You are more full of shit than an abandoned outhouse. I could run this by every Java developer I've met in the last 10 years and they'd ask what controlled substance you're high on because most of us haven't worked on even a single project where the deployment target and the workstations matched up either in OS or JVM version.
Have to disagree with this anecdote here. Having worked as a SysAdmin/OpsEng for places with heavy Java development, I've had to deal with "We must use this specific version of the JVM or our code won't work" demands from the Devs. Often this extends down to the bugfix/patch release level because of some specific oddball behavior or performance regression, which manages to make Java compatibility suck far more than perl and many other environments, even leaving aside the irony of comparing that to java's initial promises.
Perl just looks like line noise because of the heavy use of regular expressions.
It's always hilarious to me how people hold this as a strike against Perl...
If you need to modify/search/describe variable types of text, you're going to be using regular expressions. (Or you're going to be doing it very inefficiently, or in some super-abstracted way that will inevitably fail you when you hit a special case and need more direct control.)
Regular expressions basically look the same in any language, and the additions perl makes onto it are useful, but don't constitute the bulk of their ugliness to someone at first glance.
Blaming REs for perl doesn't make sense.
Blaming variable $igils for line noise, though... that can be fair (if you're dealing with a very complex data structure). FWIW, shell scripting and other types of references occasionally are worse.
No, I pointed out that once you want to move beyond some simple scripts, Python has those libraries while Perl does not.
What? I have yet to find a data processing library/module/implementation that I needed that didn't have a decent perl implementation. If you need something bleeding edge, maybe, as certain things tend to get written in whatever fad language is popular at the moment. If it's realistically in use though, there's probably a perl module for it.
And once you want to move beyond some simple automation scripts it has a much larger ecosystem than Perl.
CPAN is twice the size of PyPI measured by discrete modules. Determination of usefulness is left as an exercise for the reader.
Centos is pretty common in academic environments and the closed source software is developed with federal funds but the university that owns the intellectually property wants to license it commercially. It's easily the best tool available to do some types of work, but they're not about to release the source code. In many cases, the source code doesn't get released for research projects in academia, for a variety of reasons, which is unfortunate.
That is unfortunate, but the entire point of Enterprise Linux is that it's a platform. Your upstream vendor (who's obviously aware of Linux, Linux distributions, and "support"), should ensure that it and its dependencies are packaged and available if they claim to support the OS. And if they disclaim support for the OS, you should ask your bosses why they think buying a closed source product for an OS that's not supported was going to work out.
If you're using some weird newfangled.io product that just had it's 4th ABI break of the year this month, then yes, Enterprise Land is not where you want to be. Most other products actually are decently workable on EL6 fine, or have a requirement on something that can be downloaded on a Software Collection ecosystem.
If worst comes to worse, then yes move to EL7. Or see if your fast-moving vendor will commit to supporting Fedora with its 13-month lifecycles.
SystemD is the whole middleware where init and service management are just one part of it. Even if you don't use (and shouldn't!) badly reinvented wheels like resolved, networkd, timesyncd, hostnamed,...d, the core of it is init + process management + containerization of services, not just fire-and-forget-and-maybe-send-a-signal-using-pidfile-for-reference.
The fact remains that THAT set of functions are good. Using a simple INI-like file to set up how a service starts, how it stops, how it is contained (ro, rw dirs, host-side mounts, capabilities, syscall filters,...) is really superior than any alternative in the Linux world.
The thing is, THAT set of functions could also be provided by a service hanging off of a traditional init and traditional rc-level, script-based startup process.
Need proof? We already have something that does half of that: xinetd
Those of us that need socket-based activation, environment cleaning, log file descriptor tracking, auto-restart-on-fail, or simultaneous startup (for things this actually provides a benefit for, which is less than you think) can use tools like inet, xinetd, or monit, runit, or daemontools/supervise (or one of its clones) to handle that. And what doesn't exist already can pretty easily be patched in, or added to runscripts (or, as was mentioned, initscript boilerplate in/etc/init.d/functions).
If no one added cgroup support to xinetd, or wanted it setting up tmpfs mounts everywhere, it was because no one really saw a need for it. But these features could have been added without blowing up the startup process the way systemd has.
