Personally, I'm using reiserfs (that is, reiser3, not reiser4) solely due to its outstanding disaster recovery capabilities.
You're kidding, right? Tell me you're being sarcastic, please.
There's nothing I love more than finding parts of my syslog in my mail spool after a crash. And then being told that to prevent that I should turn off block packing, which was one of the USPs of reiserfs in the first place.
No matter what happens to the media or the filesystem itself, "reiserfsck --rebuild-tree" is going to bring back everything that was not directly overwritten or corrupted.
Yes, well, that one caveat says it all, now doesn't it? Filesystem corruption after a crash is almost a given on reiserfs. And I'm not the only one complaining about that. And even if I weren't, the cavalier attitude of its developers towards these kind of reports does not engender a lot of trust in me. That's my data they're letting me play beta-tester with.
Wrong. You are going in the right direction, but you overlook one thing: Alice has already granted permission to modify the work, by explicitly licensing it under the GPL. Bob has a license to produce a derivative work, and that derivative work belongs to him.
Bob, however, cannot distiribute that derivative work, as his original license does not give him permission to do that, unless he also distributes his source.
Stop pretending everything is a mess in Linuxland. It's not, and if you were not mired in your preconceptions, you'd admit that. All is not perfect, and there are rough edges, but despite what you pretend, Windows is not any better; and some of the time it is actually worse (Microsoft hasn't pissed me off lately, so I'm being charitable here).
Especially don't try to pretend that using the sysinternals tools as an example. How long ago was it that those tools were a third party while Microsoft neglected its responsibility to give admins their necessary tooling?
I've used proprietary Unices, I use and admin Windows daily, and they're not any better than Linux. And when you're told that the issue you're having problems with will only be fixed in the next release (for which you'll have to pay), that's about as helpful as 'patch the source yourself'. In fact, it's less helpful. At least on Linux I can patch the source myself. And I have done so.
I don't know about you, but when it comes to the systems given in my care, I prefer to be able to fix things myself, instead of being beholden to someone else who might not share my priorities.
Linux has nothing like procexp, and that's unfortunate for you, because you keep expecting a single huge monolithic app to do all that. Your 'spit and baling wire' comment shows that bias quite clearly.
Let me tell you, from the point of view of a Linux user and professional sysadmin: we don't think it's just 'spit and baling wire'. We like our single discrete tools and the ways we can combine them.
As long as you keep it expecting to be just another Windows, Linux is never going to be satisfactory to you.
I did. The article exonerates the CRU, just like this panel, without sparing the criticism. But there is no sign of those 'huge systemic problems you mention'.
You shouldn't trust Slashdot's lousy search facility to keep people from finding out you're a liar. It takes Google all of 1 minute to find you spouting the standard denialist bullshit, including "we've been cooling for the last decade".
Why should I take someone seriously who doesn't even have the courage of his own convictions? You're not only stupid, you're a coward and a liar to boot. Now fuck off.
The summary of the TFA states quite clearly what I have been saying for years, that there arent any experts in statistics going over the work of these climate scientists.
And TFA says, quite clearly, that the methods used were adequate, and that the potential errors in using sub-optimal methods were avoided. In hindsight, statisticians were not needed, but they still are a good idea in order to improve the perception of good statistics in the research.
All of which you would have known, if you had actually read the report, instead of spouting your dogma.
The panels have found huge systemic problems with how they were conducting science
How about some quotes to back that up? Because I can't find it in this report. And notice that I linked to the original report in my submission, so why the red herring of the attack on realclimate.org?
The CRU got 99 FOI requests in 2009, most of them copy/pasted, asking for the same data they had already told they couldn't provide because they weren't the rightful owners. They were within their rights to drop those requests. That after a set of vexatious requests they might have been a bit careless in handling other requests, well, they're only human, aren't they?
Slashdot Mirror
Flight Simulator? Ever heard of a company called SubLogic?
Mart
Aww, did I hurt the poor fanboi's feelings?
Your reaction is typical: reiserfs fucks up, blame the user instead.
Mart
You're kidding, right? Tell me you're being sarcastic, please.
There's nothing I love more than finding parts of my syslog in my mail spool after a crash. And then being told that to prevent that I should turn off block packing, which was one of the USPs of reiserfs in the first place.
Yes, well, that one caveat says it all, now doesn't it? Filesystem corruption after a crash is almost a given on reiserfs. And I'm not the only one complaining about that. And even if I weren't, the cavalier attitude of its developers towards these kind of reports does not engender a lot of trust in me. That's my data they're letting me play beta-tester with.
Mart
On a second reading, yes, you did. Sorry. You were a tad unclear though.
