Web browsers are actually the best platform for a lot of users
FTFY.
(See also sibling comment)
They are slower - but this factor becomes less significant by the year.
To me it feels that it becomes more significant by the year. I guess I'm the problem here, should more frequently buy new hardware to be able to enjoy the full web 4.0 experience.
a webpage as functional as a native application.
I keep hearing that, but I've never seen it. Care to provide an example?
Dunno. Slow? Huge? Invasive? Broken (by design, because it has to cope with broken websites)? Then, apart from the browser proper, the chore that is using most websites in the first place? Whoops, you can no longer set xpinstall.signatures.required to false in order to install an unsigned addon? The tunable is still there, mind you, it's just that it has become a no-op? Crash reporter, telemetry, 50MB distfile, share location? Unstable addon interface, rounded tabs, out of swapspace? Rapid release, dev snapshot, segfault, RIP. 500 MB core dump, two screens worth of call stack in gdb. Oops, SIGILL.
..are some keywords that come to mind.
A web browser is the one app that is always running on any computer that I'm using.
Let me guess, you're not a fan of silent computers:-). I would *always* quit the browser when i'm done using it, however since it takes like 15 seconds to load and another 15 seconds to restore the windows and tabs (yes, lazy-loading, and still...), and then another 15 seconds to actually become responsive (as in, can be tricked into responding, not actually being "responsive" with the "fast"-connotation), that's not really feasible.
I've resorted to a keyboard shortcut that alternates between sending my browser SIGSTOP and SIGCONT so I can pretend it's not there (apart from the memory it ate) while i'm not using the www. Having to resort to such a filthy un-solution clearly shows that something is pretty damn wrong.
But sending text message is not in that category.
Yes, it is. They keyword here is *text*. HTML (of course js-enhanced) textfields are the *worst* input element I can think of. The fuck. My sms "workflow" to send an sms to you is: Winkey+Return to launch a terminal (practically instant) $ sms swillden By the time you receive this message, my web browser isn't even halfway started up. ^D sms: sent successfully. $ ^D Terminal gone.
The total overhead is less than a second, plus whatever the sms script interfaces takes to dispatch the message. What's the overhead in a browser-sms setup?
Neither is video conferencing
Yes, with respect to video conferencing or video anything (except editing), I'd agree that a browser is a good fit.
It means you pointlessly patched your rm to provide that warning when it already does so unpatchedly. That is assuming you're talking about GNU rm, of course. Can't wait for GNU Clippy to appear and offer helpful advice on not trying to remove your/...
Do you always jump to conclusions this fast? It has little to do with association. What makes it hard to believe that I might actually have individual reasons to dislike the mentioned projects? And how on earth would you omit avahi vom the "guilt by association" claim? Are you out of your depth here, again?:-)
Well systemd does, and pulseaudio, and avahi, and dbus, and iproute2, and udev, and wayland, and rust, and gnome, and the new kernel versioning scheme (are we at 5.0 yet in the 2.6 series?)
Seems like as a general rule, Linux users have poor taste in software.
Oh, yeah. Because needing to use a closed-source proprietary skype client can totally not be a chore. It's literally one of the few things I consider even worse than web browsers.
For a "closed-world" system like some city transport, running a defined set of programs that doesn't change all the time, one could feasibly get some actual security with a little hardware support, TPMish.
Of course things can change, but you wrote "recently" and not "several years ago".
According to my IRC logs I experienced this on Sep 5 2016. I might not have been using the latest systemd at the time, alas I don't recall the version number^W^Wmeaningless integer that is in the 300s now.
something new and shiny to put into production,[blah blah] wait a decade or more for the new code to mature
Look, If you had bothered to read carefully, I said "whenever possible". Please, do tell, why do your customers ask you to run systemd on your servers?
I don't know if I should be flattered instead
You probably shouldn't, since this isn't based on your appearance but on the content of your statements.
Why you cannot simply declare that you prefer something else without slinging insults around is a fascinating although disturbing thing.
Well I have very fond memories about Linux, given that it was my stepping stone into unix, and BSD in particular. Seeing it go down the shitter does make me mad, occasionally, even though I could technically ignore it. To put it in more accessible terms, think of having to watch your first own car getting crushed. Kind of that feeling.
Do you honestly think [you're] qualified to override the view of actual experts in the field?
