I am not even remotely an expert on the matter, but I believe the point is to render at higher resolution and then reduce AA and such.
If you can make the game engine render the content at such a high resolution then there less need to do post processing of the images to do things like smooth edges as long as you have a way to efficiently scale down the image.
For instance the new Final Fantasy XIII PC port has no graphics options (update to fix that is supposed to be out tomorrow). You can't even pick resolution let alone AA and other settings, so you are stuck at 720p. So the community released a tool (GeToSaTo) that forces the game to 4k resolution and then downsamples it, so that even without AA enabled everything looks as it would if it were.
So the question is, is it harder for a GPU to render the scene at 4k with less post processing or at 2k with lots of post processing turned on to equal image quality? Apparently AMD and nVidia both have it now so at least some games must either look better or are more efficient using downsampling.
But they probably have thousands(millions?) of customers that eat at both chains. So if you happen to go to McDonalds for some reason they can correlate people who liked what you like at your chain to what those people liked at McDonalds to find what you would like with a reasonably high probability. The better your first experience at McDonalds the more likely you would be to return so having that data is very important.
Well boot times are not the only reason for systemd, so if they don't matter to you just consider them an added benefit then.
doesn't justify all the rest of the problems systemd gives me
Care to elaborate? Are you actually running into problems? I haven't encountered any yet so I would genuinely like to know what kind of issues to expect other than the fud that seems to get passed around about systemd.
i don't want my apache to be restarted if it's crashed i want to go and solve the problem, that is my job and by doing that systemd is actually not helping at all
Haven you even tried systemd? are you aware of the defaults in this matter? http://www.freedesktop.org/sof... The restart option is disabled by default unless your service description calls for it. If you have a problem with the option of having a service restart maybe you should rip init out of your system because it has a respawn option as well?
Nothing. So as you can see at least in Red Hat apache will not restart itself. Other distros may change that, but either way it is an option and not mandatory in any way, so how is this a systemd problem to you? I for one like having the option to turn on auto restart even if I don't have a use for it, because maybe someday I will.
True the syslog format is simple to use, easy to parse, etc, but it doesn't work all that well for anything more than simple logs. Journald allows us to start writing apps with better logging, i.e. json output which means things like multiline messages aren't such a mess, and we can spend less time parsing and more time searching.
And if you want to use your old tools there is nothing stopping you from doing what you used to, with the rsyslog text output from journald. Or else you can use journald to do the initial searching (more efficently since it is indexed), and then pipe the rest to the tools to narrow your results even more.
Syslog might be easy, but it is only adequate. Currently a good percentage of applications write their own log files because syslog is just unacceptable for what is needed to be logged (think java stack traces). In an ideal world we would have journalctl (or any other syslog replacement) that is capable of ingesting these more complicated formats so that everything on the system gets to logged to one place. Once we have these more complicated logs the simple tools for parsing are less adequate and binary formats help get around that.
We could just start logging json to syslog, but then your text readability goes downhill pretty fast unless you are piping the final output to a json parser that can pretty print it.
I have heard people mention possible problems with corruption with the journald binary formats. Has anyone seen an entire log file lost yet? I would think they would just be appending to the file anyways, so a corruption would just affect certain lines of the log, which would have been similarly affected with a text log.
Yes but add those 5 seconds up hundreds of times and they do add up to something. The real question is what are you loosing by cutting 5 seconds off of your boot times? I would assume nothing. And what are you gaining by cutting 5 seconds off of your boot time? You are gaining your time back,
It's these kinds of statements that show no knowledge of what part of the boot is the OS and what part is the hardware that make me cry about the current state of system administrators. If a significant time of your wait is for the OS to load, then you've configured your server wrong or are using toy hardware.
I am well aware of when the POST has completed and when the operating system has started to load, and I am well aware that the majority of my time is wasted on the POST. Where exactly did you get this from? Did I say I was going to be saving minutes of time? I am just saying every second counts, and I don't see why people are so opposed to optimizing the software boot process. The hardware portion is out of our control/required to check all of the hardware but what is wrong with improving the rest of the process? Why keep something the way it is just because, if we have an option to make it faster?
Things change, accept it. We have a faster way to run things with no drawbacks* so let's do it!
* I know people mention various race conditions, missing dependencies and such, but if those problems aren't known and solved then they are bugs and should be fixed.
Takes one of no, on-success, on-failure, on-abnormal, on-watchdog, on-abort, or always. If set to no (the default), the service will not be restarted.
Looks like restarting the service automatically is not the default. As far as notifications I assume that has nothing to do with your init because with all the bickering about ntp being in systemd I assume no one wants a SMTP service in systemd as well. Journald should of course log any stderr/stdout from the process that failed.
2) If there is a problem with/etc/fstab, systemd will not allow the system to boot, and gives no reason for the failure. Admins prefer the system boot, and send a message. That way they have a running system, and can fix the problem.