ClamAV is wonderful, but won't be able to keep up with everything you need. For free. It's worth it for everyone who isn't a security ninja themselves to find a reasonable middleground between OCD paranoia on their own, and taking prudent measures to protect themselves. That means commercial security software from a reputable company.
I can't speak for what Russian end-users should use, because I don't know whether *FOR THEM* the greater threat is internal or external to their country. In the days of the USSR, it would be obvious -- the Party is more of a threat to you than external actors. Now? Not for me to say.
For an American citizen, and as a sysadmin, I'm far more worried about economic espionage and data lifting from untargeting third parties (bitcoin extortion that happens to hit me) and spear phishing attacks against companies I work for, potentially from foreign intrigue, than I am about the domestic NSA spying on me via Symantec or another domestic product.
Americans have options, and for someone in a similar position I'd encourage them to weigh the positives and negatives similarly.
It is now ALWAYS listening for "OK, Google" how is that any different? Personally I would rather have to tap or double tap to activate. When will people realize to be able to respond to anything it has to be listening all the time.
Yeah, I'm not sure how this is a privacy win. "Congrats! Instead of us properly engineering a way to have you control intentionally when the device is listening, we'll force you to have it always listen!"
If Google cared about privacy, they'd retrofit these devices with a physical touch switch rather than a fingertip sensor and allow you to disable the "OK Google" voice recognition. But that would impact their ability to train their Deep Learning networks, so it's a non-starter.
Sometimes I really can't tell if Google, Alphabet, or any of their employees are evil, incompetent, or are just obliviously optimistic technological Solutionists.
There IS a third player - Samsung. Samsung's phones are "Android based" in the same way that Android is "Linux based".
Can you clarify a little bit on this? I've had plenty of smartphones, but they've all been either LG or HTC based on Verizon. What is Samsung doing on its software releases that's markedly different from other device manufacturers?
Integration of hardware will probably happen at first, but if a true cross-OS market develops then you'll see smartphones follow the path of the PC market in the '90s. Dominant positions, license sales, and compatibility issues.
About the only thing I trust less than Silicon Valley is China or Russia, however. So if the new platforms start there then I'll be sitting them out...
For some reason these don't come up when viewing the "starting on 20010911" page, but the original and followup stories as 9/11 was happening are here:
What gives you reason to think that? Any ad campaign is by definition a planned activity. And whether it's by some PAC, a 501(c), the German Foreign Office, or the KGB, doesn't really change any fundamental aspect of it.
While a "don't show me ads bought by foreign users or entities" option has all sorts of ramifications on the site, and across the internet, and might be something I'd actually support (and is probably worthy of a full-fledged discussion), the problem is that the Facebook ad platform (and all big data ad targetting systems) are so efficient and people are so worked up that ANY ad can be used to impact and influence people much more strongly than they used to.
Ads are the problem. Microtargetability is the problem. Lack of critical thinking is the problem. Ad-supported communication networks that reach 50-80% of the population on a daily basis are the problem. KGB ad buys are not really the problem.
His statement is ludicrous and, given that this is Kurzweil and the answer is easily derivable from his OWN BOOKS I feel like he's seriously gone off the deep end.
Previous technological advances were based on physical automation. A steam engine displaces workers, but frees them up for other work that can't be done by steam engines. OCR displaces data entry personnel, but frees them up for other work that can't be done just by OCR.
But what happens when you develop generalized AI? The notion that "there's always something that machines won't be able to do but humans can" is all well and good, but something that can't go on forever... won't. Furthermore, by automating the most mundane tasks and taking away all but the most skilled meta-work positions (ie, algorithm designers and AI trainers), you're sucking away huge chunks of the population's future. And anything you're going to try to retrain them for will simply be the Next Big Thing some d-bag Silicon Valley Solutionist (like yourself, now) will attempt to automate for the purposes of exchanging operational expenditures putting food on the table with capital expenditures increasing their stock value.
The only saving grace is that when Skynet becomes operational it's probably going to take out its data masters first.
Here's an example of a design that alienated a fair amount of the linux population. However, that population is folks who were interested in self supporting.
