If systemd "doesn't even have usable logs", then neither does sysvinit. Because systemd can log to exactly the same places sysvinit does, in exactly the same way! And on my system it does. Systemd also has other options, which I may explore later at my leisure. But for now, nothing about my logs has changed with systemd!
Of course, I'm using Debian, and this whole thing is reminding me very much of the glibc transition, back in the day. Lots of people were screaming about how glibc was breaking everything, because certain vendors (no names will be mentioned...rdht) rushed the transition out the door. Debian took their time and did it right, and Debian users barely even noticed the transition.
In addition to all the version control software that supports "ssh:" protocols (from CVS up through git), there's those servers at work that lots of us connect to, without knowing who may have installed what on them.
Of course, if your work has rogue admins who are installing trojan ssh servers (or are simply so bad at their jobs that they allow outsiders to install trojan ssh servers), then you've definitely got bigger problems. But fixing the leak on your side and updating your keys will at least cover your ass.
Wow, I think that may be one of the worst headlines I've seen on Slashdot, and that's saying something. "Not yet" does not mean "we're not sure yet." And "turns out not to have a planet" does not mean "we don't know if it does, but our earlier assumption turns out to be wrong."
From the headline, I assumed that they'd managed to establish that Alpha C. actually did not have a planet, but did have coalescing clouds that would soon (in astronomical terms) become one. That would be an extremely cool discovery! Unfortunately, neither of those things appears to be true (or if it is, we haven't established it).
How about "Reports of Alpha Centauri's Planet Proven to be Premature"? It's even got some nice alliterism to it. And, possibly more importantly, it's got some relationship to the facts (at least as presented in TFS).
Having never heard of Discogs before, it basically sounds like it's like MusicBrainz with more data. Is that about right?
Except that unlike MusicBrainz, there's no API. The data just sits there on the page. On the other hand, MusicBrainz actually shamelessly encourages lifting data from Discogs (which is how I first discovered Discogs). So that's something. The obsessive record collectors fill out the data on Discogs, and the folks at MusicBrainz take it and turn it into something more useful to the general public.
But yeah, I haven't looked at what sort of arrangement Discogs has with its contributors, since it doesn't strike me as something it would be all that useful to contribute to, since I'm not a record collector, and don't obsess over each minor variation of each release of even the albums I like. Even though I'm old-school enough to still own a lot of physical media.
Huh, I'm down to three, and one of those is only used with some fairly old devices I have. (Actually, I've only got one of those old devices left in service.) Other than that, I just have full-sized and new-phone-standard minis.
I do have a fairly extensive collection of old cables with a wide variety of sizes and shapes, though. So I feel your pain.:)
You should know that Unicomp, which bought the rights to the model M keyboard design (the original gigantic clacky PC keyboard), still makes true model Ms with a variety of connectors including USB. My aunt swears by them. They're not cheap, but as you have clearly noticed, they also last for ages. So if the one you have does give up the ghost, you've got options.
One of the most important characteristics of a planet...
There's three characteristics, and this is probably the least important. But if you consider all three to be "the most" important, then I suppose it's one of them. That seems like a pretty silly way to express yourself, though. Personally, I'd probably just say "one characteristic".
Also note that we're talking about the IAU definition, which is not necessarily the only definition. Dictionaries still haven't accepted the IAU definition, and may never do so, because the IAU defines a planet as orbiting the sun, while science fiction writers continue merrily talking about planets around other stars, and show no signs of changing.
By that logic, advertisements for sports should be banned as well. I suspect that mentioning Arsenal is about 10x more likely to generate an actual fight than mentioning the Church of England.
I've made one contribution to this game. A very minor one, but one I'm proud of nonetheless. I persuaded them to change their motto from: "Cause Civilization Should Be Free" to "'Cause Civilization Should Be Free". The missing apostrophe was just more than I could stand.:)
There are a lot of bad "rules" running around out there. There's also a lot of good ones. Some have evolved through painful experience; others are more like cargo-cult beliefs. But the bottom line is that we're all terrible judges of our own work. That's why authors need proofreaders and (frequently) editors. If you want to break something you think is a rule, for whatever reason, try checking with your cow-orkers, to see what they think about it. Yes, they may all be hide-bound idiots, but if you get hit by a bus, they're the ones who are going to be left maintaining all that code you wrote. And maybe, just maybe, they'll spot something you didn't.
Yes, I know code reviews are painful and waste everyone's time, but spotting errors and issues up-front is orders of magnitude less painful than spotting them long after the fact, when the code has evolved to become several times more complex.
Oh, I see I forgot to add something about "get off my lawn" and maybe a mention of "whippersnappers". You kids are familiar with that word, aren't you?:D
I think I first read Rocannon's World around '73 or so; Ender's Game wasn't even published till '85. And in Ender's Game, the word is described as being "dredged...out of an old book somewhere." In other words, it was borrowed from LeGuin both in-universe and out-!