Well I guess I have no comment on the reason for the failure. Presumably if your fstab issue wasn't a critical one you should be able to at least login on the console and a simple systemctl command will show which services have failed (fstab entries show up in that list) and you will see which fstab entry failed, and which services didn't start up as a result.
systemd solves problems that are mostly associated with systems that have users who log in directly using a GUI
I hear this all the time but I don't see where people keep getting it from. I manage several hundred servers and I would love faster boot times. Nothing worse than wasting my time waiting for a machine to come back online. I can be doing multiple things at once but it is a break in my concentration and it makes us less efficent. It would also be especially helpful when you are doing failover testing with servers that fence themselves. It is bad enough waiting for the BIOS to POST, so if we have an option to optimize the boot process then let's do it!
Also indexed logging is something that isn't really needed by people with a GUI, it's needed by system admins who actually need to look over their logs. My RHEL7 systems ship their logs just fine with syslog, but when I am on the system I love being able to filter logs with journald. I keep seeing people complain about not being able to grep/awk/whatever through their logs but pipe seems to work fine for me with journald.
As far as the learning curve goes your SysV scripts still work, and at least in Red Hat chkconfig still configures those SysV services so nothing to learn there. Logging is also setup to log to text files by default so with the exception of learning things like the systemd targets I don't see where there is really much of a learning curve. Most of the systemctl commands are pretty self explanatory and aren't really that much of a change.
unlike older programs where the bugs and failures are known and can generally be worked around
How exactly is systemd any different in this respect? It is an application that runs, and it might have problems. We the system administrators may find ways around those problems and they are often shared on the internet for you to search for, and if they are really problems shouldn't they be fixed instead of us working aroudn them anyways? It sounds to me like you have been living with a system that presented you with problems and you are happy about that... Maybe with systemd we can break away from the "old way" so that instead of living with those problems, we can instead fix them! We can quit worrying about maintaining compatibility with every UNIX back to the 80s.
Nestled with the fact that there are so many git solutions that are third-party hosted only, and so many hostable open source subversion options available
That is because all that you need for GIT is a local directory, SSH, or a Web server. Since your client has a full copy of the repository you can always just fire up gitweb on a local repository.
If you need a GUI to satisfy your needs there is the official web GUI that is distributed with git again no hosting required. https://git.wiki.kernel.org/in...
If you want more advanced features like Git Hub: https://about.gitlab.com/ (a near clone of Git Hub) https://gitorious.org/ and dozens of others (https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Interfaces,_frontends,_and_tools)
I will +1 on the sub-directories deal, but for my use case I just made the sub-directories GIT submodules and everything works itself out. If your sub-directories are really separate parts of a larger project you probably should already have them in separate repositories anyways.
but I know of no legislation anywhere that an employee might be required by law take them if they do not want to.
I believe it varies by state, but here in Minnesota your employer is required to provide at least a 30 minute unpaid lunch break and 15 minute paid breaks for every 4 hours worked, but I can't imagine the state would make a law that says that you must take that break.
Requiring that the employee takes a lunch break is simply avoiding possible legal repercussions if an employee were to claim that the business worked them so hard that they were unable to take a break (which would mean that the business was breaking the above law). Putting it on the companies rule books that the employee must take a break is then just to avoid those claims. Also they probably don't want the employees eating at their desks on the clock, which probably isn't nearly as productive as clocking out and working the same amount of time later.
Just the biggest in the southern hemisphere. The biggest super computers in the northern half of the world still take up about football field sizes. (http://www.hpcwire.com/2013/06/02/full_details_uncovered_on_chinese_top_supercomputer/)
Pretty much all Bluray players require an HDCP compatible TV
This is only required for digital output. If your TV doesn't have HDCP it probably doesn't have digital input anyways (although there was a while in there where they came with DVI plugs, and those TVs typically aren't HDCP compatible).
Presumably your TV has component input for analog HD signal, just find a blu-ray player that has component output for video (nothing specialized for this, many $100 players come with it), and optical/coaxial output for audio and then you are good to go with HD video, and surround sound. You only need a player. Like the previous poster mentioned you will max out at 1080i, but again if your TV doesn't have HDCP it probably isn't capable of more than that anyways.
No, no, I still don't get it! The hardware is proprietary, what difference does it make if the driver is or isn't as well?
The biggest difference (for me) is card support. I could fire up Kubuntu 13.10 with X server 1.14 on my old AGP ATI X1650 card and would work like it should. If proprietary drivers were the only choice I would be SOL. If I found the old driver that was designed for that card the chances of getting it to work with a modern kernel/X server would be extremely slim. The current Catalyst driver only supports back to the HD 5000 series so my desktops that I use on a daily basis with HD3*** and HD4*** cards are stuck with a Catalyst driver that says "Automated installer and Display Drivers for Xorg 6.9 to Xserver 1.12 and Kernel version up to 3.4", but they run great with the open source drivers.
