I am a linux sysadmin, and many of the packages required for desktop use not only don't apply to me, but are pretty well useless. I would love to see a distribution where any dependency on X11 was not only stripped out - but *compiled* out. I would love to see a distribution where systemd was not getting its mitts into everything.
But it's not only that, it's tuning. I discovered that Ubuntu's default scheduler settings on a Dell R620 with 384G of RAM and a nice beefy RAID 10 array are actually the *worst* settings for this kind of system. Everything else I tried - other schedulers, tuning CFQ, etc., they all led to better write throughput. Which leads me to wonder how many processor and other cycles are wasted because sysadmins just install with the default settings and hope for the best?
There needs to be a distro where the adults are in charge. I'd even build it if I had time, and I most certainly would be willing to put some time into working on one.
I completely disagree with you. Particularly the last sentence, which, again, is coming close to an ad hominem. I didn't make that argument and I wasn't going to.
I don't upload photos that I don't want distributed widely to iCloud. I figure if I do that I'm just asking for whatever happens. And that is the way *I* look at it when it comes to my own business, so I won't listen to anyone telling me I'm wrong.
I'm done here. One can never win this kind of argument because there is never any rationality to it. It's all emotional.
Indeed. This is not zero-sum. Just because a bad actor does something reprehensible does not mean that there is not an opportunity for education on how to reduce your risk. Don't crack. And don't put yourself in a situation where it's likely you will *be* cracked.
Your last sentence is pretty close to an ad hominem. The GP post is probably a troll. So why I'm posting here is beyond me. Maybe I'm bored.
Here's the thing. It's true that in a perfect world, you should have complete control of what happens to the stuff you post, just like you should have complete control over what happens to your body.
This isn't, unfortunately a perfect world.
Protecting yourself is a virtue, not a vice. And giving advice on how to protect yourself is not necessarily "blaming the victim".
Let me put it another way: to use some analogies that have been put forth in other comments, if there is a place in town where someone gets raped every single night, maybe two or three people, and you deliberately going to that place at night, alone... do you really think it's going to do any good to just tell whomever you encounter "don't rape me?"
When it would never have happened if you'd just not gone?
Protect yourself. Don't do stupid stuff. At the end of the day, you do have *some* control over your circumstances. Don't give up that control just because someone else does something stupid too.
Sure they do. If someone wanted to know where to get more information about the referenced item and buy it, that's added value.
It's only not added value if that's not something you want to do. Just as if, if you are not interested in the stock or its performance, it adds no value for you.
The argument here is not about whether it adds value - it does. The argument is over the type of value it adds, the cost of that value, and whether the added value is worth the cost - which is considerable.
Stock exchanges make money, and trading stocks is a way for companies and investors to make (or lose, but that's not the hope) money. It's an inline ad for the stock of the company being mentioned. A very well hidden inline ad, but an ad nonetheless.
They already do this with things such as stock quotes. They put "Apple" in there, and it automatically adds the ticker symbol, the day's performance, and a link to more information.
I stopped listening while he was talking about LibreSSL. This guy is utterly ignorant of why LibreSSL was forked (because the OpenSSL maintainers were not responsive to bug reports and were actively working around memory issue detection), of who was forking it (OpenBSD, Linux has nothing at all to do with it), and what is hoped to be accomplished by the fork.
I just can't pay attention when someone is blabbing about something he has no idea about. Sigh.
I think there are some rare cases where public opinion is wrong, and this would be one of them. I also think this is a horribly passive-aggressive way of doing it. If you feel that strongly, just set in motion the process of capping them, and if it fails, well, you tried.
I keep thinking of places down south who need all the water they can get, and we're just wasting a whole reservoir full. That saddens me.
(I live in Portland, but I'm in the Tualatin Valley water district, so it doesn't affect me much.)
I've been a developer, a sysadmin, and a devops guy. And the number of developers I've had to gently (and sometimes not so gently) say "stop doing that, you're crashing the server!" is way more than I am comfortable with...
The point of devops is not to take jobs away from developers. The point of devops is to provide an interface between system administration and development. Development and system administration have always been at odds with each other - system administrators not really understanding or caring how the application works, and developers treating the systems as an infinite resource pool with no real rules or resources past "does my code run?"
The sole purpose of devops is to ensure efficient operation of the infrastructure in a way that allows for repeatable deployments and controlled versioning, and that also includes system software such as operating systems (sysadmins benefit too because they no longer have to do one off deployments of OSes).
This criticism strikes me as woefully underinformed as to what devops actually does, and I'm wondering if the author of this is a developer who is upset because devops is forcing them to actually use the software lifecycle properly rather than just doing cowboy deployments and hoping they work.
