Well like I said, if you're not going to fix it yourself or pay to fix it then use a different distro or a different operating system because clearly the values and goals of the maintainers of the system you use are different to yours.
FreeBSD is running with a more knit closed technical minded people..systemd has been a political decision.
Yeah that is exactly what people said about Linux many years ago too.
The fact of life is Debian turned exactly into the stupidity we came to it to avoid.
And BSD will go that way when the community starts begging for corporate support and for support from major hardware and software vendors.
There seems to be no interest in doing anything to solve the problem and just running away from it instead, the codebase is there, the pro-systemd crowd is apparently a tiny minority so this majority of anti-systemd people could easily maintain or fund maintenance of the existing codebase. Yes there may be applications you need that have systemd dependencies but those would have to be ported if you want to use them on BSD anyway.
Yes everything from things actually involving you to things they just want to draw your attention to, that's why that data is so worthless and you get so many poor attempts at auto-tagging and so many irrelevant advertisements.
Thats nice, except Facebook tags them anyway because of their use of facial recognition.
Often quite poorly as people tag other people's children as the parents or people get tagged in photos they just want to send a notification about. That's why facebook does such a crappy job of identifying people in photos I post.
The point here is that of all of the advocates claiming systemd skeptics are just afraid of change and that systemd is just fine as is cannot seem to come up with a solution to this problem.
So - as is the way with open source - you either fix it yourself, you pay somebody else to fix it or you don't use it.
It's almost as if they don't actually know anything about the software they advocate...
Or rather they don't know everything about the software they advocate, which applies to everyone.
Then pigs fly, who cares? What I'm talking about is major BSD distros ending up just like the current state of Linux, it's extremely short-sighted and naive to think it that can't happen yet you think it so far fetched that you compare to pigs flying.
You've massively missed his point. Windows has long been a joke. Pop a CD in and it just runs an exe. Pop a USB key in and it just runs an exe. Other OSes are a little more discerning.
Does he really need to spell it out for you? He isn't saying that OS X is literally the UNIX developed by AT&T Bell labs but that OS X conforms to the Single UNIX Specification and meets the certification requirements of the Open Group which is the industry standards consortium that manages and publishes the UNIX specification.
I always loved the variety of choices for just about everything and the general "if you don't like it, change it or make your own" mindset.
That still exists.
The new thinking seems to be centered around agreeing on standards and rallying around a subset of options in order to make a more presentable solution to present to the masses.
That's not to do with Linux though, and going to something like BSD isn't going to help. Many programs are ported between Linux and BSD so would it not be easier to port those programs to a non-systemd Linux system rather than to BSD? What happens when the major BSDs implement a systemd-like interface to be compatible with Linux systems?
Leveraging the free/open nature of the system to maintain choice is what is needed here, not running away from the problem to somewhere that will ultimately end up meeting the same fate anyway.
The only problem with that is that Macs probably represent all of the anti-Unix nonsense he's trying to get away from by fleeing to one of the pure BSDs.
But fleeing from Linux to BSD doesn't solve the problem, that's just running away from it. If the major BSD distros decided to incorporate a systemd-like system then what?
great to make tiny pc's but that doesn't help those of us who want more computing power.
Just like powerful desktop CPUs doesn't help those who want tiny PCs, but I didn't see anything in the article to suggest they are abandoning high power chips in favor of small low powered ones.
But beyond that, it refuses to tell me why it isn't just doing the right thing and none of the big systemd advocates here can seem to tell me how one might fix it or work around it.
Don't these distros offer support for these sorts of things? That's one of the models for monetizing open source after all.
Systemd won all the hipsters who think Gnome devs make good decisions. The working sys admins are still on the other side of the room, admiring BSD.
It's the developers who made this choice, if they were a minority then the majority could easily continue maintaining distributions with SystemV init systems and the systemd distros would die out. I understand not everybody can be a developer but the core concept of open source is that if you don't like what the author has produced you either develop it yourself or pay somebody to develop what you want for you, it seems people are reluctant to do that and are instead choosing to move to BSD. But that's not really a solution, that's just running away from the problem. What if BSD goes the way of systemd? Then what?