I don't claim that the open source driver will support ancient cards forever, but AMD is concerned with selling new cards not keeping up old ones, and the open source drivers are much better in that department. If you know how you can always resort to fixing the issue yourself if the driver is broken for your card.
You probably wouldn't get downmodded if you were to explain WHY you would leave as soon as it is mandatory instead of just saying it.
You contributed nothing important to the conversation (slashdot cares about you as a means of making money, but the mods don't care about you leaving), and as such your post has been downmodded to make room for the more relevant posts.
Re:I hope this fixes my black screen on boot
on
Linux 3.13 Released
·
· Score: 1
While that is an Intel CPU, it isn't using an Intel GPU. Instead it uses a PowerVR which is a brand of GPU often used in ARM devices, embedded, etc.
Long story short, there are no open source drivers in the kernel for that GPU. That means that you will have to find the PowerVR toolchain and compile your own drivers, but if it is anything like the rest of the ARM GPUs it won't work on a current kernel without a ton of patches. If you are lucky someone will have released an distro designed for your hardware otherwise it isn't hardly worth the time.
From here https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Intel_GMA3600 it sounds like their driver only supports kernel version 3.1, but there is a github repo with some patches that supposedly help only tested up to 3.7 though). However it looks like it requires xorg 1.11 so you may have to downgrade that as well.
Why would I want the government to be able to devalue my currency?
People are scared of Bitcoin because it is deflationary, which doesn't promote as much economic growth. Well from what I can see the current inflationary practices have just pushed people into a spend-spend-spend mode, buying crap they don't need because if they don't their money won't be worth as much later. While that may be pumping money into the economy it seems to be making our economy all that much more destabilized, while putting money into the hands of people that already have too much of it.
If people were saving a better portion of their money instead of buying things all of the time, recovering from economic turmoil would be that much easier, especially if the government can't just print money to devalue the money we have saved to bail itself out. If the government is in trouble it should be raising money by increasing taxes (steal my money directly instead of behind my back so that I know how much they are actually taking).
The current method works as a positive in peoples brains. The government inflates the currency, your job gives you a raise to cover that inflation, and suddenly it looks like you have more money in your bank account, even though it is worth less per $. If people could see the REAL costs of their government in their deductions column instead of seeing steady raises that don't increase their buying power maybe they would do something to stop the ridiculous government spending.
And there are some great KDE4 apps. But Kontact is not one of them. I anxiously install and run it on every new desktop, thinking "this time, it's going to work." And it never does. Kontact on my opensuse box regularly gets hung trying to open a "choose a file" dialog box (say, if I'm attaching something to an email). I blame its ridiculous database and akonadi semantic crap foundation.
No such issues here. I use Kontact every day at work hooked up to exchange (IMAP + Davmail to hook up to exchange). I have occasionally in the past seen issues with the open file dialog when you have favorites added that are no longer accessible like NFS or SMB shares. I haven't seen that in ages, but maybe that is just because I don't have anything added into my favorites. Running Kubuntu instead of OpenSUSE here.
Akonadi works pretty well now too, but there are some occasions where the IMAP process seems to get stuck doing something or other in its database and it sits at 100% of 1 core of my CPU. I just give it a kick with akonadictl restart and that usually clears it up.
"install it in 10 minutes and then play" to something somewhat more involved.
Well I usually enjoy an involved setup:) As long as it is stable afterwards of course.
However, those outages tend to be a few hours per year in the places I've lived, and the system comes back from failure without intervention.
Yeah that brings up another issue with programmable thermostats is that when you bring your temp down when you aren't home and then the power fails you are already at that much lower of a temperature to start with. A few hours might not be an issue when your temp is already high, but when you are 10 deg lower to start with and then your furnace fails you have that much less time to respond.
The failure mode is that the nest freezes and you have no indication at all that anything is wrong.
I would have assumed that the Nest would alert you like the Honeywell when it quits checking in to their servers. Are they lacking that feature?
and that Nest refuses to let you manage updates yourself,
Ouch yeah I can certainly see that causing problems.
And how does that help me to not come home to a cold house when I decide to run home for lunch today (assuming that I normally don't)? I would have to set the timer to do that every day wasting energy instead of logging in quick and setting the temp before I leave the office.
If your thermostat flakes out in SVC its no big deal. Very different context than rural North Dakota.
As someone who lives in the ND area this is the exact reason why I did buy a internet enabled thermostat. I got a Honeywell not a Nest (wasn't available yet), and having an internet enabled device is the perfect way to monitor if something does go wrong. I can login to the portal and setup high and low limits, and if my furnace were to fail and the house drops below my set temperature I get an email alerting me to that fact so that I can respond. Also if the thermostat or internet connection fails I get alerts warning me as such so that I can investigate the cause.
