Yes, I know who Ted Tso is. I've met and argued with him plenty of times. He's conservative when it comes to operating systems and doesn't accept change that rapidly and tends to prefer an evolutionary path when it comes to system components. Systemd is radical to his tastes. He also customizes his operating system quite a bit as though some of the other kernel developers I know.
What's strange about it? Driverse and systemd run in two different contexts. systemd has no need to access the hardware at all. So having different rules for them shouldn't be out of the ordinary.
Well, I'm not a designer, but they should know who to contact. I have some of the KDE devs on G+, although not the designers. It will be an interesting direction, but the road will be paved with obstacles since lot of the people who use KDE like to be able to tweak it as much as possible. It's hard to do a design that incorporates all the tweaks and still remain simplistic. But if they manage it, that is going to be a great coup for design in general and something everyone can learn from.
Also the fact that people are actually mobile and can move from job to job because quitting would mean that they might not be covered because of pre-existing conditions.
Of course, jail is always the best... it's what they are willing to spend all their taxes on rather than social programs. It doesn't matter that it costs more under prison system or ER.. sigh.
Hey everyone is happy. They get their jollies going against the powers and the western powers gets to get rid of one troublemaker. If some idiot wants to go fight in a war, and spend his life in heat, no running water, and what not.. more power to them. They aren't going to get much respect from anyone who wants a stable life.
The supreme court (the one that leans conservative mind you) did not rule ACA unconstitutional. So, I think you're wrong there. That's why there was an entire legal battle over it and it is decided.
Good, because it seems Obamacare is working and getting public support. So, fairly happy that Republicans get no credit. Of course, nothing is stopping some Republican senators taking credit for the American Healthcare Act, but not that evil Obamacare. Funny that.
Most of them are pretty successful. One is even a Republican representative. *shrug* Good leaders are people who know how to take advantage of people smarter than them and build a grounds up organization with pragmatic decision making from top based on good data. That doesn't always happen because not everyone believes in the same end goal. That's the hard part.
I still dont' see the conspiracy. As I said, rpc is doing the same thing, so does xml-rpc. I'm assuming you're saying that you can link to kernel features without a) tainting the kernel b) not corrupting your software with GPL license?
I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure how that plays. But if it is kdbus, you're not really doing an end run around anymore than if you were using sockets. Since it's just another socket layer. Anyways, I don't think there is some conspiracy here. Certainly, there would be some backlash if it came out that way.
The problem with your analysis is that we're talking about system level code which is all GPL'd. You might be right if we were talking about applications that were linking to some libraries and using dbus or kdbus that way. But that's not what is going on here. There is no end run around the license since the pieces that systemd is connecting to are all GPL'd. Even GNOME which is part of the GNU project is also using licenses that are consistent with its mission.
I don't understand what you mean by 'arbitrary incompatible interface' in regards to GNOME. There is nothing incompatible, it's just a interface to logind that GNOME needs.
You realize that you can probably use the same argument to things to such base things as 'rpc' right? Which we use all the time for NIS and NFS.
If BSD is working on something to replace, where will these people who love init so move to? I suppose the whole "portable" thing is completely blown out of the water.
systemd is designed to use specific features of the linux kernel. That's why kernel developers as a group aren't up and arms about it. Sure you might get some occasional people like Ted Tso upset, but in general systemd exposes kernel features that a lot of people have worked hard on. Things like cgroups are using copiously in systemd.
I would say that is a fair reaction, if you are thinking about Gnome. The more we compare, the more we sometimes drive things that way. We bash gnome now, defenders come out and defend it, and now we've really got a war on our hands. This happens often life.
Naw, us GNOME folks are going to stay out of this one. I will say that it's cool that KDE is looking seriously at design. I've been following their design group that posts something almost every week, quite diligently. Good stuff.
I hope none of the other GNOME supporters jump in either. This seems like something y'all need to deal with yourselves.
Anybody can be radicalized, but the barriers to radicalization are lowered when you have nothing to lose. These guys also have nothing to lose, so there could be other factors that leads to radicalization.