Not agreeing or disagreeing with your point, but since Mitt isn't going to be any better, according to you, why are you focusing on Obama? Agreed that he is president, but implicit in your statement is an admission that the problem is bigger than Obama.
I'm not as worried about the existence of the cameras as I am that lots of people seem to know whose they are and no one's telling. That's kind of the antithesis of government transparency. I hope someone sues under FOIA.
Now that's a useful and interesting comment. Thanks for engaging me as if I were an intelligent person, thereby allowing me to keep up the ruse in my head for a little longer.:)
I think it's completely fair to state that what I'm saying is not *likely*. I don't seriously believe elves are pulling people down, nor do I seriously believe the earth was created 6,000 years ago. I'm just not prepared to state that everything is known and it's settled. Very little, I think, is settled, and if we were to understand how things *really* worked our brains would explode. All of this kerfluffle is just us trying to make sense of what we see with our quite inadequate and puny five senses. A good start, a worthy goal, but who knows what other interesting stuff awaits. Thanks to scientists for trying to discover it, thanks to spiritualists for trying to make sense of it.:)
Sure, who's to say it doesn't pop up every single nanosecond in the exact same state it was before. I wouldn't be able to tell the difference, so I don't really care. It's still in the realm of possibility, and trying to tell me that it's not happening just tells me that you don't have enough of an imagination.:)
Well, if it's not distinguishable from gravity, that's not the realm of science. Science says that stuff will fall at a measured rate. Until scientists have figured out the mechanism of gravity empirically (which is not settled yet) it may as well be a series of elves as warped space. Doesn't really matter, as long as it's predictable.
I think that the "god of the gaps" argument only shows that people were looking for it in a place where it was not to be found. That does not mean it doesn't exist. In case I haven't been clear, I am absolutely sure that God exists. I also think that God is not entropic, and looking for it in any place where entropy rules is a fool's errand.
Slashdot Mirror
I am a linux sysadmin, and many of the packages required for desktop use not only don't apply to me, but are pretty well useless. I would love to see a distribution where any dependency on X11 was not only stripped out - but *compiled* out. I would love to see a distribution where systemd was not getting its mitts into everything.
But it's not only that, it's tuning. I discovered that Ubuntu's default scheduler settings on a Dell R620 with 384G of RAM and a nice beefy RAID 10 array are actually the *worst* settings for this kind of system. Everything else I tried - other schedulers, tuning CFQ, etc., they all led to better write throughput. Which leads me to wonder how many processor and other cycles are wasted because sysadmins just install with the default settings and hope for the best?
There needs to be a distro where the adults are in charge. I'd even build it if I had time, and I most certainly would be willing to put some time into working on one.
I completely disagree with you. Particularly the last sentence, which, again, is coming close to an ad hominem. I didn't make that argument and I wasn't going to.
I don't upload photos that I don't want distributed widely to iCloud. I figure if I do that I'm just asking for whatever happens. And that is the way *I* look at it when it comes to my own business, so I won't listen to anyone telling me I'm wrong.
I'm done here. One can never win this kind of argument because there is never any rationality to it. It's all emotional.
Indeed. This is not zero-sum. Just because a bad actor does something reprehensible does not mean that there is not an opportunity for education on how to reduce your risk. Don't crack. And don't put yourself in a situation where it's likely you will *be* cracked.
Your last sentence is pretty close to an ad hominem. The GP post is probably a troll. So why I'm posting here is beyond me. Maybe I'm bored.
Here's the thing. It's true that in a perfect world, you should have complete control of what happens to the stuff you post, just like you should have complete control over what happens to your body.
This isn't, unfortunately a perfect world.
Protecting yourself is a virtue, not a vice. And giving advice on how to protect yourself is not necessarily "blaming the victim".
Let me put it another way: to use some analogies that have been put forth in other comments, if there is a place in town where someone gets raped every single night, maybe two or three people, and you deliberately going to that place at night, alone... do you really think it's going to do any good to just tell whomever you encounter "don't rape me?"
When it would never have happened if you'd just not gone?
Protect yourself. Don't do stupid stuff. At the end of the day, you do have *some* control over your circumstances. Don't give up that control just because someone else does something stupid too.
Sure they do. If someone wanted to know where to get more information about the referenced item and buy it, that's added value.
It's only not added value if that's not something you want to do. Just as if, if you are not interested in the stock or its performance, it adds no value for you.
The argument here is not about whether it adds value - it does. The argument is over the type of value it adds, the cost of that value, and whether the added value is worth the cost - which is considerable.
Stock exchanges make money, and trading stocks is a way for companies and investors to make (or lose, but that's not the hope) money. It's an inline ad for the stock of the company being mentioned. A very well hidden inline ad, but an ad nonetheless.