When it is -20F and your furnace fails to ignite, or your power is out your mechanical/dumb thermostat isn't going to warn you, and you will still be dealing with burst pipes... if you want a mechanical backup just install a second thermostat and put it on the same control line. I would rather be alerted to the situation than be in the dark, because even if the device fails bypassing it to get some heat is just a matter of bridging two wires.
It's more than just a shared kernel, the development API's allow you to be hardware agnostic while developing as well as infrastructure in place that allows app to app communication and data sharing.
How is this any different than what Linux and other OSes have been doing for years? I don't seem to recall all Linux programs having to be rewritten for each and every architecture (except for some applications that may try to tie in at a lower level)
From the article
Thanks to the sharing of C and C++ libraries, Direct X components and SQLite support, developers can actually write an app once and move it from one platform to another with only a few code tweaks.
Take out the Direct X part there, and doesn't that sound exactly like Linux?
Sounds like Java..
The article says that developers can move their apps around from platform to platform. This isn't like a java JVM in the middle that will interpret your applications compiled code and run it on every architecture. It is just a single OS with a set of standards and libraries that are available on multiple architectures/platforms. All that Microsoft has done is copied the exact model that other OSes like Linux have been following for many years, there is no innovation here. Of course they could extend this to be more like Java, so that programs could be moved from platform to platform without being recompiled, but I don't think that will fit in very well with the big hitter programming languages.
As a whole these are of course good things, but seriously how has it taken them this long to do this? Maybe they were worried about people recreating their libraries so that these apps could be more easily ported to other OSes.
Start menu is back in 8.1 so the cries have not been ignored.
A button that brings up the metro (or whatever it is called this week) interface is not a start menu. I mean a real legacy start menu like Windows 7 (or older if you prefer). I wouldn't recommend that they allow you to remove metro altogether since they want to get their cut from the app creators, but not giving users an option for what they want no matter how hidden it is to enable it feels like a slap in the face. I could see that if no one had told them that users wouldn't like this before they released they maybe wouldn't have included it right away, but people have been complaining about this since the beta so there is simply no excuse left for them. It is just Microsoft's way of telling us that they know what we want better than we do, and they are using their near monopoly on the PC market to force it on us.
But Ubuntu and Apple are the innovators... lame...
lol this is Microsoft innovating? So the innovation that your link is talking about is using the (largely?) same kernel on both architectures... Well lets see what architectures Linux shares nearly all of its code across http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_supported_architectures, hmm lot more than 2.
From your link
They OSes even share a substantial chunk of browser code, finally bringing Windows Phone up to parity with its desktop IE progenitors.
Like how Chrome and many other browsers have been using the same browser engines across platforms for years (i.e. Webkit/Blink)?. Hmm so Android has been using much of the same browser code on both desktop, and mobile for some time. Sharing code across architectures/platforms apparently is only new to Microsoft.
Shuttleworth's idea of convergence is hardware convergence. Why have a desktop around when your phone is fast enough to run a full desktop. Just dock your phone and there you have your desktop OS (doesn't have to mean touchscreen UI!), and that way you have all of your data with you all of the time no cloud required (other than for backups?)!
Microsoft's idea of convergence is using the same UI on multiple platforms even if it doesn't make sense for that platform. I understand that they are trying to make an app ecosystem, so they want to push it everywhere, but is it really that hard to at least give the user an option to turn on a normal start menu? Just a checkmark somewhere to turn on a legacy start menu would have completely changed how people viewed Windows 8, but for some reason they refuse.
Many VMs run one application, but they typically run many processes. For instance OpenSSH. Say a hacker breaks into your application and has some abilities in the userspace. Now with your reduced separation between the kernelspace and userspace it is presumably easier to exploit the kernel. Once you have your way into the kernel you have the run of the place so you have root access to modify all of the other processes running on the machine.
If you are using a password to login to your system the attacker can get into the OpenSSH service and wait for you to login (giving them your cleartext password). OpenSSH uses a tunnel to encrypt your password from the outside world but it is a tunneled clear text password so once the service itself is exploited you end up just handing it to the hackers. Or on second thought just break your way into PAM and then all applications on the machine start feeding the hacker passwords. Once they have your password they can start to use it elsewhere on your network to see what else they can get into.
External facing machines are often just the start of a hackers goals, and making those external facing machines any easier to compromise for the sake of efficiency is a bad idea.
Slashdot Mirror
I am not even remotely an expert on the matter, but I believe the point is to render at higher resolution and then reduce AA and such.
If you can make the game engine render the content at such a high resolution then there less need to do post processing of the images to do things like smooth edges as long as you have a way to efficiently scale down the image.