The current plight of Islam is a directly attributed to the poor economies of the Middle East and a prevalent culture where men must find jobs before they can continue on with life. The poor economy comes from the fact that the middle east isn't diversified, and are not investing in new sectors. The oil they possess is a curse not a blessing. An all corrupting influence that is the seed of everything that has gone wrong in the middle east. Oil is what is killing Islam.
uh no, dude. The Crusades was nothing more than a blatant land grab. Those guys were there fora long time. If you had to wait 400 years to stop "Islamic expansion" then you'er doing it wrong. Also, wherever the muslims took over was a lot better than the goddam savages from Europe. Let's not paper over the behavior of these people in the Crusades. Whatever the reason, religion was not the reason they went after Jerusalem.
The irony is, given my exposure to open source/free software developers they tend to be progressive/liberal. After all, you are giving away for free, your hard work and expertise. Devops/sysadmin/unix gray beards tend to be libertarians, and generally consume open source/free software. Which totally fits libertarian mindset of freedom to do what you want.
The problem of course is that it took a liberal mindset to actually make open source happen. Otherwise, they are probably just as happy with a number of proprietary unix solutions since they are free to use the underlying technology anyway they want.
Yes, an engineer which is great when you're dealing with computers. But a desktop is essentially dealing with humans which is a completely different problem set and I would say a lot harder. In GNOME, it takes an enormous time to get all the details right on a user interface. It is nothing like working with a kernel. It isn't as easy as you think it is.
Man, you really got over the line now. Are you dismissing LInus Torvalds because the "Kernel is not as complicated and easier"?
No one's saying that making Gnome 3 was easy. We were just saying that Gnome 3 was a nightmare - two completely different things,
Dealing with humans is harder than dealing with the kernel. Dealing how they interact with a computer is quite a bit different. It is an entire research subject. GNOME 3's deployment could have gone better. It would have been better to allow people to parallel install both and let them move when they were comfortable. The design itself continues to be a successful work in progress. Next iteration, I will likely make sure that we don't do it this way.
Even the early desktops took all their designs from Windows 95, copying a lot of the look and feel because nobody was trained on how to write a user interface.
I really hope you are not one of the anthropologist that designed the Gnome 3.
The early desktops came from XFCE and OpenSTEP, that came from IBM's CDE and NeXT STEP - both initiatives predates Windows 95 by at least 1 year.
And no, neither CDE nor STEP have any ressembles on Windows 95.
Let me a bit more succinct. I'm saying that the people who were building Linux based desktops took a lot of their design from windows 95, amigaos, and various other desktops that were there before. All the examples you've stated doesn't invalidate what I said. We took our designs from someone else. The most popular ones are based on windows 95, GNOME and KDE.
Even today we're still messing around with the same design.
Wrong again, but not that much. MacOS is, as it was, very different from anything Microsoft did in the past or nowadays. At least, for while and on the Desktop.
And so is GNOME 3. However, the usage patterns completely changed and a lot of people (rightfully) were upset. But over time, it has gained acceptance and winning people back to the desktop. That could have happened faster if we had parallel installable GNOME versions.
I suppose you're just asking Linus Torvalds to re-engineer windows 95 interface, I suppose he could do that. But to do something new, and unique that requires an anthropologist.
Nopes. I just asking Linus to step up and LEAD a Desktop project.
The result will probably be not shiny and new and full of [insert your favorite insult here], but it will be usable, and it will works, and more importantly, it will get the job done without hassle - that what matters when the month ends and I have to pay my bills.
Why? What gives him the expertise to run a desktop project, exactly? Just because they are both software projects doesn't mean that he has the ability to lead a group of people working on UI and middleware projects. I don't think he's remotely interested in running it. Perhaps when I run into him at some conference I'll ask him. Perhaps you can ask him? In any case, I find it amusing that people think Linus is some kind of uber geek. Given the personal feedback he's given me, I know that his requirements are fairly modest compared to some.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I know who Ted Tso is. I've met and argued with him plenty of times. He's conservative when it comes to operating systems and doesn't accept change that rapidly and tends to prefer an evolutionary path when it comes to system components. Systemd is radical to his tastes. He also customizes his operating system quite a bit as though some of the other kernel developers I know.
