So is this all just people acting on some philosophical principle, rather than picking the best tool to complete the job they want? It sounds like the OP doesn't really know much about systemd or its alternatives and will not be interacting with it anything beyond top-level kind of stuff...but he's decided that he dislikes it because someone told him its Windows-like. Modular design is great and all, but from the OP's perspective what the hell is the difference between one big black box versus 20 smaller ones?
I'm curious about that comment, too. The only thing I saw was this line on wikipedia...
In April 2014, Linus Torvalds expressed reservations about the attitude of a key systemd developer towards users and bug reports. In late April 2014, a campaign to boycott systemd was launched, with a website listing various reasons against its adoption.
In an August 2014 article published in InfoWorld, Paul Venezia wrote about the systemd controversy, and attributed the controversy to violation of the Unix philosophy, and to "enormous egos who firmly believe they can do no wrong." The article also characterizes the architecture of systemd as more similar to that of svchost.exe, a critical system component in Microsoft Windows with a broad functional scope.
Just seems like classic "compare any software I dislike to Windows" kind of stuff, but I'd love to hear from someone who is more familiar with it.
The only way you're going to have a medium of exchange that isn't subject to speculation is if you can guarantee that it will not be profitable to store your wealth in that currency rather than anything else.
You don't have the right context. Picture the writer of the deleted comment being an evil billionaire having just shut down an orphanage for DMCA violations, then you'll get it.
That doesn't really tell much. I didn't get into programming until college because I was never introduced to the idea that it was something I could just sit down and do until then. While I'm willing to admit that there are differences between the world now and the world of 15-20 years ago that I grew up in, I think the government should be in the business of making sure all kids have the opportunity to be introduced to programming, rather than catering to different subsets of people.
Or she just watched "House of Cards" and thinks her Benghazi reporting was just so super important and groundbreaking that the big bad gubbmint had to step in and infect her computer with the same kind of spyware that's bundled with Banzai Buddy. Only time will tell.
The current system does nothing to prevent people from creating their own stuff and releasing it under whatever asinine license they want. So not only are people insisting that their open method of production/distribution is better than a proprietary one, but they seem to feel that we're beholden to play by their rules, simply because there's no physical limitation preventing them from copying/cloning whatever they want.
If FOS hardware/software were the amazing, best-for-humanity method for driving technology forward that all its proponents seem to think, why the hell is proprietary hardware/software so successful in the market?
Maybe I'm odd, but when people ask to have a technical discussion about something I do for a living, I'm usually pretty happy to oblige.
Taking it to your metaphor, all I'm seeing here are people engaging in a mutually self-gratifying conversation about how there's heaps of data and evidence that shows Sasquatch isn't real, but once I ask to see that data, suddenly I'm the asshole.
I agree with you, but if someone says "I can see the moons of Saturn during the day with my naked eye," I can't really do much about it. If that same person said they had mathematical evidence that proved he could see Saturn with his naked eye, I don't think I'm out of line for asking to see that data. That's my beef here: people are ragging on audiophiles and the like for believing in black magic without any data to back it up, but many of the people here who complain about those audiophiles clearly don't know what they're talking about, either. I just find it odd that someone who says, "you can use math to prove that there's no perceivable difference in a 128kb MP3 and a 320kb MP3" is considered insightful, but when a guy who has a genuine interest in home audio asks to see that math, he's a troll.
Weight of the world got you down and you wanna end your life
Bills to pay, a dead-end job, and problems with the wive
Well don't throw in the towel, 'cause there's a place right down the block
Where you can drink all your miseries away
At "Flaming Moe's" Let's all go to "Flaming Moe's"
Happiness is just a Flaming Moe away
Happiness is just a Flaming Moe away
The sample size makes the results meaningless. Again, you're doing *exactly* what you're complaining about: taking meaningless data and spinning it to prove a point that you don't seem to know much about.
You dropped off that "bps" after your "320k". Those letters are pretty important. 320kbps doesn't mean that the audio file can smoothly play frequencies up to 320kHz. Most MP3s run at a 44.1kHz sampling rate, meaning it can play frequencies up to 22.05kHz, but at that point it'd just be a square wave.
Slashdot Mirror
So is this all just people acting on some philosophical principle, rather than picking the best tool to complete the job they want? It sounds like the OP doesn't really know much about systemd or its alternatives and will not be interacting with it anything beyond top-level kind of stuff...but he's decided that he dislikes it because someone told him its Windows-like. Modular design is great and all, but from the OP's perspective what the hell is the difference between one big black box versus 20 smaller ones?
In April 2014, Linus Torvalds expressed reservations about the attitude of a key systemd developer towards users and bug reports. In late April 2014, a campaign to boycott systemd was launched, with a website listing various reasons against its adoption.