No, it's a tiny, very loud subset of that population that just enjoys rolling in their own noise at this point. Most people I know greatly prefer the ease of use, predictability & reliability (greatly reduced race conditions) of CentOS 7 to CentOS 6, for instance.
That's funny -- my experience has been the exact opposite. Many folks (ie, companies) I know are dragging their heels on the EL7 migration (far more than they did from EL5 to EL6) and systemd UNpredictability, UNreliability and greatly increased race conditions has been a big part of that. (The other parts are either firewalld-based, the large number of other changes that happened, or general enterprise conservativeness.)
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if EL7 ends up as the Windows Vista of the Enterprise community... Skipped by anyone who has any option to do so.
I still do some admin part time and I haven't found a single thing that I could do with shell-based startup scripts that I can't do with systemd units (including calling shells scripts), while things like pre-requisites/requirements and parallelism are way easier with systemd.
Parallelism is indeed easier (as it should be, since that was the goal), but it's the appropriate solution in far fewer cases than one would think, often for little benefit. Parallelism in startup often increases risks of issues, depending on the daemon you're using, puts increased load on spinning disks ("We're not going to support readahead any more because all our laptops have SSDs!"), and resulted in a whole host (no pun intended) of intermittent, hard to isolate bugs for years before things shook out.
The only other thing systemd does *well* is cgroup isolation. But there are other ways to deal with that that don't involve all the other drawbacks, feature creep, and change that the rest of the systemd project has brought down.
I'm sure there is some edge case where systemd doesn't work, but that's fine - there's nothing stopping anybody from booting that, and hire third-party support if/when required.
Yes there is. Do you not understand what EL is? If the systemd "cabal" had wanted to allow choice in process launching/supervisor system, they would have had systemd hanging off of the existing init process a la xinetd to give it time to mature. As-is, they couldn't wait to burn the ships like Cortez and attempt to lock people in to systemd as soon as possible. A lot of smart people worked on Devuan and it still took a year to unwind systemd from the system. (This goes especially harshly for those with a need to run a GNOME environment on their systems.)
Most people are happier with systemd than SysV init and the people who are insisting that they should be unhappier based on some academic theory are not looking out for the best interests of the community. We use unix to make our lives more satisfying, not less.
I'm happy that systemd seems to work for you. We (users and sysadmins who were pretty fine with deterministic, shell-scripted, predictable boot initialization) would have preferred you isolate your code away from the rest of the community. If Fedora and Ubuntu wanted to have systemd as the preferred init system for their laptop-focused distributions, hey more power to them. But server administrators never asked for this crap and got it foisted on us against our will.
... As long as you don't think any incorrect thoughts. Then you can't work there any more.
We absolutely need projects like Mozilla's to fight once again against monopolistic powers. But their focus must be on technology and OSS. Not prosecuting unrelated thought crimes.
I'm routinely reminded of the fact that the only reason Google hasn't ascended to Umbrella Corp-level mass evil manipulation of the world is that it is, in many cases, completely incompetent. Great engineers inventing great algorithms, but its successes are in spite of its own internal dysfunction.
If it ever figures out how to operate intelligently, though... Look out. We'll all be doomed.
Reminds me of an excellent post from an Iranian blogger who was put in prison for six years, from 2008 until an unexpected pardon in 2015. It's worth a read, especially for the younger folks who weren't paying much attention to information theory or internet philosophy prior to the Rise of Social Media.
Instead, there was the web, and on the web, there were blogs: the best place to find alternative thoughts, news and analysis. They were my life. It had all started with 9/11. I was in Toronto, and my father had just arrived from Tehran for a visit. We were having breakfast when the second plane hit the World Trade Center. I was puzzled and confused and, looking for insights and explanations, I came across blogs. Once I read a few, I thought: This is it, I should start one, and encourage all Iranians to start blogging as well. So, using Notepad on Windows, I started experimenting. Soon I ended up writing on hoder.com, using Blogger’s publishing platform before Google bought it.
For those of us on Slashdot, smart or non-smart should not be an issue. If you don't want the smart features of the TV, block its MAC address at your firewall. Problem solved.
