Arch is rolling release. It doesn't do "major release upgrades". In that sense, there are absolutely no issues with major release upgrades. Updates, on the other hand, can often have issues similar to major release upgrades, but they are usually less severe and occur more frequently.
Trolley cart - sure. Slamming a door? I'm not so sure. I've experienced quite a few 4-5 magnitude quakes and I definitely feel them more than someone slamming a door nearby.
It's a data centre, with spinning platter hard drives. I'd be more worried about the hard drives than the building with a sub-5 magnitude quake. In some circumstances, just yelling at an array of drives is enough to push the vibrations over the edge, causing massive performance degradation.
I'm well aware of the hardlinking that Microsoft does. I've also done some actual analysis measuring the real disk usage of WinSxS by using tools that count the hardlink references. On my Windows 7 installation that had a 16GB WinSxS folder, 14GB of that was unique to WinSxS with no other hardlinks. It isn't as efficient as Microsoft claims it to be.
I used Vista, and as long as you had at least SP1, it wasn't bad. However, I find the new taskbar in Windows 7 is enough to make me never want to go back to Vista.
It definitely makes a difference when I tested software RAID at home, but I doubt "real" servers bother with the Windows storage software stack. It also used a bit more RAM under load, but not enough to be a dealbreaker.
Sorry but I've dealt with more failed drives at the shop than you've had hot meals and if they fail "without" warning?
Unnecessary hyperbole.
Then YOU sir are not paying attention! Before a HDD fails you will see several rather blatant warning signs, warning about delayed write fails being the most obvious but there is also temp spikes on the drive (as the motor heats up trying and failing seeks) and SMART changes (not talking SMART fail, which is usually at the end, we are talking large changes in the SMART values which can be read by one of several free programs such as HWMon or HDTune) not to mention most modern drives get REALLY noisy when they are getting ready to croak.
I never said that HDDs never give warnings. I claimed that HDDs can fail without warning. I've had a few die with controller failures. It's not always a mechanical failure. I've also seen mechanical failures where the SMART information didn't contain any errors. For example, sometimes a head can just crash (rare, but can still happen even on stationary drives). You're making some dangerous assumptions on the types of ways that HDDs can fail, which if you really had dealt with more failed drives than I've had hot meals, you'd know that they aren't always predictable.
Compare this to the "dirty little secret" of the SSD world which is the majority of SSD fails are NOT the flash chips themselves but the SSD controller chip. When that fails? NO warning, NO chance to back up your data, just flip the switch and...poof. this is why I tell my customers they should use a religiously adhered to backup system along with cloud computing to insure no data loss.
I hope you give that same advice to HDD customers. And why are you suggesting that backing up from a drive showing signs of failure is desirable? If I see signs of failure, I don't trust the data coming off it. I junk it, either rebuilding the array or recovering from backup.
I never understood why I've never seen the head assemblies acting independently on any drive - it would drastically improve throughput. Doesn't necessarily need to be striped, being able to service multiple platters simultaneously would help with queued IO.
making the init system a large complex system that does lots of things rather than the old school ideology of doing one thing and doing it well
Which init scripts didn't do. They approximated what's really dependency system (B and C need A to be up before starting, and D needs both) with a bunch of sequentyally-ran numbered scripts. The end result was both inefficient and fragile.
That part, systemd is good at. I have no objections to systemd advantages as an init system. The large complexity of doing more than it should encompasses the non-init-system parts of systemd. For example, last I heard they just added DNS caching. Into the init system. Since when does the init system need to handle DNS caching? I'd also argue (controversially) that journald is outside the scope of an init system. It has some compelling arguments for its existence, but surely it should be a separate project rather than an integral part of systemd. I'm sure there are other parts of systemd that I would object to being part of the init system, but systemd adds new features so quickly that I miss most of the feature announcements.
