The Telegraph is just a mouthpiece for the views of the Barclay brothers. Its profoundly anti science, anti immigration, anti EU, mysteriously silent on matters of taxation, offshore accounts, and pro big business. Until recently, it's been trumping up UKIP like theyre the second coming of Jesus and now they've served their purpose it's desperately trying to undermine them to put votes back to the Conservatives.
It's shame it's gotten this way since it used to be a good paper with good journalists. Now it's just clickbait.
And Christopher Booker is a blithering idiot. I suspect he actually believes the shit he's spouting even though it doesn't pass a cursory fact check. I mentioned those two but there are several more there spouting some highly questionable views.
I find it hilarious that the one "leading climate change skeptic" they name is Christopher Monckton who is basically a climate change denial kook. The Telegraph seems to have an obsession for climate change denial and hosts columns from two other prominent denialists - James Delingpole and Christopher Booker.
The rest of it is a direct violation of every one of Eric Raymond's guidelines in "The Luxury of Ignorance" essay about open source interfaces.
No it isn't. Quite the opposite really:
What does my software look like to a non-technical user who has never seen it before? Simple, discoverable and easy to use.
Is there any screen in my GUI that is a dead end, without giving guidance further into the system? No.
The requirement that end-users read documentation is a sign of UI design failure. Is my UI design a failure? There is no requirement to read documentation.
For technical tasks that do require documentation, do they fail to mention critical defaults? Not applicable to a desktop since technical tasks would be done by other tools.
Does my project welcome and respond to usability feedback from non-expert users? Yes. In fact GNOME is driven by such feedback.
And, most importantly of all...do I allow my users the precious luxury of ignorance? Yes.
For all the hate GNOME receives it is simple, forgiving, task centric, and generally acts as a facilitator to do other stuff. It doesn't mean it's flawless but it doesn't follow a kitchen sink mentality that could confuse a non expert. I daresay many experts (including myself) appreciate a simple desktop too and if they don't, they can use another one.
Sadly it's a fact in open source. Outside criticism of a project, even valid criticism is often seen as an attack on the people who use it and it provokes some irrational responses. Or when some beloved piece of software is replaced in a dist by something else (usually demonstrably better) and supporters of the old software freak out. Happens all the time.
Is each of those 100 AIs essentially the same? I shouldn't be surprised that in that case it comes out as a bit of a stalemate, or with the winner decided essentially by fate (the tiles they started with).
What would be interesting is to be able to plug AIs into freeciv - a bit like crobots, core wars or similar games. Then you could pit AIs against each other, perhaps even grade them by strength and allow humans to play them.
The typical work flow for sysvinit is - open a script, launch bash / python / whatever, parse script, invoke daemon, daemon invokes itself again as detached process, script ends. All the scripts are run consecutively.
The typical work flow for systemd is open a unit file, launch the daemon directly as a detached process. Units can run in parallel according to their dependencies. No script required or 2-stage daemon launch.
So yes systemd can obviously improve boot times. However some debian discussion threads suggest they were just pointing systemd to launch the sysv scripts which seems a bit pointless really and won't do much to improve startup.
Unity changes it around so you go to the side (a good place to put things on a 16:9 monitor)
It's a good place on a 16:9 monitor. Not so good if you have a 4:3 monitor, or multiple monitors or simply want an option to change it to the bottom, right or some other behaviour.
As for being sued for calling them quacks, I assume you mean Simon Singh's run-in with chiropractors. He eventually prevailed (they dropped it after an onslaught of complaints against their members) and the case became a driving force for reforming defamation law.
So the UK should be glad they sued. Libel law in the UK now requires the claimant to demonstrate it caused serious harm and there are defences for honest opinion, academic peer review, and public interest.
I read that some scams involve linking to a url which exploits bugs in Steam to install a trojan (e.g. a malformed png). Otherwise I don't see what the scam is.
Ah yes, the "fallacious argument" that has happened countless times in open source already. Numerous, large projects and dists have forked before now.
All it takes is the motivation, a group of likeminded individuals and the willpower to deliver a dist that does not use systemd. I expect most packages in the debian universe have no deps on systemd and therefore no work required to support those packages. So we're talking system packages, some daemons and maybe a few shims for edge cases.
