I agree that it's kind of ugly to have lots of scripts with boilerplate code in them as a configuration management system -- but: it's simple, and it works. System startup is a complex task, and the init scripts manage to do that with code that a competent sysadmin could understand. It is extremely transparent, with a minimum of black box code. So while it is ugly, it is also a very elegant solution in its simplicity. It let sysadmins and power users understand and tweak anything they needed.
I disagree that it's elegant. In fact I disagree that it's even a solution. I'm a power user/admin of my own system and many systemd's additions proved very handy for me. I always had problems reading complex bash scripts, a script based solution for system startup is practically undebuggable for me. I'm better at C than at shell. And unit files are easier for me to deal with than shell scripts. Ability to display system log only for current boot is also extremely handy.
In general this is true, but in this case the dependencies are too heavy. There is a clear hierarchy of importance: the init process is much more important than DBus. Specifically, you don't want the system to be unbootable if dbus fails. It's sort of like if the kernel relied on Avahi to boot. Maybe it's better to have a lightweight custom IPC code instead. Also, there's a big difference between library dependencies and service dependencies. In principle they are the similar, you either pass messages via function calls or via sockets or TCP. In practice there is so much more that could go wrong with a service like dbus than a library. And with non-service libraries you can even link statically, which would be useful to ensure that the init didn't fail after a botched upgrade. Also, having a lot of state outside the filesystem makes it difficult to create chroot environment and to isolate services.
DBus seems to be all about boot speed. In the process they made all kinds of troubleshooting (except performance) significantly harder.
It's not so clear to me. I don't see how DBus is too heavy while custom IPC solution isn't. I don't feel comfortable evaluating design of boot systems. I'm not interested in developing them, only using them. I'd rather let people who actually develop them do so.
systemd is a lot better than shell clusterfuck that there was before. People really should stop complaining about dependencies. It suggests that you reuse other people's work, not re-inventing wheels. It doesn't matter whether it uses DBus or internal re-invented IPC mechanism as far as system stability is concerned. You just have no idea what you're talking about.
You are confused. It doesn't matter how fanatical community the community is. Only what matters is their skill and objectives. The only reason it's not the year of linux on desktop is that system integrators decided not to use it. If they did you and other non-geek users would be using it no matter how crappy and geeky it is. There were worse software pre-installed in the past than modern linux distros. And somebody who installs an OS pretty much guaranteed to be a geek. So there's no wonder that OSes that are only available as download and not pre-installed on hardware target geeks. They're absolutely right to do so. Ubuntu is not an exception here.
Even opensource games have windows ports and currently there's no reason why they wouldn't be cross-platform. But choice of operating system isn't user's business, it's something that comes with device. Most users won't be installing oses, though they might choose to use a device that happens to be based on linux. One such device could be abovementioned steambox. You can expect that people will have easier time running steam games on Valve controlled and tested hardware than on some random system integrator's windows pc with possibly crappy drivers and loads of pre-installed shovelware.
Not really. GPU clock doesn't matter in plain desktop usage not involving graphic intensive apps, while lifespan does. In fact, nouveau is used in many linux distros by default. If such allegations are true then those distros definitely should stop doing so. If not then you're just spreading FUD to make your argument seem stronger than if you just brought up nouveau's reduced performance everyone already know about anyway.
It still lacks critical features like proper power management, which means cards using Nouveau tend to have reduced lifespans compared to the binary drivers which actually control the fans and voltages properly.
Can you back up the statement that it actually reduces lifespan or it's just a wild conjecture? Indeed nouveau lacks support for voltage and fan control by default, but it leads to it using lowest frequency for GPU which doesn't require much fan management. I wouldn't expect degradation of lifespan.
Pretty much all major desktop environments will have their own implementation of wayland compositor eventually. Mir could have been one of them but instead they decided to push another protocol too, which is doomed to a failure. There's just not enough expertise among Canonical devs and too much arrogance. They'd be better off to follow community standard instead of trying to attain control like some two-bit microsoft wannabes.
Why is Ubuntu's new display server, competing against X.org and Wayland any different?