There is no "fundamental change" to Linux with systemd
I'd call moving DBUS into the kernel, assimilating udev, and making the init system a large complex system that does lots of things rather than the old school ideology of doing one thing and doing it well, some pretty big, somewhat fundamental changes to GNU/Linux.
Apple does not support their own 2 year old OSes, I have to upgrade my Mac to a more often than not crappier OS just to get things like Xcode running again and sometimes I even have to buy a new Mac because the old one is arbitrarily locked out from a software upgrade.
So why should Skype's developers care about an ancient version of OS X? Oh, I know, because they are Microsoft, and we love to bash them here!
I call bullshit on your lies. Any Mac on the list below (or later) runs Mountain Lion, Mavericks and (soon) Yosemite. If you are running something like the 2007 Mac mini (which has support deprecated) then you will have to upgrade to run Mountain Lion or later. Almost all Macs produced in the last 7 years runs current software - Xserve which is no longer produced is an obvious exception.
Supported hardware:
iMac (Mid 2007 or newer)
MacBook (Late 2008 Aluminum, or Early 2009 or newer)
MacBook Air (Late 2008 or newer)
MacBook Pro (Mid/Late 2007 or newer)
Mac mini (Early 2009 or newer)
Mac Pro (Early 2008 or newer)
Xserve (Early 2009)
And each recent version of OS X has been far better than Snow Leopard and free as well.
You've asserted that Apple support hardware going back a few years. This has absolutely nothing to do with the OS version itself being unsupported, as the post you attempted to discredit referred to. If Apple doesn't support OS X 10.5, why should Microsoft?
Slashdot Mirror
Arch is rolling release. It doesn't do "major release upgrades". In that sense, there are absolutely no issues with major release upgrades. Updates, on the other hand, can often have issues similar to major release upgrades, but they are usually less severe and occur more frequently.
I think it's fairly safe to say that the majority of headlines these days are sensationalised.
Challenge accepted?
You're right, my wording was inaccurate. Still, there are many crashes it doesn't prevent.
If it's not produced, then technically it isn't "coming".
It requires some sort of license to operate a regular car, but that doesn't prevent many crashes...
Trolley cart - sure. Slamming a door? I'm not so sure. I've experienced quite a few 4-5 magnitude quakes and I definitely feel them more than someone slamming a door nearby.
It's a data centre, with spinning platter hard drives. I'd be more worried about the hard drives than the building with a sub-5 magnitude quake. In some circumstances, just yelling at an array of drives is enough to push the vibrations over the edge, causing massive performance degradation.
People don't tell you XP is old because of performance reasons. It's a security nightmare.
I'm well aware of the hardlinking that Microsoft does. I've also done some actual analysis measuring the real disk usage of WinSxS by using tools that count the hardlink references. On my Windows 7 installation that had a 16GB WinSxS folder, 14GB of that was unique to WinSxS with no other hardlinks. It isn't as efficient as Microsoft claims it to be.
I did a clean install of 8 and 8.1 in VMs to compare disk usage. 8.1 used slightly more.
Well...
As a software engineer they expect me to be a sysadmin.
I know that feeling all too well...
Perhaps you missed the word "often".
They're trying to leverage the Android market to make Chrome OS more appealing. They don't want this hack running on 3rd party operating systems.
I used Vista, and as long as you had at least SP1, it wasn't bad. However, I find the new taskbar in Windows 7 is enough to make me never want to go back to Vista.
Installation is not the problem. It's mostly driver and software compatibility that holds it back.
That is true, but the post I was replying to claimed that games don't get added to libraries automatically. I was simply giving my counter-anecdote.
I've had Steam put promotional stuff in my library automatically on a couple of occasions.
It definitely makes a difference when I tested software RAID at home, but I doubt "real" servers bother with the Windows storage software stack. It also used a bit more RAM under load, but not enough to be a dealbreaker.
Sorry but I've dealt with more failed drives at the shop than you've had hot meals and if they fail "without" warning?
Unnecessary hyperbole.