They already do this with things such as stock quotes. They put "Apple" in there, and it automatically adds the ticker symbol, the day's performance, and a link to more information.
I don't see how this is any different.
I stopped listening while he was talking about LibreSSL. This guy is utterly ignorant of why LibreSSL was forked (because the OpenSSL maintainers were not responsive to bug reports and were actively working around memory issue detection), of who was forking it (OpenBSD, Linux has nothing at all to do with it), and what is hoped to be accomplished by the fork.
I just can't pay attention when someone is blabbing about something he has no idea about. Sigh.
Ruby makes sysadmins cry. I tried updating a legacy server yesterday that is running a ruby app. After two hours of trying to make it work, I gave up.
Trees fuck in the air. What do you think pollen is?
I think there are some rare cases where public opinion is wrong, and this would be one of them. I also think this is a horribly passive-aggressive way of doing it. If you feel that strongly, just set in motion the process of capping them, and if it fails, well, you tried.
I keep thinking of places down south who need all the water they can get, and we're just wasting a whole reservoir full. That saddens me.
(I live in Portland, but I'm in the Tualatin Valley water district, so it doesn't affect me much.)
I live in Portland. They'd probably allow it if he was a free-range drunkard with organic piss.
I've been a developer, a sysadmin, and a devops guy. And the number of developers I've had to gently (and sometimes not so gently) say "stop doing that, you're crashing the server!" is way more than I am comfortable with...
That's the kind of reply that gives "anonymous coward" its name...
Yeah, you put a coherent thought together and actually contributed to the discussion.
Keep that up and you'll have no street cred on Slashdot at all!
The point of devops is not to take jobs away from developers. The point of devops is to provide an interface between system administration and development. Development and system administration have always been at odds with each other - system administrators not really understanding or caring how the application works, and developers treating the systems as an infinite resource pool with no real rules or resources past "does my code run?"
The sole purpose of devops is to ensure efficient operation of the infrastructure in a way that allows for repeatable deployments and controlled versioning, and that also includes system software such as operating systems (sysadmins benefit too because they no longer have to do one off deployments of OSes).
This criticism strikes me as woefully underinformed as to what devops actually does, and I'm wondering if the author of this is a developer who is upset because devops is forcing them to actually use the software lifecycle properly rather than just doing cowboy deployments and hoping they work.
I agree that people talking to imaginary entities are crazy and stupid. The debate is whether they're imaginary. You can't prove they are.
What do you have against mom's apple pie? It's warm and squishy and... and...
I'll be in my bunk.
Not agreeing or disagreeing with your point, but since Mitt isn't going to be any better, according to you, why are you focusing on Obama? Agreed that he is president, but implicit in your statement is an admission that the problem is bigger than Obama.
I'm not as worried about the existence of the cameras as I am that lots of people seem to know whose they are and no one's telling. That's kind of the antithesis of government transparency. I hope someone sues under FOIA.
Now that's a useful and interesting comment. Thanks for engaging me as if I were an intelligent person, thereby allowing me to keep up the ruse in my head for a little longer. :)
I think it's completely fair to state that what I'm saying is not *likely*. I don't seriously believe elves are pulling people down, nor do I seriously believe the earth was created 6,000 years ago. I'm just not prepared to state that everything is known and it's settled. Very little, I think, is settled, and if we were to understand how things *really* worked our brains would explode. All of this kerfluffle is just us trying to make sense of what we see with our quite inadequate and puny five senses. A good start, a worthy goal, but who knows what other interesting stuff awaits. Thanks to scientists for trying to discover it, thanks to spiritualists for trying to make sense of it. :)
Going to have to agree to disagree on that. I'm pretty sure you were not here from the beginning. It's completely circumstantial.
And now I have productive things to do that don't involve arguing with people on slashdot.
Sure, who's to say it doesn't pop up every single nanosecond in the exact same state it was before. I wouldn't be able to tell the difference, so I don't really care. It's still in the realm of possibility, and trying to tell me that it's not happening just tells me that you don't have enough of an imagination. :)
Well, if it's not distinguishable from gravity, that's not the realm of science. Science says that stuff will fall at a measured rate. Until scientists have figured out the mechanism of gravity empirically (which is not settled yet) it may as well be a series of elves as warped space. Doesn't really matter, as long as it's predictable.
I think that the "god of the gaps" argument only shows that people were looking for it in a place where it was not to be found. That does not mean it doesn't exist. In case I haven't been clear, I am absolutely sure that God exists. I also think that God is not entropic, and looking for it in any place where entropy rules is a fool's errand.