The problem with the Linux community isn't that they fight.
No they aren't fighting at all, fighting it would be taking the existing Debian codebase and maintaining the existing init system rather than using a systemd codebase and competing with systemd. There's a lot of noise being made about this issue but not many people actually doing anything about it (except maybe switching from Linux to BSD).
What else is distinctive about an iPad apart from those two things?
On current iterations, the polished, chamfer edge on the bezel...but this Nokia tablet doesn't have that, actually the bevel on the edge is completely different.
You'd be surprised. People bought expensive workstations with IRIX and changed them to run Linux. Primarily for compatibility reasons, but there were also people who did it because they liked Linux and the concept of a larger toolbox instead of larger tools.
Which SGI systems were they switching to Linux? Back then Linux support for the graphics hardware was pretty crap even where it existed at all.
Not to mention this is the x86 version of Android so most precompiled Linux binaries for Intel systems won't even need a recompile. I can imagine there might be a scenario where you might need a regular Linux distro running on x86 for something you can't do on ARM (not sure what, but perhaps there's something) but I can't see what the issue is when the Linux distro you are running is Android x86.
For you maybe but for people like me this is just what I would want Linux with a touch screen. As is now I don't game much other than seduku on my tablet but constantly find my self needing to do something I could easily on desktop Linux
Like what? What is it you can't do on Android x86 that you can do on some other unspecified Linux distro?
Quite the opposite. Running a fully fledged linux, with either KDE plasma netbook or unity, and having access to full desktop browsers and normal linux tools, would be a great advantage.
For what though? You can compile and install pretty much any Linux tool you want on Android x86 because it's just Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
Well like I said, if you're not going to fix it yourself or pay to fix it then use a different distro or a different operating system because clearly the values and goals of the maintainers of the system you use are different to yours.
FreeBSD is running with a more knit closed technical minded people..systemd has been a political decision.
Yeah that is exactly what people said about Linux many years ago too.
The fact of life is Debian turned exactly into the stupidity we came to it to avoid.
And BSD will go that way when the community starts begging for corporate support and for support from major hardware and software vendors.
There seems to be no interest in doing anything to solve the problem and just running away from it instead, the codebase is there, the pro-systemd crowd is apparently a tiny minority so this majority of anti-systemd people could easily maintain or fund maintenance of the existing codebase. Yes there may be applications you need that have systemd dependencies but those would have to be ported if you want to use them on BSD anyway.
I would say a complete inability to mount a degraded btrfs (which figures heavily in future plans) is hardly some obscure bug.
I didn't say it was an obscure bug, but if you google it or search the mailing list there are a lot of responses to that very issue.
Yes everything from things actually involving you to things they just want to draw your attention to, that's why that data is so worthless and you get so many poor attempts at auto-tagging and so many irrelevant advertisements.
Thats nice, except Facebook tags them anyway because of their use of facial recognition.
Often quite poorly as people tag other people's children as the parents or people get tagged in photos they just want to send a notification about. That's why facebook does such a crappy job of identifying people in photos I post.
The point here is that of all of the advocates claiming systemd skeptics are just afraid of change and that systemd is just fine as is cannot seem to come up with a solution to this problem.
So - as is the way with open source - you either fix it yourself, you pay somebody else to fix it or you don't use it.
It's almost as if they don't actually know anything about the software they advocate...
Or rather they don't know everything about the software they advocate, which applies to everyone.
And what if pigs fly? Now what?
Then pigs fly, who cares? What I'm talking about is major BSD distros ending up just like the current state of Linux, it's extremely short-sighted and naive to think it that can't happen yet you think it so far fetched that you compare to pigs flying.
You've massively missed his point. Windows has long been a joke. Pop a CD in and it just runs an exe. Pop a USB key in and it just runs an exe. Other OSes are a little more discerning.
Windows hasn't done what you say for years.
I'm not saying systemd on BSD but something like it.
This apparently only runs on Windows.
A targeted attack is going to run on whatever the target uses.
OSX is XNU which is not UNIX.