Crunchy on the outside, chewy on the inside, is not a very "smart" way of handling security issues presented by Smart TVs. The better way is to remove them completely -- i.e., not getting one with a complex control system and feature set in the first place.
Like the OP, I wish more manufacturers were keeping focus on this area. I have a Mitsubishi 65" DLP from back in the day (2008?) that I still use just for its simplicity (and having 4x HDMI ports, 2x antennae, plus tons of legacy ports is awesome). I'm ready for an upgrade, but I have no need for apps on my TV when I have all these various devices that do better jobs at things already connected to it, and the complexity and attendant security issues seem far from worth whatever functions I'm supposedly gaining. Whatever happened to "do one thing and do it well"?
Last I heard LG had some good models in this area; perhaps it's time to look closer.
It's: You are prohibited from playing the lottery if you have a family member who works for them.
And this is a pretty long-running type of condition that's used in all sorts of situations. I'm sure it's been tested in courts. Most family members (and persons living in the same househod -- i.e., roommates) of employees of a radio station or any affiliated or partnered company aren't able to take part in radio promotions or contests either.
When you don't have a prohibition like this, it's too easy for the trusted/audited company workers to skew the results, like in the McDonald's Monopoly scandal a decade or so ago.
Does WordPress have anything in their terms of service about inciting violence, committing crimes, or breaking the law in general?
Probably -- most sites and platforms have something buried somewhere in their T&C's to cover their ass --- at least if they had a good lawyer look it over before posting it.
The key is on the term "incitement". That has a specific legal meaning because it's already a crime. Orgs can that want to make a stand for free speech can (and probably should) consolidate their T&C's into banning "illegal activities" and leave it at that. Doesn't mean they can't forward suspicions off to the police, for example, and allow the legal system to work its course. But despite the last 6-7 years, there's a big difference between "speech we don't like" and "illegal activity".
If they want to have a more proactive impact on their platform (to the extent that, in GoDaddy's case, domain registration is a "platform"), then they can put whatever they want into their T&Cs, and they'll usually add a catch-all "at our discretion" to let them not have to explain themselves too much.
For WP or something that imports to have "community" features of some type (and isn't at the scale of a national utility, like Facebook or Twitter) this is pretty defensible. Payment processors have long exercised discretion about billing for adult sites and other things (although that had been more of a direct business decision before AIUI). For a domain name registar, not so much. Plenty of horrible (but not illegal) content is out there on the internet already. If GoDaddy wants to take a stand for a nicer Internet, it could start by not offering anonymized domain registrations. PO Boxes are fine, but we're supposed to have useful contact information there.
I like bullpens in an operational environment, when during a crisis you want to be able to provide more or less instant ("Hey, I've got this, can you take a look at that.") communication and you don't have a real NOC or Operations center (or you're providing team support to them but aren't physically collocated.
Outside of that -- some designer/programmer working on some discrete unit? Probably not. Separate offices and walled cubes, and then provide lots of shared whiteboard areas (or open rooms) for when collaboration does in fact need to happen.
They won't get in trouble because they technically have done nothing wrong. They fired a guy for not having the right political view point which, as I understand it, is not protected in the US like it is elsewhere.
It's not generally a "protected class" for employment purposes in the US, but it is in California... and might be in a few other places.
I know political opinion/creed etc is a protected class for public accommodations or services (eg, hotel stays, restaurants, etc.) in Washington, DC, for example.
...when people attempt to link legitimate engineering or technical points-of-view with misogyny, *-phobia, microagressions, or God-knows-what other kinds of SJW evils, it's hard to then claim that alternative views can't bring up what progressive social folks are doing and how it might affect things back.
(Also, like many others, I'm curious why Gizmodo (of all outlets) presents the essay while removing all hyperlinks and charts, as if somehow that is doing a service to its readers by removing context from what is obviously going to involve strong reactions. Nice going, guys.)
Network broadcast stations were on both VHF and UHF.
We are a network affiliate! We complete with other network affiliates, not some punks broadcasting out of a closet! - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098546/
Slashdot Mirror
You are more full of shit than an abandoned outhouse. I could run this by every Java developer I've met in the last 10 years and they'd ask what controlled substance you're high on because most of us haven't worked on even a single project where the deployment target and the workstations matched up either in OS or JVM version.