Because Mir is utterly redundant given existance of wayland. Also, contributing to Mir requires you to surrender your copyright to Canonical, something many contributors won't agree to. So it must be forked before it can become proper community project. And nobody will fork it because it's redundant.
Absolute bullshit. KDE, for example, is written in C++ has had no hard time finding thousands of contributors. There are also tons of FOSS apps written in C++ with Qt. You sound like someone who has been in a cave from the mid 90s until now.
Pretty much all drivers and other low level components use pure C. And I'm absolutely unhappy with the way KDE and Qt use C++. Mostly plain old boring C with classes. It offers very little advantage to low level components. No need to create tensions with dinosaurs like Linus. I'm happy with using C++ for applications only for now and leave system to C.
Nonetheless C++ is not a compilation of disparate features, but a complete language serving its own purpose. You cannot decide to use only subset of features without seeing whole picture. This requires deep understanding of the language which many potential contributors to low level linux subsystems lack and don't care to even try to acquire.
You're joking, right? There's no point to use it if you lose all benefits as you said. You still can use some features like namespaces but it's not worth it I think. The whole point of C++ is classes and templates but not many people know how to use those effectively. Better stick to C in important low level projects like display server for now.
Yeah. Canonical people found some 'shortcomings' in Wayland and decided to start their own project with even more shortcomings. Like choosing C++ for implementation language. Good luck finding contributors. Most FOSS contributors don't get C++ at all. The language isn't ready for such low level components yet. Maybe in future but not now.
And the 11 renderer is usually faster than the 9 renderer. So since DX11 games - or the same game with a DX11 engine as well as a DX9 engine - both look better and run faster than DX9 games
The differences are too little to be noticeable to untrained eye. This is why devs aren't in any hurry to leave DX9.
He ended up serving about the same term anyway, while scale of his actions were an order of magnitude more than that of some pirate that even doesn't ripoff any retirees or other people in need of government assistance.
Really? 12 years in prison just for possibly decreasing someone's profits? That's definitely cruel and unusual punishment.Such terms should be reserved for murderers and what-not.
You're still playing Direct X using games? They're mostly interactive movies nowadays, with gameplay being an afterthought. Honestly, manually compiling Linux kernels is more fun and challenging than that.
It doesn't matter whether it's majority or not. It doesn't matter what they think. Only actions matter. Majority of them won't go much beyond sulking in religious conflicts. The only way to change their minds is education and cultural exchange, or slaughtering all of them if you insist on violent means. Current half measures like drone bombings won't help much in grand scheme of things.
Fortunately most Muslims are good human beings (which necessarily makes then bad Muslims). Don't confuse the fact that many Muslims reject their core (clearly evil) Islamic teachings with Islam itself being tolerant or moderate.
So you're basically agreeing with my point right here. Various teachings and what-not are pure fiction. They're just cover for practical concerns governing those people's actions. If you wish you can justify absolutely anything with religion or ideology. Do not let yourself be blinded by this bullshit.
Completely incorrect. There is nothing the US has or has not done that causes jihadis to hate you. Same with Israel. It is core to Islamic doctrine to hate and subjugate all non-believers.
The same applies to other religions too. Yet most practitioners aren't as focused on hating and subjugating, but rather on their everyday business.
I think you're overestimating the importance of extremists. Most people there are just trying to survive.
It is a mistake to think it is for any other reason. The other thing is the Arab and Islamic culture respect strength.
You're confusing them with Klingons.
The only way to defeat islamic extremists is to cut them off from manpower and supplies and that can be done only with non-combat means.
As you wipe the stream of saliva from the corner of your mouth, consider that Apple's failure to race to the bottom leaves them making more profit on that one MacBook Air than Google / Asus do on all five of the Nexus tablets you strangely chose to compare it to. The case is similar across all product lines.
You say it as if it's a good thing. Excessive margins always lead to inefficiency. Personal yachts and what-not. You can't magically turn 5x profit into a 5x better product, so you just end up with marginally better product costing 5 times as much.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that it's kind of ugly to have lots of scripts with boilerplate code in them as a configuration management system -- but: it's simple, and it works. System startup is a complex task, and the init scripts manage to do that with code that a competent sysadmin could understand. It is extremely transparent, with a minimum of black box code. So while it is ugly, it is also a very elegant solution in its simplicity. It let sysadmins and power users understand and tweak anything they needed.