Well guess why I presented my thoughts as beliefs and guesses, rather than as facts, as well as explicitly labeling myself as
not an expert in the field
If only you had bothered to read my rather short comment through to the end before getting triggered like that and wasting your time typing that wall of text that starts with an angry rant (and probably goes on like that all the way down, I don't see the point in actually reading it since it's based on a wrong premise.
Come to think of it -- since you do present things as facts, mind revealing what makes you an expert in the field (that you clearly must be)? Ideally in a verifiable way, but well, who am I kidding.
I must have been ranted loud enough about it if it has been fixed since. You do realize that can happen, right?
I take it that you do understand that a return code of 1 is a failure and not success
Thanks for the insight, sherlock.
you sound like a noob.
I'm pretty sure I eat you for breakfast, but feel free to believe whatever you want to believe. And don't spend much time providing arguments on where that belief comes from -- there's probably some new shiny product^Wsoftware to discover and install on production. Don't lose time!
That said, people who use the word 'noob' can't be all too...oh well, let's not go into this.
Both seem pretty transparent, so at least visible light doesn't seem to be absorbed. Standing in front of a window with the sun shining at you, it still feels warm so IR also doesn't seem to be significantly absorbed by glass. Can't tell for CO2, never had a window-sized panel of CO2 between me and the sun. Then again, even at a couple ppm, there's probably more CO2 between me and the sun than glass when standing in front of said window, so I'd suspect the IR absorption of CO2 is also not exactly high.
I'd venture a guess that what does matter, in green house panels, is the glass stopping convection. That's something CO2 cannot do.
Then again, I'm not an expert in the field, so if someone feels like setting the matter straight, go ahead.
I recently observed how 'systemctl whatever disable' (or whatever the correct syntax is, I don't remember) would exit successfully, even if "whatever" is not even a valid service name. No warning either. In a script that would have shat itself, but oh well, scripts are evil, right? Too transparent and readily debugable.
Now, go ahead and explain to me why exiting successfully when trying to disable a nonexistant services is A-OK because if the service does not exist, it is kinda-sorta disabled anyway and thus totally not a problem.
To me it is the poor design shining through, and with this precedent how am I supposed to trust in that this was a coincidence and the rest of systemd does not have those basic glitches that can lead to extremely obscure errors down the line. Especially since I ran into this within the first 10 minutes of familiarizing myself with that shiny new blackbox. Fuck this crap. I went back to sysvinit on Debian, and I don't even like sysvinit, but systemd is orders of magnitude worse (at the same time also being orders of magnitude bigger. the amount of code that is PID1 alone is mind-boggling. If you don't believe it, Look at the goddamn source and, wait, no, don't just count the lines -- if you are marginally familiar with C, you will notice there is over a page worth of local includes. Are you marginally familiar with C and do you want to explain what this means wrt. to how much code is running as PID1?).
That said, other fancy new-school linux toys have similar issues. Especially the 'ip' tool or iproute2. If you script it, it better "work fine, thank you", and if not you're SOL.
Disclaimer: I'm currently being "forced" to run Linux at work, so I have to put up with this shit. I'll eventually be back on NetBSD and start enjoying watching the circus that is Linux again.
PS: You running systemd on what I assume are production servers gives evidence of carelessness. No matter how good or crappy systemd is, it is not mature. You don't run immature stuff on production servers, whenever possible. sysadmin 101. Thus I'm going to assume 17 years means more like 5 years and you're a PFY. Thank god I don't have to work with you.
So 40 goddam(sic) years of experience "in the business" makes you forget SMTP? Whatever your business is, it's obviously a joke since you couldn't have made it any clearer that you have nothing of substance to say, wrt. the parts you didn't even bother to quote.
You have obviously no clue what you're talking about.
Email was designed to be highly reliable, and the pertinent specs (RFC2821 and updates) go out of their way to ensure that.
It also does not, unlike Facebook Messenger, depend on Facebook to keep operating it/not arbitrarily fuck it up like they already did several times when they intentionally broke support for 3rd party clients.
It's stored in one place per customer and a small net grabs a lot of shit.
I'm not sure what this gibberish is even supposed to mean.
Slashdot Mirror
The modern "desktop" is touch based running on your phone.
But what device do you use to do actual work then?
Web browsers are actually the best platform for a lot of users
FTFY.
(See also sibling comment)
They are slower - but this factor becomes less significant by the year.
To me it feels that it becomes more significant by the year. I guess I'm the problem here, should more frequently buy new hardware to be able to enjoy the full web 4.0 experience.
a webpage as functional as a native application.