For instance the new Final Fantasy XIII PC port has no graphics options (update to fix that is supposed to be out tomorrow). You can't even pick resolution let alone AA and other settings, so you are stuck at 720p. So the community released a tool (GeToSaTo) that forces the game to 4k resolution and then downsamples it, so that even without AA enabled everything looks as it would if it were.
So the question is, is it harder for a GPU to render the scene at 4k with less post processing or at 2k with lots of post processing turned on to equal image quality? Apparently AMD and nVidia both have it now so at least some games must either look better or are more efficient using downsampling.
But they probably have thousands(millions?) of customers that eat at both chains. So if you happen to go to McDonalds for some reason they can correlate people who liked what you like at your chain to what those people liked at McDonalds to find what you would like with a reasonably high probability. The better your first experience at McDonalds the more likely you would be to return so having that data is very important.
so yeah in total i'd save 1 minute per year
Well boot times are not the only reason for systemd, so if they don't matter to you just consider them an added benefit then.
doesn't justify all the rest of the problems systemd gives me
Care to elaborate? Are you actually running into problems? I haven't encountered any yet so I would genuinely like to know what kind of issues to expect other than the fud that seems to get passed around about systemd.
i don't want my apache to be restarted if it's crashed i want to go and solve the problem, that is my job and by doing that systemd is actually not helping at all
Haven you even tried systemd? are you aware of the defaults in this matter? http://www.freedesktop.org/sof... The restart option is disabled by default unless your service description calls for it. If you have a problem with the option of having a service restart maybe you should rip init out of your system because it has a respawn option as well?
grep "^Restart" /usr/lib/systemd/system/httpd.service
Nothing. So as you can see at least in Red Hat apache will not restart itself. Other distros may change that, but either way it is an option and not mandatory in any way, so how is this a systemd problem to you? I for one like having the option to turn on auto restart even if I don't have a use for it, because maybe someday I will.
What distro are you using? My RHEL7/CentOS7 boxes mount NFS shares and start SysV scripts fine.
Did you actually add/enable the SysV scripts? chkconfig --add script_name && chkconfig script_name on && systemctl start script_name
True the syslog format is simple to use, easy to parse, etc, but it doesn't work all that well for anything more than simple logs. Journald allows us to start writing apps with better logging, i.e. json output which means things like multiline messages aren't such a mess, and we can spend less time parsing and more time searching.
And if you want to use your old tools there is nothing stopping you from doing what you used to, with the rsyslog text output from journald. Or else you can use journald to do the initial searching (more efficently since it is indexed), and then pipe the rest to the tools to narrow your results even more.
Syslog might be easy, but it is only adequate. Currently a good percentage of applications write their own log files because syslog is just unacceptable for what is needed to be logged (think java stack traces). In an ideal world we would have journalctl (or any other syslog replacement) that is capable of ingesting these more complicated formats so that everything on the system gets to logged to one place. Once we have these more complicated logs the simple tools for parsing are less adequate and binary formats help get around that.
We could just start logging json to syslog, but then your text readability goes downhill pretty fast unless you are piping the final output to a json parser that can pretty print it.
I have heard people mention possible problems with corruption with the journald binary formats. Has anyone seen an entire log file lost yet? I would think they would just be appending to the file anyways, so a corruption would just affect certain lines of the log, which would have been similarly affected with a text log.
5 seconds less is not going to change my life.
Yes but add those 5 seconds up hundreds of times and they do add up to something. The real question is what are you loosing by cutting 5 seconds off of your boot times? I would assume nothing. And what are you gaining by cutting 5 seconds off of your boot time? You are gaining your time back,
Seems like the pros outweigh the cons to me.
It's these kinds of statements that show no knowledge of what part of the boot is the OS and what part is the hardware that make me cry about the current state of system administrators. If a significant time of your wait is for the OS to load, then you've configured your server wrong or are using toy hardware.
I am well aware of when the POST has completed and when the operating system has started to load, and I am well aware that the majority of my time is wasted on the POST. Where exactly did you get this from? Did I say I was going to be saving minutes of time? I am just saying every second counts, and I don't see why people are so opposed to optimizing the software boot process. The hardware portion is out of our control/required to check all of the hardware but what is wrong with improving the rest of the process? Why keep something the way it is just because, if we have an option to make it faster?
Things change, accept it. We have a faster way to run things with no drawbacks* so let's do it!
* I know people mention various race conditions, missing dependencies and such, but if those problems aren't known and solved then they are bugs and should be fixed.
1) If a daemon keeps failing, systemd just keeps restarting it. Admins prefer to be notified so that they can fix the root problem.
Sure I can see that. Looks like systemd has that covered for you http://www.freedesktop.org/sof... Check the restart option
Takes one of no, on-success, on-failure, on-abnormal, on-watchdog, on-abort, or always. If set to no (the default), the service will not be restarted.