I disagree that it's elegant. In fact I disagree that it's even a solution. I'm a power user/admin of my own system and many systemd's additions proved very handy for me. I always had problems reading complex bash scripts, a script based solution for system startup is practically undebuggable for me. I'm better at C than at shell. And unit files are easier for me to deal with than shell scripts. Ability to display system log only for current boot is also extremely handy.
In general this is true, but in this case the dependencies are too heavy. There is a clear hierarchy of importance: the init process is much more important than DBus. Specifically, you don't want the system to be unbootable if dbus fails. It's sort of like if the kernel relied on Avahi to boot. Maybe it's better to have a lightweight custom IPC code instead. Also, there's a big difference between library dependencies and service dependencies. In principle they are the similar, you either pass messages via function calls or via sockets or TCP. In practice there is so much more that could go wrong with a service like dbus than a library. And with non-service libraries you can even link statically, which would be useful to ensure that the init didn't fail after a botched upgrade. Also, having a lot of state outside the filesystem makes it difficult to create chroot environment and to isolate services.
DBus seems to be all about boot speed. In the process they made all kinds of troubleshooting (except performance) significantly harder.
It's not so clear to me. I don't see how DBus is too heavy while custom IPC solution isn't. I don't feel comfortable evaluating design of boot systems. I'm not interested in developing them, only using them. I'd rather let people who actually develop them do so.
I never loved shell based init scripts. Speak for yourself.
systemd is a lot better than shell clusterfuck that there was before. People really should stop complaining about dependencies. It suggests that you reuse other people's work, not re-inventing wheels. It doesn't matter whether it uses DBus or internal re-invented IPC mechanism as far as system stability is concerned. You just have no idea what you're talking about.
You are confused. It doesn't matter how fanatical community the community is. Only what matters is their skill and objectives. The only reason it's not the year of linux on desktop is that system integrators decided not to use it. If they did you and other non-geek users would be using it no matter how crappy and geeky it is. There were worse software pre-installed in the past than modern linux distros. And somebody who installs an OS pretty much guaranteed to be a geek. So there's no wonder that OSes that are only available as download and not pre-installed on hardware target geeks. They're absolutely right to do so. Ubuntu is not an exception here.
Even opensource games have windows ports and currently there's no reason why they wouldn't be cross-platform. But choice of operating system isn't user's business, it's something that comes with device. Most users won't be installing oses, though they might choose to use a device that happens to be based on linux. One such device could be abovementioned steambox. You can expect that people will have easier time running steam games on Valve controlled and tested hardware than on some random system integrator's windows pc with possibly crappy drivers and loads of pre-installed shovelware.
Not really. GPU clock doesn't matter in plain desktop usage not involving graphic intensive apps, while lifespan does. In fact, nouveau is used in many linux distros by default. If such allegations are true then those distros definitely should stop doing so. If not then you're just spreading FUD to make your argument seem stronger than if you just brought up nouveau's reduced performance everyone already know about anyway.
It still lacks critical features like proper power management, which means cards using Nouveau tend to have reduced lifespans compared to the binary drivers which actually control the fans and voltages properly.
Can you back up the statement that it actually reduces lifespan or it's just a wild conjecture? Indeed nouveau lacks support for voltage and fan control by default, but it leads to it using lowest frequency for GPU which doesn't require much fan management. I wouldn't expect degradation of lifespan.
Pretty much all major desktop environments will have their own implementation of wayland compositor eventually. Mir could have been one of them but instead they decided to push another protocol too, which is doomed to a failure. There's just not enough expertise among Canonical devs and too much arrogance. They'd be better off to follow community standard instead of trying to attain control like some two-bit microsoft wannabes.
Why is Ubuntu's new display server, competing against X.org and Wayland any different?
Because Mir is utterly redundant given existance of wayland. Also, contributing to Mir requires you to surrender your copyright to Canonical, something many contributors won't agree to. So it must be forked before it can become proper community project. And nobody will fork it because it's redundant.