Does he really need to spell it out for you? He isn't saying that OS X is literally the UNIX developed by AT&T Bell labs but that OS X conforms to the Single UNIX Specification and meets the certification requirements of the Open Group which is the industry standards consortium that manages and publishes the UNIX specification.
You could get a new quad core i7 for two thirds that price.
And then install OSX on it.
I always loved the variety of choices for just about everything and the general "if you don't like it, change it or make your own" mindset.
That still exists.
The new thinking seems to be centered around agreeing on standards and rallying around a subset of options in order to make a more presentable solution to present to the masses.
That's not to do with Linux though, and going to something like BSD isn't going to help. Many programs are ported between Linux and BSD so would it not be easier to port those programs to a non-systemd Linux system rather than to BSD? What happens when the major BSDs implement a systemd-like interface to be compatible with Linux systems?
Leveraging the free/open nature of the system to maintain choice is what is needed here, not running away from the problem to somewhere that will ultimately end up meeting the same fate anyway.
Now you're just changing his/her requirements to suit your point of view and serve your agenda.
The only problem with that is that Macs probably represent all of the anti-Unix nonsense he's trying to get away from by fleeing to one of the pure BSDs.
But fleeing from Linux to BSD doesn't solve the problem, that's just running away from it. If the major BSD distros decided to incorporate a systemd-like system then what?
great to make tiny pc's but that doesn't help those of us who want more computing power.
Just like powerful desktop CPUs doesn't help those who want tiny PCs, but I didn't see anything in the article to suggest they are abandoning high power chips in favor of small low powered ones.
But beyond that, it refuses to tell me why it isn't just doing the right thing and none of the big systemd advocates here can seem to tell me how one might fix it or work around it.
Don't these distros offer support for these sorts of things? That's one of the models for monetizing open source after all.
Systemd won all the hipsters who think Gnome devs make good decisions. The working sys admins are still on the other side of the room, admiring BSD.
It's the developers who made this choice, if they were a minority then the majority could easily continue maintaining distributions with SystemV init systems and the systemd distros would die out. I understand not everybody can be a developer but the core concept of open source is that if you don't like what the author has produced you either develop it yourself or pay somebody to develop what you want for you, it seems people are reluctant to do that and are instead choosing to move to BSD. But that's not really a solution, that's just running away from the problem. What if BSD goes the way of systemd? Then what?
The problem with the Linux community isn't that they fight.
No they aren't fighting at all, fighting it would be taking the existing Debian codebase and maintaining the existing init system rather than using a systemd codebase and competing with systemd. There's a lot of noise being made about this issue but not many people actually doing anything about it (except maybe switching from Linux to BSD).
What else is distinctive about an iPad apart from those two things?
On current iterations, the polished, chamfer edge on the bezel...but this Nokia tablet doesn't have that, actually the bevel on the edge is completely different.
You'd be surprised. People bought expensive workstations with IRIX and changed them to run Linux. Primarily for compatibility reasons, but there were also people who did it because they liked Linux and the concept of a larger toolbox instead of larger tools.
Which SGI systems were they switching to Linux? Back then Linux support for the graphics hardware was pretty crap even where it existed at all.
Red Hat. Via GNOME.
There are plenty of capable alternatives to GNOME.
Not to mention this is the x86 version of Android so most precompiled Linux binaries for Intel systems won't even need a recompile. I can imagine there might be a scenario where you might need a regular Linux distro running on x86 for something you can't do on ARM (not sure what, but perhaps there's something) but I can't see what the issue is when the Linux distro you are running is Android x86.
For you maybe but for people like me this is just what I would want Linux with a touch screen. As is now I don't game much other than seduku on my tablet but constantly find my self needing to do something I could easily on desktop Linux
Like what? What is it you can't do on Android x86 that you can do on some other unspecified Linux distro?
Quite the opposite. Running a fully fledged linux, with either KDE plasma netbook or unity, and having access to full desktop browsers and normal linux tools, would be a great advantage.
For what though? You can compile and install pretty much any Linux tool you want on Android x86 because it's just Linux.