I keep hearing that, but I've never seen it. Care to provide an example?
how is using a web browser a chore?
Dunno. Slow? Huge? Invasive? Broken (by design, because it has to cope with broken websites)? Then, apart from the browser proper, the chore that is using most websites in the first place? Whoops, you can no longer set xpinstall.signatures.required to false in order to install an unsigned addon? The tunable is still there, mind you, it's just that it has become a no-op? Crash reporter, telemetry, 50MB distfile, share location? Unstable addon interface, rounded tabs, out of swapspace? Rapid release, dev snapshot, segfault, RIP. 500 MB core dump, two screens worth of call stack in gdb. Oops, SIGILL.
..are some keywords that come to mind.
A web browser is the one app that is always running on any computer that I'm using.
Let me guess, you're not a fan of silent computers :-). I would *always* quit the browser when i'm done using it, however since it takes like 15 seconds to load and another 15 seconds to restore the windows and tabs (yes, lazy-loading, and still...), and then another 15 seconds to actually become responsive (as in, can be tricked into responding, not actually being "responsive" with the "fast"-connotation), that's not really feasible.
I've resorted to a keyboard shortcut that alternates between sending my browser SIGSTOP and SIGCONT so I can pretend it's not there (apart from the memory it ate) while i'm not using the www. Having to resort to such a filthy un-solution clearly shows that something is pretty damn wrong.
But sending text message is not in that category.
Yes, it is. They keyword here is *text*. HTML (of course js-enhanced) textfields are the *worst* input element I can think of. The fuck.
My sms "workflow" to send an sms to you is:
Winkey+Return to launch a terminal (practically instant)
$ sms swillden
By the time you receive this message, my web browser isn't even halfway started up.
^D
sms: sent successfully.
$ ^D
Terminal gone.
The total overhead is less than a second, plus whatever the sms script interfaces takes to dispatch the message. What's the overhead in a browser-sms setup?
Neither is video conferencing
Yes, with respect to video conferencing or video anything (except editing), I'd agree that a browser is a good fit.
It means you pointlessly patched your rm to provide that warning when it already does so unpatchedly. That is assuming you're talking about GNU rm, of course. Can't wait for GNU Clippy to appear and offer helpful advice on not trying to remove your /...
Well how open source is your dumbphone?
I'm sure it remakes the french language pack. Try it.
guilt by association
Do you always jump to conclusions this fast? It has little to do with association. What makes it hard to believe that I might actually have individual reasons to dislike the mentioned projects? And how on earth would you omit avahi vom the "guilt by association" claim? Are you out of your depth here, again? :-)
why on earth complain about Wayland?
Because it perfectly matches the pattern?
Well systemd does, and pulseaudio, and avahi, and dbus, and iproute2, and udev, and wayland, and rust, and gnome, and the new kernel versioning scheme (are we at 5.0 yet in the 2.6 series?)
Seems like as a general rule, Linux users have poor taste in software.
Pretty much my thoughts.
but needing to use a web browser can be a chore.
Oh, yeah. Because needing to use a closed-source proprietary skype client can totally not be a chore. It's literally one of the few things I consider even worse than web browsers.
Well said.
For a "closed-world" system like some city transport, running a defined set of programs that doesn't change all the time, one could feasibly get some actual security with a little hardware support, TPMish.
Of course things can change, but you wrote "recently" and not "several years ago".
According to my IRC logs I experienced this on Sep 5 2016. I might not have been using the latest systemd at the time, alas I don't recall the version number^W^Wmeaningless integer that is in the 300s now.
something new and shiny to put into production,[blah blah] wait a decade or more for the new code to mature
Look, If you had bothered to read carefully, I said "whenever possible". Please, do tell, why do your customers ask you to run systemd on your servers?
I don't know if I should be flattered instead
You probably shouldn't, since this isn't based on your appearance but on the content of your statements.
Why you cannot simply declare that you prefer something else without slinging insults around is a fascinating although disturbing thing.
Well I have very fond memories about Linux, given that it was my stepping stone into unix, and BSD in particular. Seeing it go down the shitter does make me mad, occasionally, even though I could technically ignore it.
To put it in more accessible terms, think of having to watch your first own car getting crushed. Kind of that feeling.
The joke is on you, our overlords are already silicon-based.
Do you honestly think [you're] qualified to override the view of actual experts in the field?