Have to disagree with this anecdote here. Having worked as a SysAdmin/OpsEng for places with heavy Java development, I've had to deal with "We must use this specific version of the JVM or our code won't work" demands from the Devs. Often this extends down to the bugfix/patch release level because of some specific oddball behavior or performance regression, which manages to make Java compatibility suck far more than perl and many other environments, even leaving aside the irony of comparing that to java's initial promises.
Perl just looks like line noise because of the heavy use of regular expressions.
It's always hilarious to me how people hold this as a strike against Perl...
If you need to modify/search/describe variable types of text, you're going to be using regular expressions. (Or you're going to be doing it very inefficiently, or in some super-abstracted way that will inevitably fail you when you hit a special case and need more direct control.)
Regular expressions basically look the same in any language, and the additions perl makes onto it are useful, but don't constitute the bulk of their ugliness to someone at first glance.
Blaming REs for perl doesn't make sense.
Blaming variable $igils for line noise, though... that can be fair (if you're dealing with a very complex data structure). FWIW, shell scripting and other types of references occasionally are worse.
You're conflating the language with a library.
No, I pointed out that once you want to move beyond some simple scripts, Python has those libraries while Perl does not.
What? I have yet to find a data processing library/module/implementation that I needed that didn't have a decent perl implementation. If you need something bleeding edge, maybe, as certain things tend to get written in whatever fad language is popular at the moment. If it's realistically in use though, there's probably a perl module for it.
And once you want to move beyond some simple automation scripts it has a much larger ecosystem than Perl.
CPAN is twice the size of PyPI measured by discrete modules. Determination of usefulness is left as an exercise for the reader.
I want to know where Perl beats Python hands down in performance that doesn't include extra libraries.
Regular expressions
Memory allocation and de-allocation
Data structure management (hashes)
Language-standard sorting (in most cases)
That's just off the top of my head.
Centos is pretty common in academic environments and the closed source software is developed with federal funds but the university that owns the intellectually property wants to license it commercially. It's easily the best tool available to do some types of work, but they're not about to release the source code. In many cases, the source code doesn't get released for research projects in academia, for a variety of reasons, which is unfortunate.
That is unfortunate, but the entire point of Enterprise Linux is that it's a platform. Your upstream vendor (who's obviously aware of Linux, Linux distributions, and "support"), should ensure that it and its dependencies are packaged and available if they claim to support the OS. And if they disclaim support for the OS, you should ask your bosses why they think buying a closed source product for an OS that's not supported was going to work out.
If you're using some weird newfangled .io product that just had it's 4th ABI break of the year this month, then yes, Enterprise Land is not where you want to be. Most other products actually are decently workable on EL6 fine, or have a requirement on something that can be downloaded on a Software Collection ecosystem.
If worst comes to worse, then yes move to EL7. Or see if your fast-moving vendor will commit to supporting Fedora with its 13-month lifecycles.
SystemD is the whole middleware where init and service management are just one part of it. Even if you don't use (and shouldn't!) badly reinvented wheels like resolved, networkd, timesyncd, hostnamed, ...d, the core of it is init + process management + containerization of services, not just fire-and-forget-and-maybe-send-a-signal-using-pidfile-for-reference.
The fact remains that THAT set of functions are good. Using a simple INI-like file to set up how a service starts, how it stops, how it is contained (ro, rw dirs, host-side mounts, capabilities, syscall filters, ...) is really superior than any alternative in the Linux world.
The thing is, THAT set of functions could also be provided by a service hanging off of a traditional init and traditional rc-level, script-based startup process.
Need proof? We already have something that does half of that:
xinetd
Those of us that need socket-based activation, environment cleaning, log file descriptor tracking, auto-restart-on-fail, or simultaneous startup (for things this actually provides a benefit for, which is less than you think) can use tools like inet, xinetd, or monit, runit, or daemontools/supervise (or one of its clones) to handle that. And what doesn't exist already can pretty easily be patched in, or added to runscripts (or, as was mentioned, initscript boilerplate in /etc/init.d/functions).
If no one added cgroup support to xinetd, or wanted it setting up tmpfs mounts everywhere, it was because no one really saw a need for it. But these features could have been added without blowing up the startup process the way systemd has.