Then YOU sir are not paying attention! Before a HDD fails you will see several rather blatant warning signs, warning about delayed write fails being the most obvious but there is also temp spikes on the drive (as the motor heats up trying and failing seeks) and SMART changes (not talking SMART fail, which is usually at the end, we are talking large changes in the SMART values which can be read by one of several free programs such as HWMon or HDTune) not to mention most modern drives get REALLY noisy when they are getting ready to croak.
I never said that HDDs never give warnings. I claimed that HDDs can fail without warning. I've had a few die with controller failures. It's not always a mechanical failure. I've also seen mechanical failures where the SMART information didn't contain any errors. For example, sometimes a head can just crash (rare, but can still happen even on stationary drives). You're making some dangerous assumptions on the types of ways that HDDs can fail, which if you really had dealt with more failed drives than I've had hot meals, you'd know that they aren't always predictable.
Compare this to the "dirty little secret" of the SSD world which is the majority of SSD fails are NOT the flash chips themselves but the SSD controller chip. When that fails? NO warning, NO chance to back up your data, just flip the switch and...poof. this is why I tell my customers they should use a religiously adhered to backup system along with cloud computing to insure no data loss.
I hope you give that same advice to HDD customers. And why are you suggesting that backing up from a drive showing signs of failure is desirable? If I see signs of failure, I don't trust the data coming off it. I junk it, either rebuilding the array or recovering from backup.
I never understood why I've never seen the head assemblies acting independently on any drive - it would drastically improve throughput. Doesn't necessarily need to be striped, being able to service multiple platters simultaneously would help with queued IO.
You're dreaming if you think HDDs don't fail without warning.
Which init scripts didn't do. They approximated what's really dependency system (B and C need A to be up before starting, and D needs both) with a bunch of sequentyally-ran numbered scripts. The end result was both inefficient and fragile.
That part, systemd is good at. I have no objections to systemd advantages as an init system. The large complexity of doing more than it should encompasses the non-init-system parts of systemd. For example, last I heard they just added DNS caching. Into the init system. Since when does the init system need to handle DNS caching? I'd also argue (controversially) that journald is outside the scope of an init system. It has some compelling arguments for its existence, but surely it should be a separate project rather than an integral part of systemd. I'm sure there are other parts of systemd that I would object to being part of the init system, but systemd adds new features so quickly that I miss most of the feature announcements.
There is no "fundamental change" to Linux with systemd
I'd call moving DBUS into the kernel, assimilating udev, and making the init system a large complex system that does lots of things rather than the old school ideology of doing one thing and doing it well, some pretty big, somewhat fundamental changes to GNU/Linux.
Apple does not support their own 2 year old OSes, I have to upgrade my Mac to a more often than not crappier OS just to get things like Xcode running again and sometimes I even have to buy a new Mac because the old one is arbitrarily locked out from a software upgrade.
So why should Skype's developers care about an ancient version of OS X? Oh, I know, because they are Microsoft, and we love to bash them here!
I call bullshit on your lies. Any Mac on the list below (or later) runs Mountain Lion, Mavericks and (soon) Yosemite. If you are running something like the 2007 Mac mini (which has support deprecated) then you will have to upgrade to run Mountain Lion or later. Almost all Macs produced in the last 7 years runs current software - Xserve which is no longer produced is an obvious exception.
Supported hardware:
iMac (Mid 2007 or newer) MacBook (Late 2008 Aluminum, or Early 2009 or newer) MacBook Air (Late 2008 or newer) MacBook Pro (Mid/Late 2007 or newer) Mac mini (Early 2009 or newer) Mac Pro (Early 2008 or newer) Xserve (Early 2009)
And each recent version of OS X has been far better than Snow Leopard and free as well.
You've asserted that Apple support hardware going back a few years. This has absolutely nothing to do with the OS version itself being unsupported, as the post you attempted to discredit referred to. If Apple doesn't support OS X 10.5, why should Microsoft?