What nobody's explained to me is why, if systemd is as bad as most people on Slashdot think it is, why is it in so many distros?
Basically, sysvinit was a pain for every decent sysadmin, it has so many problems nowadays, it needed all the most competent sysadmin skills to work, and not even correctly work.
Reading many comments such as this makes me wonder about the competencies and attention spans of current generations of sysadmins, as if reading and understanding shell scripts is such a difficult task.
Especially when I hear people complain about how hard it is to debug a shell script. Do these people really think that moving from readable and traceable (set -x) shell scripts to a declarative language makes things easier to debug?
These people wouldn't by any change happen to be the same people as those complaining that make, a declarative language, is too hard to understand, maintain and debug and that it needs to be replaced by some complex substitute that claims to simplify things and attempts to hide complexity by reducing flexibility?
To elaborate, init is not doing nothing, it is providing some essential services:
it provides an attachment point to the kernel for orphaned child processes that would otherwise end up outside of the tree.
it performs essential resource cleanup for orphaned zombie processes, among other things allowing reuse of the PID by future processes.
The difficulties of GM are that the producer is able to develop a dependency on the product. This dependency should be illegal. It's why pimps get their girls (and boys) hooked on crack or heroin. It's why big tobacco is evil.
What "dependency"? You can switch from GMO to non-GMO any time you like. Of course, you have to live with the lower yields if you do.
This is a tangent, but comparing this response with the typical systemd response yields some insight on both the perceived arrogance of Monsanto and the conjectured hidden agenda of systemd.
We'll call this kind of response the 'systemd defense'
I suggest setting up the NT server as the corporate fileserver. (Or at least the fileserver for stuff that needs to be backed up.)
Next I would suggest writing a company policy regards the mandatory use of said fileserver. Try to convince management and have them approve it so the policy can be enforced.
If that succeeds you can just make regular backups of the fileserver.
I beg to disagree. With the GPL, people say, whatever I might turn out, be it a fullblown software project or a little API, you will have little choice about the usage of your software. Even more, you will limit the usage of your software by other people/corporations. And all this based on the notion that programmers should be awarded for their work. All this with absolute disregard to my point of view as a programmer, a producer of goods for the benefit of others, a creato of utilities which others might and probably would have not conceived if it weren't for me.
Allright, a lot of people will grumble because hey, I'm being pretentious. To those people I say: DO IT YOURSELF.
But who will deny me my right to deploy and distribute my own software as I see fit? Who will tell me that I am a genius with regards to software and a moron with regards to software distribution and economics?
I say, let the people who build the stuff decide what to do with it! I don't care if somebody else uses my hard work and turns it into something profitable? As long as they give credit to my work, and people use it for something useful and who knows, maybe lifesaving. Who am I to put my own interests before those of somebody who is in dire need?
I say: use my software if it suits your purposes. If it ain't good enough you won't use it, so in that case there's no problem whatsoever. If not, don't use it. Simple, right? And even if it's good enough: if you're not planning on writing the stuff on your own, fuck you if you think I am going to give all my hard work away for free. No way sir! Build your own, use mine on my conditions or do something else!
Sure, the GPL is viral. If it weren't, it probably wouldn't survive because of all those corporate and, probably misguided, personal interests. Without the GPL, we would have no tools to make a UNIX system bearable. Eat it or die!
So I suggest that all those people who claim that the GPL is bad, and let's cut the programmers from the non-programmers (these last guys probably don't even know what it's really all about), look at what they produce and how it is used by the world at large. How much money do they make? How much satisfaction do they get from the fact that somebody else is using their code?
Let's face it: why do you make software? For the money? Pity on the slave-programmers and all those misguided souls who think that de-skilling works, and software-factories are a good thing. Poor souls!
...single platter, a single read/write head, and a head-latching mechanism that keeps the fragile head firmly locked out of harm's way when you power down the drive.
Isnt' this something any hard drive is supposed to do?
Personally, I do not see any compelling reason to have Linux conquer the desktop, but that's ok: it's just a personal opinion.
If you want to improve whatever you think needs improving for Linux to be a mainstream thing, than sure, go ahead. By all means. That is, after all, the way things work in this community.
What I don't like, though, is the impression of pressure (and the associated hype) to put Linux on the desktop, now, fast, because if it doesn't get there we're doomed to fail or somesuch thing.
No, it's not that I'm bothered. It's not like as if somebody is actually going to force me to do something I do not want to do.
In all probability it's just an allergic reaction to exage/over-rated luser expectations. Linux is ok, and it will not fail because our Linux systems are not capable to install and maintain them all by themselves. Or because lusers can't deal with the fact that intelligence is a requirement.
Relax, people, those who care will act, but at their own pace, and things will work out. But there's no stringent need, and we are not losing.
These are the sources that drive the objects in the Quake II world. Just like the QuakeC sources in Quake, only this time it's genuine C code that sits in a shared library or DLL.
Slashdot Mirror
What nobody's explained to me is why, if systemd is as bad as most people on Slashdot think it is, why is it in so many distros?
Basically, sysvinit was a pain for every decent sysadmin, it has so many problems nowadays, it needed all the most competent sysadmin skills to work, and not even correctly work.