Why not?
What's strange about it? Driverse and systemd run in two different contexts. systemd has no need to access the hardware at all. So having different rules for them shouldn't be out of the ordinary.
Well, I'm not a designer, but they should know who to contact. I have some of the KDE devs on G+, although not the designers. It will be an interesting direction, but the road will be paved with obstacles since lot of the people who use KDE like to be able to tweak it as much as possible. It's hard to do a design that incorporates all the tweaks and still remain simplistic. But if they manage it, that is going to be a great coup for design in general and something everyone can learn from.
Also the fact that people are actually mobile and can move from job to job because quitting would mean that they might not be covered because of pre-existing conditions.
Of course, jail is always the best... it's what they are willing to spend all their taxes on rather than social programs. It doesn't matter that it costs more under prison system or ER.. sigh.
Hey everyone is happy. They get their jollies going against the powers and the western powers gets to get rid of one troublemaker. If some idiot wants to go fight in a war, and spend his life in heat, no running water, and what not.. more power to them. They aren't going to get much respect from anyone who wants a stable life.
The supreme court (the one that leans conservative mind you) did not rule ACA unconstitutional. So, I think you're wrong there. That's why there was an entire legal battle over it and it is decided.
Good, because it seems Obamacare is working and getting public support. So, fairly happy that Republicans get no credit. Of course, nothing is stopping some Republican senators taking credit for the American Healthcare Act, but not that evil Obamacare. Funny that.
Most of them are pretty successful. One is even a Republican representative. *shrug* Good leaders are people who know how to take advantage of people smarter than them and build a grounds up organization with pragmatic decision making from top based on good data. That doesn't always happen because not everyone believes in the same end goal. That's the hard part.
I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure how that plays. But if it is kdbus, you're not really doing an end run around anymore than if you were using sockets. Since it's just another socket layer. Anyways, I don't think there is some conspiracy here. Certainly, there would be some backlash if it came out that way.
I don't understand what you mean by 'arbitrary incompatible interface' in regards to GNOME. There is nothing incompatible, it's just a interface to logind that GNOME needs.
You realize that you can probably use the same argument to things to such base things as 'rpc' right? Which we use all the time for NIS and NFS.
If BSD is working on something to replace, where will these people who love init so move to? I suppose the whole "portable" thing is completely blown out of the water.
You just need the dbus interfaces implemented. You don't actually need systemd. The dependency is a soft one not a hard one.
Great, he has a political agenda well. So he basically things GNU is just a bunch of hippies. Why is he in Free Software/Open Source?
systemd is designed to use specific features of the linux kernel. That's why kernel developers as a group aren't up and arms about it. Sure you might get some occasional people like Ted Tso upset, but in general systemd exposes kernel features that a lot of people have worked hard on. Things like cgroups are using copiously in systemd.
I would say that is a fair reaction, if you are thinking about Gnome. The more we compare, the more we sometimes drive things that way. We bash gnome now, defenders come out and defend it, and now we've really got a war on our hands. This happens often life.
Naw, us GNOME folks are going to stay out of this one. I will say that it's cool that KDE is looking seriously at design. I've been following their design group that posts something almost every week, quite diligently. Good stuff.
I hope none of the other GNOME supporters jump in either. This seems like something y'all need to deal with yourselves.
Anybody can be radicalized, but the barriers to radicalization are lowered when you have nothing to lose. These guys also have nothing to lose, so there could be other factors that leads to radicalization.
I'm confused as to why you responded as anonymous coward?