In an August 2014 article published in InfoWorld, Paul Venezia wrote about the systemd controversy, and attributed the controversy to violation of the Unix philosophy, and to "enormous egos who firmly believe they can do no wrong." The article also characterizes the architecture of systemd as more similar to that of svchost.exe, a critical system component in Microsoft Windows with a broad functional scope.
Just seems like classic "compare any software I dislike to Windows" kind of stuff, but I'd love to hear from someone who is more familiar with it.
The only way you're going to have a medium of exchange that isn't subject to speculation is if you can guarantee that it will not be profitable to store your wealth in that currency rather than anything else.
To anyone who didn't have the common sense to realize that a currency with deflation built into it by design isn't going to work out.
I swear, it's like we've already forgot about life before the 1930s.
You don't have the right context. Picture the writer of the deleted comment being an evil billionaire having just shut down an orphanage for DMCA violations, then you'll get it.
It reveals that Comcast is aware that they should downplay something that could prevent its acquisition of Time Warner.
The audacity.
Just rural Ohio.
Sounds like our lives were pretty different, huh?
Unfortunately just because that's something you were able to do doesn't mean it is something that was an option for everyone else.
That doesn't really tell much. I didn't get into programming until college because I was never introduced to the idea that it was something I could just sit down and do until then. While I'm willing to admit that there are differences between the world now and the world of 15-20 years ago that I grew up in, I think the government should be in the business of making sure all kids have the opportunity to be introduced to programming, rather than catering to different subsets of people.
Really seems like the kind of thing that would have been a cool induction to programming for my young self.
*Looks between legs*
Shit, nevermind.
I'm compiling one right now!
Wait, it just finished. Shit, someone give me something else to compile!
Or she just watched "House of Cards" and thinks her Benghazi reporting was just so super important and groundbreaking that the big bad gubbmint had to step in and infect her computer with the same kind of spyware that's bundled with Banzai Buddy. Only time will tell.
Sounds like someone needs to explain to her what the "Insert" key does.
Do you know what the *best* part is?
The current system does nothing to prevent people from creating their own stuff and releasing it under whatever asinine license they want. So not only are people insisting that their open method of production/distribution is better than a proprietary one, but they seem to feel that we're beholden to play by their rules, simply because there's no physical limitation preventing them from copying/cloning whatever they want.
If FOS hardware/software were the amazing, best-for-humanity method for driving technology forward that all its proponents seem to think, why the hell is proprietary hardware/software so successful in the market?
Dollars to donuts that by the start of the 2015 season we'll have the Washington Warriors. Same logo, same colors, just a different name.
The hard part is getting everyone to agree on a standard.
I don't know about you, but my car can hold more people than just the driver. If this was vigilantism, it certainly was shortsighted.
Maybe I'm odd, but when people ask to have a technical discussion about something I do for a living, I'm usually pretty happy to oblige.
Taking it to your metaphor, all I'm seeing here are people engaging in a mutually self-gratifying conversation about how there's heaps of data and evidence that shows Sasquatch isn't real, but once I ask to see that data, suddenly I'm the asshole.
I agree with you, but if someone says "I can see the moons of Saturn during the day with my naked eye," I can't really do much about it. If that same person said they had mathematical evidence that proved he could see Saturn with his naked eye, I don't think I'm out of line for asking to see that data. That's my beef here: people are ragging on audiophiles and the like for believing in black magic without any data to back it up, but many of the people here who complain about those audiophiles clearly don't know what they're talking about, either. I just find it odd that someone who says, "you can use math to prove that there's no perceivable difference in a 128kb MP3 and a 320kb MP3" is considered insightful, but when a guy who has a genuine interest in home audio asks to see that math, he's a troll.
Weight of the world got you down and you wanna end your life
Bills to pay, a dead-end job, and problems with the wive
Well don't throw in the towel, 'cause there's a place right down the block
Where you can drink all your miseries away
At "Flaming Moe's"
Let's all go to "Flaming Moe's"
Happiness is just a Flaming Moe away
Happiness is just a Flaming Moe away
But the proof you're looking for isn't going to be mathematical - and is not 100% sound or something
See, that's why I was asking to see it.
The sample size makes the results meaningless. Again, you're doing *exactly* what you're complaining about: taking meaningless data and spinning it to prove a point that you don't seem to know much about.
You dropped off that "bps" after your "320k". Those letters are pretty important. 320kbps doesn't mean that the audio file can smoothly play frequencies up to 320kHz. Most MP3s run at a 44.1kHz sampling rate, meaning it can play frequencies up to 22.05kHz, but at that point it'd just be a square wave.