No pun intended.
ClamAV is wonderful, but won't be able to keep up with everything you need. For free. It's worth it for everyone who isn't a security ninja themselves to find a reasonable middleground between OCD paranoia on their own, and taking prudent measures to protect themselves. That means commercial security software from a reputable company.
I can't speak for what Russian end-users should use, because I don't know whether *FOR THEM* the greater threat is internal or external to their country. In the days of the USSR, it would be obvious -- the Party is more of a threat to you than external actors. Now? Not for me to say.
For an American citizen, and as a sysadmin, I'm far more worried about economic espionage and data lifting from untargeting third parties (bitcoin extortion that happens to hit me) and spear phishing attacks against companies I work for, potentially from foreign intrigue, than I am about the domestic NSA spying on me via Symantec or another domestic product.
Americans have options, and for someone in a similar position I'd encourage them to weigh the positives and negatives similarly.
It is now ALWAYS listening for "OK, Google" how is that any different? Personally I would rather have to tap or double tap to activate. When will people realize to be able to respond to anything it has to be listening all the time.
Yeah, I'm not sure how this is a privacy win. "Congrats! Instead of us properly engineering a way to have you control intentionally when the device is listening, we'll force you to have it always listen!"
If Google cared about privacy, they'd retrofit these devices with a physical touch switch rather than a fingertip sensor and allow you to disable the "OK Google" voice recognition. But that would impact their ability to train their Deep Learning networks, so it's a non-starter.
Sometimes I really can't tell if Google, Alphabet, or any of their employees are evil, incompetent, or are just obliviously optimistic technological Solutionists.
There IS a third player - Samsung. Samsung's phones are "Android based" in the same way that Android is "Linux based".
Can you clarify a little bit on this? I've had plenty of smartphones, but they've all been either LG or HTC based on Verizon. What is Samsung doing on its software releases that's markedly different from other device manufacturers?
Integration of hardware will probably happen at first, but if a true cross-OS market develops then you'll see smartphones follow the path of the PC market in the '90s. Dominant positions, license sales, and compatibility issues.
About the only thing I trust less than Silicon Valley is China or Russia, however. So if the new platforms start there then I'll be sitting them out...
For some reason these don't come up when viewing the "starting on 20010911" page, but the original and followup stories as 9/11 was happening are here:
https://slashdot.org/story/01/09/11/1314258/world-trade-towers-and-pentagon-attacked
https://slashdot.org/story/01/09/11/1640219/us-attack----more-updates
What gives you reason to think that? Any ad campaign is by definition a planned activity. And whether it's by some PAC, a 501(c), the German Foreign Office, or the KGB, doesn't really change any fundamental aspect of it.
While a "don't show me ads bought by foreign users or entities" option has all sorts of ramifications on the site, and across the internet, and might be something I'd actually support (and is probably worthy of a full-fledged discussion), the problem is that the Facebook ad platform (and all big data ad targetting systems) are so efficient and people are so worked up that ANY ad can be used to impact and influence people much more strongly than they used to.
Ads are the problem. Microtargetability is the problem. Lack of critical thinking is the problem. Ad-supported communication networks that reach 50-80% of the population on a daily basis are the problem. KGB ad buys are not really the problem.
His statement is ludicrous and, given that this is Kurzweil and the answer is easily derivable from his OWN BOOKS I feel like he's seriously gone off the deep end.
Previous technological advances were based on physical automation. A steam engine displaces workers, but frees them up for other work that can't be done by steam engines. OCR displaces data entry personnel, but frees them up for other work that can't be done just by OCR.
But what happens when you develop generalized AI? The notion that "there's always something that machines won't be able to do but humans can" is all well and good, but something that can't go on forever... won't. Furthermore, by automating the most mundane tasks and taking away all but the most skilled meta-work positions (ie, algorithm designers and AI trainers), you're sucking away huge chunks of the population's future. And anything you're going to try to retrain them for will simply be the Next Big Thing some d-bag Silicon Valley Solutionist (like yourself, now) will attempt to automate for the purposes of exchanging operational expenditures putting food on the table with capital expenditures increasing their stock value.