The current plight of Islam is a directly attributed to the poor economies of the Middle East and a prevalent culture where men must find jobs before they can continue on with life. The poor economy comes from the fact that the middle east isn't diversified, and are not investing in new sectors. The oil they possess is a curse not a blessing. An all corrupting influence that is the seed of everything that has gone wrong in the middle east. Oil is what is killing Islam.
uh no, dude. The Crusades was nothing more than a blatant land grab. Those guys were there fora long time. If you had to wait 400 years to stop "Islamic expansion" then you'er doing it wrong. Also, wherever the muslims took over was a lot better than the goddam savages from Europe. Let's not paper over the behavior of these people in the Crusades. Whatever the reason, religion was not the reason they went after Jerusalem.
Working as a farmer is pretty shitty. Working a a farmer anywhere is kind of shitty.
The irony is, given my exposure to open source/free software developers they tend to be progressive/liberal. After all, you are giving away for free, your hard work and expertise. Devops/sysadmin/unix gray beards tend to be libertarians, and generally consume open source/free software. Which totally fits libertarian mindset of freedom to do what you want. The problem of course is that it took a liberal mindset to actually make open source happen. Otherwise, they are probably just as happy with a number of proprietary unix solutions since they are free to use the underlying technology anyway they want.
Don't worry, after awhile nobodyw ould be be able to even know how to fly a plane since you know that does require some form of mathematics.
Yes, an engineer which is great when you're dealing with computers. But a desktop is essentially dealing with humans which is a completely different problem set and I would say a lot harder. In GNOME, it takes an enormous time to get all the details right on a user interface. It is nothing like working with a kernel. It isn't as easy as you think it is.
Man, you really got over the line now. Are you dismissing LInus Torvalds because the "Kernel is not as complicated and easier"?
No one's saying that making Gnome 3 was easy. We were just saying that Gnome 3 was a nightmare - two completely different things,
Dealing with humans is harder than dealing with the kernel. Dealing how they interact with a computer is quite a bit different. It is an entire research subject. GNOME 3's deployment could have gone better. It would have been better to allow people to parallel install both and let them move when they were comfortable. The design itself continues to be a successful work in progress. Next iteration, I will likely make sure that we don't do it this way.
Even the early desktops took all their designs from Windows 95, copying a lot of the look and feel because nobody was trained on how to write a user interface.
I really hope you are not one of the anthropologist that designed the Gnome 3.
The early desktops came from XFCE and OpenSTEP, that came from IBM's CDE and NeXT STEP - both initiatives predates Windows 95 by at least 1 year.
And no, neither CDE nor STEP have any ressembles on Windows 95.
Let me a bit more succinct. I'm saying that the people who were building Linux based desktops took a lot of their design from windows 95, amigaos, and various other desktops that were there before. All the examples you've stated doesn't invalidate what I said. We took our designs from someone else. The most popular ones are based on windows 95, GNOME and KDE.
Even today we're still messing around with the same design.
Wrong again, but not that much. MacOS is, as it was, very different from anything Microsoft did in the past or nowadays. At least, for while and on the Desktop.
And so is GNOME 3. However, the usage patterns completely changed and a lot of people (rightfully) were upset. But over time, it has gained acceptance and winning people back to the desktop. That could have happened faster if we had parallel installable GNOME versions.
I suppose you're just asking Linus Torvalds to re-engineer windows 95 interface, I suppose he could do that. But to do something new, and unique that requires an anthropologist.
Nopes. I just asking Linus to step up and LEAD a Desktop project.
The result will probably be not shiny and new and full of [insert your favorite insult here], but it will be usable, and it will works, and more importantly, it will get the job done without hassle - that what matters when the month ends and I have to pay my bills.
Why? What gives him the expertise to run a desktop project, exactly? Just because they are both software projects doesn't mean that he has the ability to lead a group of people working on UI and middleware projects. I don't think he's remotely interested in running it. Perhaps when I run into him at some conference I'll ask him. Perhaps you can ask him? In any case, I find it amusing that people think Linus is some kind of uber geek. Given the personal feedback he's given me, I know that his requirements are fairly modest compared to some.