Looks like restarting the service automatically is not the default. As far as notifications I assume that has nothing to do with your init because with all the bickering about ntp being in systemd I assume no one wants a SMTP service in systemd as well. Journald should of course log any stderr/stdout from the process that failed.
2) If there is a problem with /etc/fstab, systemd will not allow the system to boot, and gives no reason for the failure. Admins prefer the system boot, and send a message. That way they have a running system, and can fix the problem.
Well I guess I have no comment on the reason for the failure. Presumably if your fstab issue wasn't a critical one you should be able to at least login on the console and a simple systemctl command will show which services have failed (fstab entries show up in that list) and you will see which fstab entry failed, and which services didn't start up as a result.
systemd solves problems that are mostly associated with systems that have users who log in directly using a GUI
I hear this all the time but I don't see where people keep getting it from. I manage several hundred servers and I would love faster boot times. Nothing worse than wasting my time waiting for a machine to come back online. I can be doing multiple things at once but it is a break in my concentration and it makes us less efficent. It would also be especially helpful when you are doing failover testing with servers that fence themselves. It is bad enough waiting for the BIOS to POST, so if we have an option to optimize the boot process then let's do it!
Also indexed logging is something that isn't really needed by people with a GUI, it's needed by system admins who actually need to look over their logs. My RHEL7 systems ship their logs just fine with syslog, but when I am on the system I love being able to filter logs with journald. I keep seeing people complain about not being able to grep/awk/whatever through their logs but pipe seems to work fine for me with journald.
As far as the learning curve goes your SysV scripts still work, and at least in Red Hat chkconfig still configures those SysV services so nothing to learn there. Logging is also setup to log to text files by default so with the exception of learning things like the systemd targets I don't see where there is really much of a learning curve. Most of the systemctl commands are pretty self explanatory and aren't really that much of a change.
unlike older programs where the bugs and failures are known and can generally be worked around
How exactly is systemd any different in this respect? It is an application that runs, and it might have problems. We the system administrators may find ways around those problems and they are often shared on the internet for you to search for, and if they are really problems shouldn't they be fixed instead of us working aroudn them anyways? It sounds to me like you have been living with a system that presented you with problems and you are happy about that... Maybe with systemd we can break away from the "old way" so that instead of living with those problems, we can instead fix them! We can quit worrying about maintaining compatibility with every UNIX back to the 80s.
Nestled with the fact that there are so many git solutions that are third-party hosted only, and so many hostable open source subversion options available
That is because all that you need for GIT is a local directory, SSH, or a Web server. Since your client has a full copy of the repository you can always just fire up gitweb on a local repository.
If you need a GUI to satisfy your needs there is the official web GUI that is distributed with git again no hosting required.
https://git.wiki.kernel.org/in...
If you want more advanced features like Git Hub:
https://about.gitlab.com/ (a near clone of Git Hub)
https://gitorious.org/
and dozens of others (https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Interfaces,_frontends,_and_tools)
I will +1 on the sub-directories deal, but for my use case I just made the sub-directories GIT submodules and everything works itself out. If your sub-directories are really separate parts of a larger project you probably should already have them in separate repositories anyways.
but I know of no legislation anywhere that an employee might be required by law take them if they do not want to.
I believe it varies by state, but here in Minnesota your employer is required to provide at least a 30 minute unpaid lunch break and 15 minute paid breaks for every 4 hours worked, but I can't imagine the state would make a law that says that you must take that break.
Requiring that the employee takes a lunch break is simply avoiding possible legal repercussions if an employee were to claim that the business worked them so hard that they were unable to take a break (which would mean that the business was breaking the above law). Putting it on the companies rule books that the employee must take a break is then just to avoid those claims. Also they probably don't want the employees eating at their desks on the clock, which probably isn't nearly as productive as clocking out and working the same amount of time later.
Just the biggest in the southern hemisphere. The biggest super computers in the northern half of the world still take up about football field sizes. (http://www.hpcwire.com/2013/06/02/full_details_uncovered_on_chinese_top_supercomputer/)
Pretty much all Bluray players require an HDCP compatible TV
This is only required for digital output. If your TV doesn't have HDCP it probably doesn't have digital input anyways (although there was a while in there where they came with DVI plugs, and those TVs typically aren't HDCP compatible).
Presumably your TV has component input for analog HD signal, just find a blu-ray player that has component output for video (nothing specialized for this, many $100 players come with it), and optical/coaxial output for audio and then you are good to go with HD video, and surround sound. You only need a player. Like the previous poster mentioned you will max out at 1080i, but again if your TV doesn't have HDCP it probably isn't capable of more than that anyways.
No, no, I still don't get it! The hardware is proprietary, what difference does it make if the driver is or isn't as well?