Not only that, but RH is quite willing to work with their apparent competitors, like Debian, for the benefit of everyone. If there's any company that understands that a rising tide lifts all boats, it's RH.
It's probably the easiest way to ensure the project gets proper funding. They get the talent, but more importantly, they ensure the talent gets paid, so the talent doesn't wander off and do other things to keep food on the table.
Yeah, I admit I'm torn. On the one hand, it's cool that a term coined by Ursula K. LeGuin has gained such broad acceptance that it can even appear in a company or product name. On the other, it's bizarre that a company would use it for something that bears no resemblance to what it means. (Unless I'm missing something.)
Yeah, I've noticed that my ratings on Netflix skew well above three. I'd like to help train the system better in my dislikes as well as my likes, but I'm not really willing to rate movies I haven't watched, and there's a lot of movies I'm not interested in watching.
They do have an "I'm not interested in this" option, though, so that probably helps. But it's also probably not reflected in their star ratings (nor should it be).
I agree, though. IMDb's ratings are better than those on most sites. (The only other site I pay much attention to is Rotten Tomatoes.) But even so, I've found cases where I disagree with the general consensus.
The big problem with Netflix's ratings is that people don't understand them. Which confounds the data. I often give very different ratings on Netflix than I do on IMDb, because I use my personal tastes for the former, and more objective criteria for the latter. Take The Godfather. Objectively, a brilliant film, with outstanding acting, writing, directing, editing, cinematography, etc., etc. A lot of people consider it one of the best films ever made. On IMDb, I wouldn't give it less than 8/10, because I recognize its fine qualities. On Netflix, though, I can't give it more than 2/5, because it's not the sort of movie I like or want to watch, and 3 or higher means "I like it". I admire it, but I don't like it. I understand why people like it, and agree with the reasons for the praise, but it's not to my tastes.
(Of course, this also happens on IMDb, in reverse.)
Slashdot Mirror
[...]and we can get some editors who actually read the site?
And destroy a tradition that dates back to when the site was independent, and run for love not money? Blasphemy!
If systemd "doesn't even have usable logs", then neither does sysvinit. Because systemd can log to exactly the same places sysvinit does, in exactly the same way! And on my system it does. Systemd also has other options, which I may explore later at my leisure. But for now, nothing about my logs has changed with systemd!
Of course, I'm using Debian, and this whole thing is reminding me very much of the glibc transition, back in the day. Lots of people were screaming about how glibc was breaking everything, because certain vendors (no names will be mentioned...rdht) rushed the transition out the door. Debian took their time and did it right, and Debian users barely even noticed the transition.
In addition to all the version control software that supports "ssh:" protocols (from CVS up through git), there's those servers at work that lots of us connect to, without knowing who may have installed what on them.
Of course, if your work has rogue admins who are installing trojan ssh servers (or are simply so bad at their jobs that they allow outsiders to install trojan ssh servers), then you've definitely got bigger problems. But fixing the leak on your side and updating your keys will at least cover your ass.
And before that, it was common with CVS & SVN. Probably with Mercurial, Bazaar, and Arch as well.
That's what they tell me, but of course, my Debian systems using systemd actually still seem to log the same old stuff to the same old files. :)
Yeah, early reports described BRIN as "a niche feature", and my reaction was, well, yeah, broadly speaking, but boy that's a huge niche! :)
Wow, I think that may be one of the worst headlines I've seen on Slashdot, and that's saying something. "Not yet" does not mean "we're not sure yet." And "turns out not to have a planet" does not mean "we don't know if it does, but our earlier assumption turns out to be wrong."
From the headline, I assumed that they'd managed to establish that Alpha C. actually did not have a planet, but did have coalescing clouds that would soon (in astronomical terms) become one. That would be an extremely cool discovery! Unfortunately, neither of those things appears to be true (or if it is, we haven't established it).
How about "Reports of Alpha Centauri's Planet Proven to be Premature"? It's even got some nice alliterism to it. And, possibly more importantly, it's got some relationship to the facts (at least as presented in TFS).
Having never heard of Discogs before, it basically sounds like it's like MusicBrainz with more data. Is that about right?
Except that unlike MusicBrainz, there's no API. The data just sits there on the page. On the other hand, MusicBrainz actually shamelessly encourages lifting data from Discogs (which is how I first discovered Discogs). So that's something. The obsessive record collectors fill out the data on Discogs, and the folks at MusicBrainz take it and turn it into something more useful to the general public.
But yeah, I haven't looked at what sort of arrangement Discogs has with its contributors, since it doesn't strike me as something it would be all that useful to contribute to, since I'm not a record collector, and don't obsess over each minor variation of each release of even the albums I like. Even though I'm old-school enough to still own a lot of physical media.
Huh, I'm down to three, and one of those is only used with some fairly old devices I have. (Actually, I've only got one of those old devices left in service.) Other than that, I just have full-sized and new-phone-standard minis.