As for why there are only 2 dists left not to have gone to systemd, perhaps that should serve as a clue in itself.
I've never had an invite from a scammer, and don't trade anything with some random person. So what are the scams that these free accounts are working on?
Your justification is incoherent. If you want to administer "old school" Linux, you just use the old commands. If you want to administer a dist with systemd you use the new commands, or the old commands which are symlinked into their new equivalents.
I'm not sure what the fuck "old-school" even means since it has constantly changed from its inception. Except by saying "old-school" you demonstrate that Amish mentality - drawing a line in the sand and saying things shouldn't possibly progress beyond that point, even if its for the better.
All the whining over systemd could apply equally to procfs, devfs, pci, usb, btrfs, acls, etc. A barrage of changes that (competent) admins are expected to incorporate into their knowledge.
Re:For me, there are two questions.
on
GNU Hurd 0.6 Released
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The debate about micro or monolithic kernels was just a backdrop. The real reason HURD failed had more to do with the mindset of the people involved.
Linus (impatient with the pace of HURD) developed a quick and dirty kernel that a Unix user land could be built on top of. He took a lot of shortcuts, he didn't think too much about portability and basically just made a beeline for the end line - to get a shell and hence other stuff running over a kernel. The kernel filled out and became portable as the project gained momentum and volunteers.
Whereas HURD got stuck up its own ass for correctness and politics. And that's even before Linux existed as a thing. It's hardly a surprise that when Linux did appear that people jumped ship.
It's true there was a debate about micro kernel designs but that alone doesn't explain HURD's failure.
It'd be a lot easier if HURD attracted developers to work on it. The reason it is stuck in the mud is because looked up what pragmatism meant in a dictionary and decided it would be having none of that.
This is where the exercise of free will kicks in. If you cannot contemplate learning something new, stick with what you have or choose a dist that chooses to do stuff the old way.
The problem with total rewrites is they almost always involve a huge amount of effort, introduce new bugs and when they "work", users barely notice the difference. So the company soldiers on, applying patch upon patch to some bullshit codebase and suffering from it but in a incremental way.
Worst of all is when they embark on a rewrite and give up half way through. I was involved in a project to port a C++/ActiveX based system to.NET forms. They ported most of the major views but left a lot of the minor stuff from the old codebase lying around and wrote bridges to host it in the new framework. So they doubled the code, half of it became bitrotten and hidden by the new code and bloated out the runtime. Great project.
Start whacking industries who use the most water with a levy to pay for the plants. e.g. almond growers. If they are suddenly motivated to develop ways to save water then fine, if then don't then it's still a new plant.
Slashdot Mirror
It's shame it's gotten this way since it used to be a good paper with good journalists. Now it's just clickbait.
And Christopher Booker is a blithering idiot. I suspect he actually believes the shit he's spouting even though it doesn't pass a cursory fact check. I mentioned those two but there are several more there spouting some highly questionable views.
I find it hilarious that the one "leading climate change skeptic" they name is Christopher Monckton who is basically a climate change denial kook. The Telegraph seems to have an obsession for climate change denial and hosts columns from two other prominent denialists - James Delingpole and Christopher Booker.
The rest of it is a direct violation of every one of Eric Raymond's guidelines in "The Luxury of Ignorance" essay about open source interfaces.
No it isn't. Quite the opposite really:
For all the hate GNOME receives it is simple, forgiving, task centric, and generally acts as a facilitator to do other stuff. It doesn't mean it's flawless but it doesn't follow a kitchen sink mentality that could confuse a non expert. I daresay many experts (including myself) appreciate a simple desktop too and if they don't, they can use another one.
VR isn't new tech by any stretch. I remember VR headsets powered by Commodore Amigas.
Sadly it's a fact in open source. Outside criticism of a project, even valid criticism is often seen as an attack on the people who use it and it provokes some irrational responses. Or when some beloved piece of software is replaced in a dist by something else (usually demonstrably better) and supporters of the old software freak out. Happens all the time.