The biggest difference (for me) is card support. I could fire up Kubuntu 13.10 with X server 1.14 on my old AGP ATI X1650 card and would work like it should. If proprietary drivers were the only choice I would be SOL. If I found the old driver that was designed for that card the chances of getting it to work with a modern kernel/X server would be extremely slim. The current Catalyst driver only supports back to the HD 5000 series so my desktops that I use on a daily basis with HD3*** and HD4*** cards are stuck with a Catalyst driver that says "Automated installer and Display Drivers for Xorg 6.9 to Xserver 1.12 and Kernel version up to 3.4", but they run great with the open source drivers.
I don't claim that the open source driver will support ancient cards forever, but AMD is concerned with selling new cards not keeping up old ones, and the open source drivers are much better in that department. If you know how you can always resort to fixing the issue yourself if the driver is broken for your card.
You probably wouldn't get downmodded if you were to explain WHY you would leave as soon as it is mandatory instead of just saying it.
You contributed nothing important to the conversation (slashdot cares about you as a means of making money, but the mods don't care about you leaving), and as such your post has been downmodded to make room for the more relevant posts.
While that is an Intel CPU, it isn't using an Intel GPU. Instead it uses a PowerVR which is a brand of GPU often used in ARM devices, embedded, etc.
Long story short, there are no open source drivers in the kernel for that GPU. That means that you will have to find the PowerVR toolchain and compile your own drivers, but if it is anything like the rest of the ARM GPUs it won't work on a current kernel without a ton of patches. If you are lucky someone will have released an distro designed for your hardware otherwise it isn't hardly worth the time.
From here https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Intel_GMA3600 it sounds like their driver only supports kernel version 3.1, but there is a github repo with some patches that supposedly help only tested up to 3.7 though). However it looks like it requires xorg 1.11 so you may have to downgrade that as well.
Why would I want the government to be able to devalue my currency?
People are scared of Bitcoin because it is deflationary, which doesn't promote as much economic growth. Well from what I can see the current inflationary practices have just pushed people into a spend-spend-spend mode, buying crap they don't need because if they don't their money won't be worth as much later. While that may be pumping money into the economy it seems to be making our economy all that much more destabilized, while putting money into the hands of people that already have too much of it.
If people were saving a better portion of their money instead of buying things all of the time, recovering from economic turmoil would be that much easier, especially if the government can't just print money to devalue the money we have saved to bail itself out. If the government is in trouble it should be raising money by increasing taxes (steal my money directly instead of behind my back so that I know how much they are actually taking).
The current method works as a positive in peoples brains. The government inflates the currency, your job gives you a raise to cover that inflation, and suddenly it looks like you have more money in your bank account, even though it is worth less per $. If people could see the REAL costs of their government in their deductions column instead of seeing steady raises that don't increase their buying power maybe they would do something to stop the ridiculous government spending.
counter = 0
start loop
do work
counter ++
if counter = x
commit/update
counter = 0
end if
end loop
if counter > 0
commit/update
end if
I would think this might use less CPU doing a increment and comparison instead of a division every iteration.
And there are some great KDE4 apps. But Kontact is not one of them. I anxiously install and run it on every new desktop, thinking "this time, it's going to work." And it never does. Kontact on my opensuse box regularly gets hung trying to open a "choose a file" dialog box (say, if I'm attaching something to an email). I blame its ridiculous database and akonadi semantic crap foundation.
No such issues here. I use Kontact every day at work hooked up to exchange (IMAP + Davmail to hook up to exchange). I have occasionally in the past seen issues with the open file dialog when you have favorites added that are no longer accessible like NFS or SMB shares. I haven't seen that in ages, but maybe that is just because I don't have anything added into my favorites. Running Kubuntu instead of OpenSUSE here.
Akonadi works pretty well now too, but there are some occasions where the IMAP process seems to get stuck doing something or other in its database and it sits at 100% of 1 core of my CPU. I just give it a kick with akonadictl restart and that usually clears it up.
"install it in 10 minutes and then play" to something somewhat more involved.
Well I usually enjoy an involved setup :) As long as it is stable afterwards of course.
However, those outages tend to be a few hours per year in the places I've lived, and the system comes back from failure without intervention.
Yeah that brings up another issue with programmable thermostats is that when you bring your temp down when you aren't home and then the power fails you are already at that much lower of a temperature to start with. A few hours might not be an issue when your temp is already high, but when you are 10 deg lower to start with and then your furnace fails you have that much less time to respond.
The failure mode is that the nest freezes and you have no indication at all that anything is wrong.
I would have assumed that the Nest would alert you like the Honeywell when it quits checking in to their servers. Are they lacking that feature?
and that Nest refuses to let you manage updates yourself,
Ouch yeah I can certainly see that causing problems.
And how does that help me to not come home to a cold house when I decide to run home for lunch today (assuming that I normally don't)? I would have to set the timer to do that every day wasting energy instead of logging in quick and setting the temp before I leave the office.
If your thermostat flakes out in SVC its no big deal. Very different context than rural North Dakota.