Marr
Wrong. You are going in the right direction, but you overlook one thing: Alice has already granted permission to modify the work, by explicitly licensing it under the GPL. Bob has a license to produce a derivative work, and that derivative work belongs to him.
Bob, however, cannot distiribute that derivative work, as his original license does not give him permission to do that, unless he also distributes his source.
Mart
Wrong. The moment you start distributing your modified GPL code is the moment you have to explictly put it under the GPL or a compatible license.
I am starting to understand QuantumG's exasperation.
Mart
2001 called, it wants its FUD back.
Stop pretending everything is a mess in Linuxland. It's not, and if you were not mired in your preconceptions, you'd admit that. All is not perfect, and there are rough edges, but despite what you pretend, Windows is not any better; and some of the time it is actually worse (Microsoft hasn't pissed me off lately, so I'm being charitable here).
Especially don't try to pretend that using the sysinternals tools as an example. How long ago was it that those tools were a third party while Microsoft neglected its responsibility to give admins their necessary tooling?
I've used proprietary Unices, I use and admin Windows daily, and they're not any better than Linux. And when you're told that the issue you're having problems with will only be fixed in the next release (for which you'll have to pay), that's about as helpful as 'patch the source yourself'. In fact, it's less helpful. At least on Linux I can patch the source myself. And I have done so.
I don't know about you, but when it comes to the systems given in my care, I prefer to be able to fix things myself, instead of being beholden to someone else who might not share my priorities.
Mart
Linux has nothing like procexp, and that's unfortunate for you, because you keep expecting a single huge monolithic app to do all that. Your 'spit and baling wire' comment shows that bias quite clearly.
Let me tell you, from the point of view of a Linux user and professional sysadmin: we don't think it's just 'spit and baling wire'. We like our single discrete tools and the ways we can combine them.
As long as you keep it expecting to be just another Windows, Linux is never going to be satisfactory to you.
Mart
Not a GUI tool? That wasn't part of your original specification. And what does it matter if it works? It's a sysadmin/developer tool FFS.
And tell me, what does procexp do what lsof in combination with the normal process tools and the standard Unix utilities can't do?
Mart
lsof
Mart
And these are 'huge systemic problems'? You're nuts.
Mart
And now it is time you do start producing quotes, or you are just lying.
Mart
I did. The article exonerates the CRU, just like this panel, without sparing the criticism. But there is no sign of those 'huge systemic problems you mention'.
Mart
You shouldn't trust Slashdot's lousy search facility to keep people from finding out you're a liar. It takes Google all of 1 minute to find you spouting the standard denialist bullshit, including "we've been cooling for the last decade".
Why should I take someone seriously who doesn't even have the courage of his own convictions? You're not only stupid, you're a coward and a liar to boot. Now fuck off.
Mart
Yeah right. Go pull the other one, it's got bells on.
And stop being a passive-aggressive twit.
Mart
And TFA says, quite clearly, that the methods used were adequate, and that the potential errors in using sub-optimal methods were avoided. In hindsight, statisticians were not needed, but they still are a good idea in order to improve the perception of good statistics in the research.
All of which you would have known, if you had actually read the report, instead of spouting your dogma.
Mart
Again, you assert, you prove.
And where in that article do they mention those 'huge systemic problems'? Because I don't see it. You really are going to have to do better than this.
Mart
In other words, you don't have the quotes. And no, I'm not going to dig them up. You assert, you prove, that's the way it works.
And there was only one earlier panel, the parliamentary one, and they too exonerated the CRU. So produce quotes, or GTFO.
Mart
How about some quotes to back that up? Because I can't find it in this report. And notice that I linked to the original report in my submission, so why the red herring of the attack on realclimate.org?
Mart
Nonsense. You're fully within your rights to ask the original rights owners for the data. It is not the duty of the CRU to provide it to you.
Mart
Care to point where I stated that all denials of FOI requests were (at least morally) correct? In fact, I did explicitly the opposite.
Jeez, you denialists give 'stupid' a new meaning.
Mart
Oh, I agree. The silence from the mainstream media is deafening. I am just doing my part in getting the word out by submitting it here.
Mart
Oh for fuck's sake.
The CRU got 99 FOI requests in 2009, most of them copy/pasted, asking for the same data they had already told they couldn't provide because they weren't the rightful owners. They were within their rights to drop those requests. That after a set of vexatious requests they might have been a bit careless in handling other requests, well, they're only human, aren't they?
Mart
And of course Slashdot posts this when I am still asleep.
Not surprisingly, I see a lot of posts from people who didn't bother to read the report and just parrot the standard talking points.
And surprisingly, given the amount of flak he gets, kdawson cleaned up my typos, formatted my URLs a bit better and found a catchier title.
Mart
You noticed that WebKit was just one example in my post? Of course you didn't, you were blinded by your fanboi rage.
Mart