Well guess why I presented my thoughts as beliefs and guesses, rather than as facts, as well as explicitly labeling myself as
not an expert in the field
If only you had bothered to read my rather short comment through to the end before getting triggered like that and wasting your time typing that wall of text that starts with an angry rant (and probably goes on like that all the way down, I don't see the point in actually reading it since it's based on a wrong premise.
Come to think of it -- since you do present things as facts, mind revealing what makes you an expert in the field (that you clearly must be)? Ideally in a verifiable way, but well, who am I kidding.
I must have been ranted loud enough about it if it has been fixed since. You do realize that can happen, right?
I take it that you do understand that a return code of 1 is a failure and not success
Thanks for the insight, sherlock.
you sound like a noob.
I'm pretty sure I eat you for breakfast, but feel free to believe whatever you want to believe. And don't spend much time providing arguments on where that belief comes from -- there's probably some new shiny product^Wsoftware to discover and install on production. Don't lose time!
That said, people who use the word 'noob' can't be all too...oh well, let's not go into this.
Both seem pretty transparent, so at least visible light doesn't seem to be absorbed.
Standing in front of a window with the sun shining at you, it still feels warm so IR also doesn't seem to be significantly absorbed by glass. Can't tell for CO2, never had a window-sized panel of CO2 between me and the sun. Then again, even at a couple ppm, there's probably more CO2 between me and the sun than glass when standing in front of said window, so I'd suspect the IR absorption of CO2 is also not exactly high.
I'd venture a guess that what does matter, in green house panels, is the glass stopping convection. That's something CO2 cannot do.
Then again, I'm not an expert in the field, so if someone feels like setting the matter straight, go ahead.
I recently observed how 'systemctl whatever disable' (or whatever the correct syntax is, I don't remember) would exit successfully, even if "whatever" is not even a valid service name. No warning either. In a script that would have shat itself, but oh well, scripts are evil, right? Too transparent and readily debugable.
Now, go ahead and explain to me why exiting successfully when trying to disable a nonexistant services is A-OK because if the service does not exist, it is kinda-sorta disabled anyway and thus totally not a problem.
To me it is the poor design shining through, and with this precedent how am I supposed to trust in that this was a coincidence and the rest of systemd does not have those basic glitches that can lead to extremely obscure errors down the line. Especially since I ran into this within the first 10 minutes of familiarizing myself with that shiny new blackbox. Fuck this crap. I went back to sysvinit on Debian, and I don't even like sysvinit, but systemd is orders of magnitude worse (at the same time also being orders of magnitude bigger. the amount of code that is PID1 alone is mind-boggling. If you don't believe it, Look at the goddamn source and, wait, no, don't just count the lines -- if you are marginally familiar with C, you will notice there is over a page worth of local includes. Are you marginally familiar with C and do you want to explain what this means wrt. to how much code is running as PID1?).
That said, other fancy new-school linux toys have similar issues. Especially the 'ip' tool or iproute2. If you script it, it better "work fine, thank you", and if not you're SOL.
Disclaimer: I'm currently being "forced" to run Linux at work, so I have to put up with this shit. I'll eventually be back on NetBSD and start enjoying watching the circus that is Linux again.
PS: You running systemd on what I assume are production servers gives evidence of carelessness. No matter how good or crappy systemd is, it is not mature. You don't run immature stuff on production servers, whenever possible. sysadmin 101.
Thus I'm going to assume 17 years means more like 5 years and you're a PFY. Thank god I don't have to work with you.
Are you being MITMed at work?
systemd works just fine thank you.
In the same way that people will tell you Windows works just fine thank you.
If you look closer, neither does.
So 40 goddam(sic) years of experience "in the business" makes you forget SMTP? Whatever your business is, it's obviously a joke since you couldn't have made it any clearer that you have nothing of substance to say, wrt. the parts you didn't even bother to quote.
TFS seems to disagree.
You have obviously no clue what you're talking about.
Email was designed to be highly reliable, and the pertinent specs (RFC2821 and updates) go out of their way to ensure that.
It also does not, unlike Facebook Messenger, depend on Facebook to keep operating it/not arbitrarily fuck it up like they already did several times when they intentionally broke support for 3rd party clients.
It's stored in one place per customer and a small net grabs a lot of shit.
I'm not sure what this gibberish is even supposed to mean.
no?
No.
well, in binary it would be 11 orders of magnitude...
FTFY
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins.
No, you don't.