I do have a fairly extensive collection of old cables with a wide variety of sizes and shapes, though. So I feel your pain. :)
You should know that Unicomp, which bought the rights to the model M keyboard design (the original gigantic clacky PC keyboard), still makes true model Ms with a variety of connectors including USB. My aunt swears by them. They're not cheap, but as you have clearly noticed, they also last for ages. So if the one you have does give up the ghost, you've got options.
Most motherboard PS/2 ports are actually PS/2->USB adapters these days. So you're very likely going AT->PS/2->USB. Which is fine if it works.
One of the most important characteristics of a planet...
There's three characteristics, and this is probably the least important. But if you consider all three to be "the most" important, then I suppose it's one of them. That seems like a pretty silly way to express yourself, though. Personally, I'd probably just say "one characteristic".
Also note that we're talking about the IAU definition, which is not necessarily the only definition. Dictionaries still haven't accepted the IAU definition, and may never do so, because the IAU defines a planet as orbiting the sun, while science fiction writers continue merrily talking about planets around other stars, and show no signs of changing.
Well, just to start with, they could cut that short by limiting it to ads for the official state religion.
(Do please remember that we're discussing England here, not the US.)
By that logic, advertisements for sports should be banned as well. I suspect that mentioning Arsenal is about 10x more likely to generate an actual fight than mentioning the Church of England.
I've made one contribution to this game. A very minor one, but one I'm proud of nonetheless. I persuaded them to change their motto from: "Cause Civilization Should Be Free" to "'Cause Civilization Should Be Free". The missing apostrophe was just more than I could stand. :)
Emacs highlights space/tab related errors in its Makefile mode. I believe vim does the same.
There are a lot of bad "rules" running around out there. There's also a lot of good ones. Some have evolved through painful experience; others are more like cargo-cult beliefs. But the bottom line is that we're all terrible judges of our own work. That's why authors need proofreaders and (frequently) editors. If you want to break something you think is a rule, for whatever reason, try checking with your cow-orkers, to see what they think about it. Yes, they may all be hide-bound idiots, but if you get hit by a bus, they're the ones who are going to be left maintaining all that code you wrote. And maybe, just maybe, they'll spot something you didn't.
Yes, I know code reviews are painful and waste everyone's time, but spotting errors and issues up-front is orders of magnitude less painful than spotting them long after the fact, when the code has evolved to become several times more complex.
Oh, I see I forgot to add something about "get off my lawn" and maybe a mention of "whippersnappers". You kids are familiar with that word, aren't you? :D
Card (as well as several other writers) borrowed the name from LeGuin.
The word ansible was coined by Ursula K. Le Guin in her 1966 novel Rocannon's World.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I think I first read Rocannon's World around '73 or so; Ender's Game wasn't even published till '85. And in Ender's Game, the word is described as being "dredged...out of an old book somewhere." In other words, it was borrowed from LeGuin both in-universe and out-!
Not only that, but RH is quite willing to work with their apparent competitors, like Debian, for the benefit of everyone. If there's any company that understands that a rising tide lifts all boats, it's RH.
It's probably the easiest way to ensure the project gets proper funding. They get the talent, but more importantly, they ensure the talent gets paid, so the talent doesn't wander off and do other things to keep food on the table.
Yeah, I admit I'm torn. On the one hand, it's cool that a term coined by Ursula K. LeGuin has gained such broad acceptance that it can even appear in a company or product name. On the other, it's bizarre that a company would use it for something that bears no resemblance to what it means. (Unless I'm missing something.)
Yeah, I've noticed that my ratings on Netflix skew well above three. I'd like to help train the system better in my dislikes as well as my likes, but I'm not really willing to rate movies I haven't watched, and there's a lot of movies I'm not interested in watching.
They do have an "I'm not interested in this" option, though, so that probably helps. But it's also probably not reflected in their star ratings (nor should it be).
But some bad movies are great! :)
I agree, though. IMDb's ratings are better than those on most sites. (The only other site I pay much attention to is Rotten Tomatoes.) But even so, I've found cases where I disagree with the general consensus.
The big problem with Netflix's ratings is that people don't understand them. Which confounds the data. I often give very different ratings on Netflix than I do on IMDb, because I use my personal tastes for the former, and more objective criteria for the latter. Take The Godfather. Objectively, a brilliant film, with outstanding acting, writing, directing, editing, cinematography, etc., etc. A lot of people consider it one of the best films ever made. On IMDb, I wouldn't give it less than 8/10, because I recognize its fine qualities. On Netflix, though, I can't give it more than 2/5, because it's not the sort of movie I like or want to watch, and 3 or higher means "I like it". I admire it, but I don't like it. I understand why people like it, and agree with the reasons for the praise, but it's not to my tastes.
(Of course, this also happens on IMDb, in reverse.)