Absolute bullshit. KDE, for example, is written in C++ has had no hard time finding thousands of contributors. There are also tons of FOSS apps written in C++ with Qt. You sound like someone who has been in a cave from the mid 90s until now.
Pretty much all drivers and other low level components use pure C. And I'm absolutely unhappy with the way KDE and Qt use C++. Mostly plain old boring C with classes. It offers very little advantage to low level components. No need to create tensions with dinosaurs like Linus. I'm happy with using C++ for applications only for now and leave system to C.
Nonetheless C++ is not a compilation of disparate features, but a complete language serving its own purpose. You cannot decide to use only subset of features without seeing whole picture. This requires deep understanding of the language which many potential contributors to low level linux subsystems lack and don't care to even try to acquire.
You're joking, right? There's no point to use it if you lose all benefits as you said. You still can use some features like namespaces but it's not worth it I think. The whole point of C++ is classes and templates but not many people know how to use those effectively. Better stick to C in important low level projects like display server for now.
Yeah. Canonical people found some 'shortcomings' in Wayland and decided to start their own project with even more shortcomings. Like choosing C++ for implementation language. Good luck finding contributors. Most FOSS contributors don't get C++ at all. The language isn't ready for such low level components yet. Maybe in future but not now.
And the 11 renderer is usually faster than the 9 renderer. So since DX11 games - or the same game with a DX11 engine as well as a DX9 engine - both look better and run faster than DX9 games
The differences are too little to be noticeable to untrained eye. This is why devs aren't in any hurry to leave DX9.
What does this have to do with theft?
He ended up serving about the same term anyway, while scale of his actions were an order of magnitude more than that of some pirate that even doesn't ripoff any retirees or other people in need of government assistance.
Really? 12 years in prison just for possibly decreasing someone's profits? That's definitely cruel and unusual punishment.Such terms should be reserved for murderers and what-not.
Don't take this personally, but your programming skills almost certainly make that a good thing.
His programming skills are most definitely better than most low paid interns that actually get to hack on it :P
You're still playing Direct X using games? They're mostly interactive movies nowadays, with gameplay being an afterthought. Honestly, manually compiling Linux kernels is more fun and challenging than that.
Don't be so sure about $.
It doesn't matter whether it's majority or not. It doesn't matter what they think. Only actions matter. Majority of them won't go much beyond sulking in religious conflicts. The only way to change their minds is education and cultural exchange, or slaughtering all of them if you insist on violent means. Current half measures like drone bombings won't help much in grand scheme of things.
Fortunately most Muslims are good human beings (which necessarily makes then bad Muslims). Don't confuse the fact that many Muslims reject their core (clearly evil) Islamic teachings with Islam itself being tolerant or moderate.
So you're basically agreeing with my point right here. Various teachings and what-not are pure fiction. They're just cover for practical concerns governing those people's actions. If you wish you can justify absolutely anything with religion or ideology. Do not let yourself be blinded by this bullshit.
Completely incorrect. There is nothing the US has or has not done that causes jihadis to hate you. Same with Israel. It is core to Islamic doctrine to hate and subjugate all non-believers.
The same applies to other religions too. Yet most practitioners aren't as focused on hating and subjugating, but rather on their everyday business. I think you're overestimating the importance of extremists. Most people there are just trying to survive.
It is a mistake to think it is for any other reason. The other thing is the Arab and Islamic culture respect strength.
You're confusing them with Klingons.
The only way to defeat islamic extremists is to cut them off from manpower and supplies and that can be done only with non-combat means.
.
As you wipe the stream of saliva from the corner of your mouth, consider that Apple's failure to race to the bottom leaves them making more profit on that one MacBook Air than Google / Asus do on all five of the Nexus tablets you strangely chose to compare it to. The case is similar across all product lines.
You say it as if it's a good thing. Excessive margins always lead to inefficiency. Personal yachts and what-not. You can't magically turn 5x profit into a 5x better product, so you just end up with marginally better product costing 5 times as much.
As if other currencies don't attract crooks and idiots..
Should we stop using all kinds of money or what?