite to include sources. Link to a free paper would be awesome, just name of the paper would suffice.
every war has turncoats
Let me ask then, how many Catholic converts where there in IRA? And how about David Russell, who was a protestant member of IRA?
More importantly, you have not addressed my main point, which is that while statistically Catholics are targeting Protestants, viewing the conflict as religious is misguided, since at the root of it are national grievances. Protestants were not killed because they didn't believe in transubstantiation. They were killed because they were [at least perceived to be] loyalists that supported occupying government which was viewed as repressive.
Posting as AC because I did mod you down and unashamed of it.
Do you really think that I was trolling? As in, trying to upset people by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages? I'm not denying the suffering of those involved, or making fun of them. You might mod me down as “overrated” if you believe that I am wrong, but most posts in /. are misguided. Since my post by default was hidden anyway, there was no need to mod down anyhow.
Yeah, it's totally a coincidence that the IRA were all Catholics. Nothing to do with religion whatsoever...
And how many Englishmen where there in the IRA? When you have conflicts all the differences will be drawn in, be those ethnic, religious, language, colour, whatever else you can find. You might argue that maybe it wasn't a religious conflict to begin with, but now it is. However, if we look at the Good Friday agreement, it is a political one. Religion is only mentioned in so far as “lets respect each other, ok?”. Paining the IRA as a religious terrorist organization gives a false understanding on how to resolve the conflict. Yes, the fact that they were Catholics can help to mediate peace (look up work of Alec Reid), but the solution is not to convert the Queen to Catholicism.
look up the meaning of Sectarian Violence
Looked into wikipedia and some dictionaries, and it seems that sectarianism is a broader concept than just religious hate.
I'm not suggesting artificially raising the barrier, but if the people contributing don't understand type-safety, pointer-safety, etc. then does stripping all that out so they can contribute actually make better code?
Why would you assume that good pointer/type safety skills makes a “better programmer” in a situation where type/pointer safety is a non-issue? I don't see how a SQL script writer would benefit from understanding pointer arithmetic or tracking of resources.
As for argument that this is an artificial barrier that would discourage “bad programmers” from even trying, a) rust has quite a steep learning curve and b) if need for understanding type safety was any deterrent, JavaScript would not be popular by any metric. It seems that enforced type safety is hostile to novices.