Reading many comments such as this makes me wonder about the competencies and attention spans of current generations of sysadmins, as if reading and understanding shell scripts is such a difficult task.
Especially when I hear people complain about how hard it is to debug a shell script. Do these people really think that moving from readable and traceable (set -x) shell scripts to a declarative language makes things easier to debug?
These people wouldn't by any change happen to be the same people as those complaining that make, a declarative language, is too hard to understand, maintain and debug and that it needs to be replaced by some complex substitute that claims to simplify things and attempts to hide complexity by reducing flexibility?
Okay, sure.
I'd argue that's a feature, not a bug.
To elaborate, init is not doing nothing, it is providing some essential services:
it provides an attachment point to the kernel for orphaned child processes that would otherwise end up outside of the tree.
it performs essential resource cleanup for orphaned zombie processes, among other things allowing reuse of the PID by future processes.
The difficulties of GM are that the producer is able to develop a dependency on the product. This dependency should be illegal. It's why pimps get their girls (and boys) hooked on crack or heroin. It's why big tobacco is evil.
What "dependency"? You can switch from GMO to non-GMO any time you like. Of course, you have to live with the lower yields if you do.
This is a tangent, but comparing this response with the typical systemd response yields some insight on both the perceived arrogance of Monsanto and the conjectured hidden agenda of systemd. We'll call this kind of response the 'systemd defense'
...are hard to reconcile.
I suggest setting up the NT server as the corporate fileserver. (Or at least the fileserver for stuff that needs to be backed up.)
Next I would suggest writing a company policy regards the mandatory use of said fileserver. Try to convince management and have them approve it so the policy can be enforced.
If that succeeds you can just make regular backups of the fileserver.
Just my 0.02 EUR.
I beg to disagree. With the GPL, people say, whatever I might turn out, be it a fullblown software project or a little API, you will have little choice about the usage of your software. Even more, you will limit the usage of your software by other people/corporations. And all this based on the notion that programmers should be awarded for their work. All this with absolute disregard to my point of view as a programmer, a producer of goods for the benefit of others, a creato of utilities which others might and probably would have not conceived if it weren't for me.
Allright, a lot of people will grumble because hey, I'm being pretentious. To those people I say: DO IT YOURSELF.
But who will deny me my right to deploy and distribute my own software as I see fit? Who will tell me that I am a genius with regards to software and a moron with regards to software distribution and economics?
I say, let the people who build the stuff decide what to do with it! I don't care if somebody else uses my hard work and turns it into something profitable? As long as they give credit to my work, and people use it for something useful and who knows, maybe lifesaving. Who am I to put my own interests before those of somebody who is in dire need?
I say: use my software if it suits your purposes. If it ain't good enough you won't use it, so in that case there's no problem whatsoever. If not, don't use it. Simple, right? And even if it's good enough: if you're not planning on writing the stuff on your own, fuck you if you think I am going to give all my hard work away for free. No way sir! Build your own, use mine on my conditions or do something else!
Sure, the GPL is viral. If it weren't, it probably wouldn't survive because of all those corporate and, probably misguided, personal interests. Without the GPL, we would have no tools to make a UNIX system bearable. Eat it or die!
So I suggest that all those people who claim that the GPL is bad, and let's cut the programmers from the non-programmers (these last guys probably don't even know what it's really all about), look at what they produce and how it is used by the world at large. How much money do they make? How much satisfaction do they get from the fact that somebody else is using their code?
Let's face it: why do you make software? For the money? Pity on the slave-programmers and all those misguided souls who think that de-skilling works, and software-factories are a good thing. Poor souls!
---
Ack.
AFAIAC, the parent of my parent (poster) is a crackpot.
---
...single platter, a single read/write head, and a head-latching mechanism that keeps the fragile head firmly locked out of harm's way when you power down the drive.
Isnt' this something any hard drive is supposed to do?
---
...the Antarctica entry. "M/HVV" indeed! :)
---
Still, nothing here that can't be fixed with chmod and umask.
---
Linux on the desktop.
Personally, I do not see any compelling reason to have Linux conquer the desktop, but that's ok: it's just a personal opinion.
If you want to improve whatever you think needs improving for Linux to be a mainstream thing, than sure, go ahead. By all means. That is, after all, the way things work in this community.
What I don't like, though, is the impression of pressure (and the associated hype) to put Linux on the desktop, now, fast, because if it doesn't get there we're doomed to fail or somesuch thing.
No, it's not that I'm bothered. It's not like as if somebody is actually going to force me to do something I do not want to do.
In all probability it's just an allergic reaction to exage/over-rated luser expectations. Linux is ok, and it will not fail because our Linux systems are not capable to install and maintain them all by themselves. Or because lusers can't deal with the fact that intelligence is a requirement.
Relax, people, those who care will act, but at their own pace, and things will work out. But there's no stringent need, and we are not losing.
No offence intended, dear luser!
Cya,
Slay
---
These are the sources that drive the objects in the Quake II world. Just like the QuakeC sources in Quake, only this time it's genuine C code that sits in a shared library or DLL.
So, no, it's not the engine as such.
---
From the site:
---
It has no display, no buttons, no microphone, and no speaker.
---
Can someone explain me how something can pick up 'facts', when it has no microphone or other apparent device with which to pick up these 'facts'?
:)