What would be interesting is to be able to plug AIs into freeciv - a bit like crobots, core wars or similar games. Then you could pit AIs against each other, perhaps even grade them by strength and allow humans to play them.
The typical work flow for systemd is open a unit file, launch the daemon directly as a detached process. Units can run in parallel according to their dependencies. No script required or 2-stage daemon launch.
So yes systemd can obviously improve boot times. However some debian discussion threads suggest they were just pointing systemd to launch the sysv scripts which seems a bit pointless really and won't do much to improve startup.
Deceit or delusion. Either way these people are a pox on society.
Unity changes it around so you go to the side (a good place to put things on a 16:9 monitor)
It's a good place on a 16:9 monitor. Not so good if you have a 4:3 monitor, or multiple monitors or simply want an option to change it to the bottom, right or some other behaviour.
As for being sued for calling them quacks, I assume you mean Simon Singh's run-in with chiropractors. He eventually prevailed (they dropped it after an onslaught of complaints against their members) and the case became a driving force for reforming defamation law.
So the UK should be glad they sued. Libel law in the UK now requires the claimant to demonstrate it caused serious harm and there are defences for honest opinion, academic peer review, and public interest.
Separately, I wish all these self professed wellness "gurus" would jump off the nearest cliff and rid the world of their stupidity.
That example says more for the suckiness of Obj-C than it's replacement. Maybe that's explains why Swift devs are so joyous to escape this BS.
I read that some scams involve linking to a url which exploits bugs in Steam to install a trojan (e.g. a malformed png). Otherwise I don't see what the scam is.
$80 billion is a lot of almonds.
All it takes is the motivation, a group of likeminded individuals and the willpower to deliver a dist that does not use systemd. I expect most packages in the debian universe have no deps on systemd and therefore no work required to support those packages. So we're talking system packages, some daemons and maybe a few shims for edge cases.
As for why there are only 2 dists left not to have gone to systemd, perhaps that should serve as a clue in itself.
I've never had an invite from a scammer, and don't trade anything with some random person. So what are the scams that these free accounts are working on?
I'm not sure what the fuck "old-school" even means since it has constantly changed from its inception. Except by saying "old-school" you demonstrate that Amish mentality - drawing a line in the sand and saying things shouldn't possibly progress beyond that point, even if its for the better.
All the whining over systemd could apply equally to procfs, devfs, pci, usb, btrfs, acls, etc. A barrage of changes that (competent) admins are expected to incorporate into their knowledge.
Linus (impatient with the pace of HURD) developed a quick and dirty kernel that a Unix user land could be built on top of. He took a lot of shortcuts, he didn't think too much about portability and basically just made a beeline for the end line - to get a shell and hence other stuff running over a kernel. The kernel filled out and became portable as the project gained momentum and volunteers.
Whereas HURD got stuck up its own ass for correctness and politics. And that's even before Linux existed as a thing. It's hardly a surprise that when Linux did appear that people jumped ship.
It's true there was a debate about micro kernel designs but that alone doesn't explain HURD's failure.
It'd be a lot easier if HURD attracted developers to work on it. The reason it is stuck in the mud is because looked up what pragmatism meant in a dictionary and decided it would be having none of that.
This is where the exercise of free will kicks in. If you cannot contemplate learning something new, stick with what you have or choose a dist that chooses to do stuff the old way.
Why do people dislike systemd so much?
Some Linux users are a bit like the Amish.
Worst of all is when they embark on a rewrite and give up half way through. I was involved in a project to port a C++/ActiveX based system to .NET forms. They ported most of the major views but left a lot of the minor stuff from the old codebase lying around and wrote bridges to host it in the new framework. So they doubled the code, half of it became bitrotten and hidden by the new code and bloated out the runtime. Great project.
Who winds up paying for that?
All those pretentious hipsters who created the heightened demand for almonds in the first place because dairy / wheat is oh-so bad (it isn't).
Agriculture is an industry. If that wasn't clear enough, I gave almond growers as a specific example.
Start whacking industries who use the most water with a levy to pay for the plants. e.g. almond growers. If they are suddenly motivated to develop ways to save water then fine, if then don't then it's still a new plant.