The only saving grace is that when Skynet becomes operational it's probably going to take out its data masters first.
Here's an example of a design that alienated a fair amount of the linux population. However, that population is folks who were interested in self supporting.
No, it's a tiny, very loud subset of that population that just enjoys rolling in their own noise at this point. Most people I know greatly prefer the ease of use, predictability & reliability (greatly reduced race conditions) of CentOS 7 to CentOS 6, for instance.
That's funny -- my experience has been the exact opposite. Many folks (ie, companies) I know are dragging their heels on the EL7 migration (far more than they did from EL5 to EL6) and systemd UNpredictability, UNreliability and greatly increased race conditions has been a big part of that. (The other parts are either firewalld-based, the large number of other changes that happened, or general enterprise conservativeness.)
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if EL7 ends up as the Windows Vista of the Enterprise community... Skipped by anyone who has any option to do so.
I still do some admin part time and I haven't found a single thing that I could do with shell-based startup scripts that I can't do with systemd units (including calling shells scripts), while things like pre-requisites/requirements and parallelism are way easier with systemd.
Parallelism is indeed easier (as it should be, since that was the goal), but it's the appropriate solution in far fewer cases than one would think, often for little benefit. Parallelism in startup often increases risks of issues, depending on the daemon you're using, puts increased load on spinning disks ("We're not going to support readahead any more because all our laptops have SSDs!"), and resulted in a whole host (no pun intended) of intermittent, hard to isolate bugs for years before things shook out.
The only other thing systemd does *well* is cgroup isolation. But there are other ways to deal with that that don't involve all the other drawbacks, feature creep, and change that the rest of the systemd project has brought down.
I'm sure there is some edge case where systemd doesn't work, but that's fine - there's nothing stopping anybody from booting that, and hire third-party support if/when required.
Yes there is. Do you not understand what EL is? If the systemd "cabal" had wanted to allow choice in process launching/supervisor system, they would have had systemd hanging off of the existing init process a la xinetd to give it time to mature. As-is, they couldn't wait to burn the ships like Cortez and attempt to lock people in to systemd as soon as possible. A lot of smart people worked on Devuan and it still took a year to unwind systemd from the system. (This goes especially harshly for those with a need to run a GNOME environment on their systems.)
Most people are happier with systemd than SysV init and the people who are insisting that they should be unhappier based on some academic theory are not looking out for the best interests of the community. We use unix to make our lives more satisfying, not less.
I'm happy that systemd seems to work for you. We (users and sysadmins who were pretty fine with deterministic, shell-scripted, predictable boot initialization) would have preferred you isolate your code away from the rest of the community. If Fedora and Ubuntu wanted to have systemd as the preferred init system for their laptop-focused distributions, hey more power to them. But server administrators never asked for this crap and got it foisted on us against our will.
https://xkcd.com/505/
Conway's Game of Life is indeed Turing Complete (see also: A New Kind of Science) and this is indeed pretty awesome that they were able to do this...
... As long as you don't think any incorrect thoughts. Then you can't work there any more.
We absolutely need projects like Mozilla's to fight once again against monopolistic powers. But their focus must be on technology and OSS. Not prosecuting unrelated thought crimes.
I'm routinely reminded of the fact that the only reason Google hasn't ascended to Umbrella Corp-level mass evil manipulation of the world is that it is, in many cases, completely incompetent. Great engineers inventing great algorithms, but its successes are in spite of its own internal dysfunction.
If it ever figures out how to operate intelligently, though... Look out. We'll all be doomed.
Reminds me of an excellent post from an Iranian blogger who was put in prison for six years, from 2008 until an unexpected pardon in 2015. It's worth a read, especially for the younger folks who weren't paying much attention to information theory or internet philosophy prior to the Rise of Social Media.
- https://medium.com/matter/the-web-we-have-to-save-2eb1fe15a426
See also: https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-01-04/after-six-years-prison-iranian-blogger-sees-very-different-internet and http://www.businessinsider.com/iranian-blogger-hossein-derakshan-internet-changes-6-years-filter-bubble-2015-7
For those of us on Slashdot, smart or non-smart should not be an issue. If you don't want the smart features of the TV, block its MAC address at your firewall. Problem solved.