As someone who lives in the ND area this is the exact reason why I did buy a internet enabled thermostat. I got a Honeywell not a Nest (wasn't available yet), and having an internet enabled device is the perfect way to monitor if something does go wrong. I can login to the portal and setup high and low limits, and if my furnace were to fail and the house drops below my set temperature I get an email alerting me to that fact so that I can respond. Also if the thermostat or internet connection fails I get alerts warning me as such so that I can investigate the cause.
When it is -20F and your furnace fails to ignite, or your power is out your mechanical/dumb thermostat isn't going to warn you, and you will still be dealing with burst pipes... if you want a mechanical backup just install a second thermostat and put it on the same control line. I would rather be alerted to the situation than be in the dark, because even if the device fails bypassing it to get some heat is just a matter of bridging two wires.
It's more than just a shared kernel, the development API's allow you to be hardware agnostic while developing as well as infrastructure in place that allows app to app communication and data sharing.
How is this any different than what Linux and other OSes have been doing for years? I don't seem to recall all Linux programs having to be rewritten for each and every architecture (except for some applications that may try to tie in at a lower level)
From the article
Thanks to the sharing of C and C++ libraries, Direct X components and SQLite support, developers can actually write an app once and move it from one platform to another with only a few code tweaks.
Take out the Direct X part there, and doesn't that sound exactly like Linux?
Sounds like Java..
The article says that developers can move their apps around from platform to platform. This isn't like a java JVM in the middle that will interpret your applications compiled code and run it on every architecture. It is just a single OS with a set of standards and libraries that are available on multiple architectures/platforms. All that Microsoft has done is copied the exact model that other OSes like Linux have been following for many years, there is no innovation here. Of course they could extend this to be more like Java, so that programs could be moved from platform to platform without being recompiled, but I don't think that will fit in very well with the big hitter programming languages.
As a whole these are of course good things, but seriously how has it taken them this long to do this? Maybe they were worried about people recreating their libraries so that these apps could be more easily ported to other OSes.
Start menu is back in 8.1 so the cries have not been ignored.
A button that brings up the metro (or whatever it is called this week) interface is not a start menu. I mean a real legacy start menu like Windows 7 (or older if you prefer). I wouldn't recommend that they allow you to remove metro altogether since they want to get their cut from the app creators, but not giving users an option for what they want no matter how hidden it is to enable it feels like a slap in the face. I could see that if no one had told them that users wouldn't like this before they released they maybe wouldn't have included it right away, but people have been complaining about this since the beta so there is simply no excuse left for them. It is just Microsoft's way of telling us that they know what we want better than we do, and they are using their near monopoly on the PC market to force it on us.
But Ubuntu and Apple are the innovators... lame...
lol this is Microsoft innovating? So the innovation that your link is talking about is using the (largely?) same kernel on both architectures... Well lets see what architectures Linux shares nearly all of its code across http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_supported_architectures, hmm lot more than 2.
From your link
They OSes even share a substantial chunk of browser code, finally bringing Windows Phone up to parity with its desktop IE progenitors.
Like how Chrome and many other browsers have been using the same browser engines across platforms for years (i.e. Webkit/Blink)?. Hmm so Android has been using much of the same browser code on both desktop, and mobile for some time. Sharing code across architectures/platforms apparently is only new to Microsoft.
Shuttleworth's idea of convergence is hardware convergence. Why have a desktop around when your phone is fast enough to run a full desktop. Just dock your phone and there you have your desktop OS (doesn't have to mean touchscreen UI!), and that way you have all of your data with you all of the time no cloud required (other than for backups?)!
Microsoft's idea of convergence is using the same UI on multiple platforms even if it doesn't make sense for that platform. I understand that they are trying to make an app ecosystem, so they want to push it everywhere, but is it really that hard to at least give the user an option to turn on a normal start menu? Just a checkmark somewhere to turn on a legacy start menu would have completely changed how people viewed Windows 8, but for some reason they refuse.
Many VMs run one application, but they typically run many processes. For instance OpenSSH. Say a hacker breaks into your application and has some abilities in the userspace. Now with your reduced separation between the kernelspace and userspace it is presumably easier to exploit the kernel. Once you have your way into the kernel you have the run of the place so you have root access to modify all of the other processes running on the machine.
If you are using a password to login to your system the attacker can get into the OpenSSH service and wait for you to login (giving them your cleartext password). OpenSSH uses a tunnel to encrypt your password from the outside world but it is a tunneled clear text password so once the service itself is exploited you end up just handing it to the hackers. Or on second thought just break your way into PAM and then all applications on the machine start feeding the hacker passwords. Once they have your password they can start to use it elsewhere on your network to see what else they can get into.
External facing machines are often just the start of a hackers goals, and making those external facing machines any easier to compromise for the sake of efficiency is a bad idea.