Crunchy on the outside, chewy on the inside, is not a very "smart" way of handling security issues presented by Smart TVs. The better way is to remove them completely -- i.e., not getting one with a complex control system and feature set in the first place.
Like the OP, I wish more manufacturers were keeping focus on this area. I have a Mitsubishi 65" DLP from back in the day (2008?) that I still use just for its simplicity (and having 4x HDMI ports, 2x antennae, plus tons of legacy ports is awesome). I'm ready for an upgrade, but I have no need for apps on my TV when I have all these various devices that do better jobs at things already connected to it, and the complexity and attendant security issues seem far from worth whatever functions I'm supposedly gaining. Whatever happened to "do one thing and do it well"?
Last I heard LG had some good models in this area; perhaps it's time to look closer.
You've got it backwards.
It's: You are prohibited from playing the lottery if you have a family member who works for them.
And this is a pretty long-running type of condition that's used in all sorts of situations. I'm sure it's been tested in courts. Most family members (and persons living in the same househod -- i.e., roommates) of employees of a radio station or any affiliated or partnered company aren't able to take part in radio promotions or contests either.
When you don't have a prohibition like this, it's too easy for the trusted/audited company workers to skew the results, like in the McDonald's Monopoly scandal a decade or so ago.
Does WordPress have anything in their terms of service about inciting violence, committing crimes, or breaking the law in general?
Probably -- most sites and platforms have something buried somewhere in their T&C's to cover their ass --- at least if they had a good lawyer look it over before posting it.
The key is on the term "incitement". That has a specific legal meaning because it's already a crime. Orgs can that want to make a stand for free speech can (and probably should) consolidate their T&C's into banning "illegal activities" and leave it at that. Doesn't mean they can't forward suspicions off to the police, for example, and allow the legal system to work its course. But despite the last 6-7 years, there's a big difference between "speech we don't like" and "illegal activity".
If they want to have a more proactive impact on their platform (to the extent that, in GoDaddy's case, domain registration is a "platform"), then they can put whatever they want into their T&Cs, and they'll usually add a catch-all "at our discretion" to let them not have to explain themselves too much.
For WP or something that imports to have "community" features of some type (and isn't at the scale of a national utility, like Facebook or Twitter) this is pretty defensible. Payment processors have long exercised discretion about billing for adult sites and other things (although that had been more of a direct business decision before AIUI). For a domain name registar, not so much. Plenty of horrible (but not illegal) content is out there on the internet already. If GoDaddy wants to take a stand for a nicer Internet, it could start by not offering anonymized domain registrations. PO Boxes are fine, but we're supposed to have useful contact information there.
My two cents.
I like bullpens in an operational environment, when during a crisis you want to be able to provide more or less instant ("Hey, I've got this, can you take a look at that.") communication and you don't have a real NOC or Operations center (or you're providing team support to them but aren't physically collocated.
Outside of that -- some designer/programmer working on some discrete unit? Probably not. Separate offices and walled cubes, and then provide lots of shared whiteboard areas (or open rooms) for when collaboration does in fact need to happen.
They won't get in trouble because they technically have done nothing wrong. They fired a guy for not having the right political view point which, as I understand it, is not protected in the US like it is elsewhere.
It's not generally a "protected class" for employment purposes in the US, but it is in California... and might be in a few other places.
I know political opinion/creed etc is a protected class for public accommodations or services (eg, hotel stays, restaurants, etc.) in Washington, DC, for example.
...when people attempt to link legitimate engineering or technical points-of-view with misogyny, *-phobia, microagressions, or God-knows-what other kinds of SJW evils, it's hard to then claim that alternative views can't bring up what progressive social folks are doing and how it might affect things back.
e.g., " Anti-Systemd People ":
(Also, like many others, I'm curious why Gizmodo (of all outlets) presents the essay while removing all hyperlinks and charts, as if somehow that is doing a service to its readers by removing context from what is obviously going to involve strong reactions. Nice going, guys.)
Network broadcast stations were on both VHF and UHF.
We are a network affiliate! We complete with other network affiliates, not some punks broadcasting out of a closet! - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098546/