Why are binary log files such a big issue? First, Linux already is using binary log files in wtmp, secondly, you can still use text log files in systemd, and third, you can see binary log files just as well as text files. Because there is actually no difference between binary files and text files.
Which one requires fewer commands? For that matter, which one types faster? The one with a long command name and an option flag, or the one with a short command and auto-complete via tabs for the path name. The one that requires a text dump or the one that's ALREADY a text dump? It's not like I need the extra disk space, after all.
I do a log of log following. It adds up.
Besides, the journal on my Fedora box also doesn't seem to rotate out weekly like the logfile did, so that a text dump gives me everything since the day I "upgraded" to a journalctl Fedora.
As I've said on many occasions, I've had race conditions completely stop boot scripts in their tracks before (pre-upstart RHEL). Any talk of a binary log is a red herring, plain and simple.
No it's not. I'm quite prepared to love systemd init - as soon as they ensure that all existing situations are handled gracefully critical functionality isn't lost.
The binary log, on the other hand, is an abomination. If I could have systemctl WITHOUT journalctl, I could become more productive. the journalctl on Fedora has been a major rage-inducer. It's a lot easier to "cat, grep, or more" a text logfile directly than futz around with a binary extraction process. And besides, everyone knows that no decent *n*x command has a name longer than 4 letters anyway.
In other words are those configuration files going to get replaced every time an upgrade is installed?
Probably not. Red Hat's RPM package manager normally creates an ".rpmnew" file if the existing config file has been changed. When that's insufficient, the old config file becomes an ".rpmsave" file. Manual mods to init scripts however... that's why the/etc/sysconfig directory exists.
Or, almost as bad, is the user going to have to trudge through screens and screens of diffs every time updates are installed in order to pick which differences are customizations to keep and which are part of the upgrade?
THAT, alas, is something I've been doing for years.
You canâ(TM)t hope to build a radio, for example, without understanding how to acquire the raw materials it requires, as well as generate the electricity
Interesting example of where you can seriously jumpstart things. People were drawing wire back in ancient times, and regardless of what they actually were, we know that even batteries were being built back then. The old "cat whisker" style receiver required only a coil of wire, a galena (semiconductor) crystal, and some sort of earphone, which is basically another coil of wire and a thin ferromagnetic metal plate.
Transmitters are harder, since you need oscillating circuits, not to mention more power (especially if the receiver is un-amplified). However, the technology required to create evacuated glass vacuum tubes was pretty much all there since about the mid-late 1700s. What we lacked at the time was knowing how to put it all together.
It all falls apart in the last 50 years, though. Solid-state circuitry can only go so far using natural crystals. You need refining and purification, vacuum deposition and microscopic masking, and undoutably even more things I have no knowledge. You'd need not only tons of technical information, but massive computing facilities to get it all worked out. Obviously, it's not impossible, since we did it once already in under half a century, but I'm not convinced you can jump-start it as easily as older electronic technology could be. And, of course, to do it in 50 years or less, it helps to have most of the other parts of the modern world restored to functionality at the same time. Hard to run a fab factory if it takes most of the workforce to pull plows.
Yes, I always have to sit in a front facing seat in a train otherwise I get motion sickness.
Mostly, however, the train doesn't tilt so that people looking backwards find themselves looking downwards at the top of a steep-looking incline. Which can be a little disturbing.
You don't notice the forward tilt on an airplane. They lose altitude while keeping the nose more or less upwards-pointing. Gaining altitude, on the other hand, especially the initial liftoff does dip the back quite a bit.
I don't see how a government takeover will enhance competition. Mostly it will increase the cost of cable TV, at least until some other group decides that watching prime time TV is a fundamental human right.
Most people don't care about competition so much as they care about whether they can get decent service to begin with. Non-government monopolies have little interest in service quality, and frankly, it's not the highest priority in most cases for large non-monopoly businesses either. But Please Stay On The Line Your Call Is VERY Important To Us.
The major advantage to government monopoly is that government has a vested interest in listening to the customers, since unlike most corporations, consumer/voters can directly hurt them, unlike say, Comcast where the only voters who count have a few hundred thousand shares in their pockets.
I see no reason to assert, however that switching ownership would inevitably increase the cost of anything. Monopolies tend to charge the highest prices they can get away with anyway.
I can answer your questions from my wife's perspective:
1. Did you consider a career with computers?
No, she did not.
2. Why or why not?
She hates computer programming. During her first job search out of college, she summarily rejected any potential career that might somehow involve computer programming, even a little bit.
3. What would make you change your decision?
Nothing.
I can quote a source closer to home on that one. Same opinion. Expletives optional.
However, that's a subjective statement, not an objective one is a statistical sample of 1 (OK, 2) and lacks details of WHY the person hated programming. Without more concrete info, it cannot be determined whether or not there's really no way to make it more attractive.
If there isn't, of course, trying for force it to be more attractive is futile. Or worse yet, force it to be less attractive to others in order to artificially "balance" things - just another form of bullying those big bad old smelly boys.
Once upon a time, back before Reagan promised to "get the government off the backs of the people", there was this thing called the Telecommunications Act of 1935.
Briefly, it said that it was legal to monitor any unencrypted radion transmission, subject to the restriction that you could not divulge what you heard unless it was specifically broadcast for public consumption (commercial radio, TV, ham traffic and so forth).
You could learn a lot about how your public services operated by listening to the radio. There have been many cases where, in fact, the civilian community has aided in police efforts because they could do this. Also more than a few where people showed up when and where they shouldn't, but existing laws handled that.
In the later 1980s and early 90's several things changed. Firstly, the government forbade monitoring communications in the cell-phone bands (ironically, I had problems with heterodyne leakage down into public service bands, so banning cell-capable radios made little difference).
Secondly, as more and more public service departments switched to fancier communications methods in the higher UHF bands, encryption became the exception, not the norm. No longer limited to things like sensitive police stakeouts, ordinary domestic police/fire/EMT services, public transport, the school system - even the trash collectors are now encrypted.
Then they clamped down. Originally decrypting scanners were available to the local services. Not anymore. They took them all away.
As a result, it's virtually impossible to hear your tax dollars at work over the radio. And this was BEFORE 9/11 and all the insanity that that provoked.
Some lawnorder defenders stoutly maintain that innocent people have no need to be monitoring their police and public service departments. However, in this town, all such communications are recorded as a matter of record.
Furthermore, there has been more than one local case where crimes were assisted because the perpetrators had friends/relatives working as police dispatchers. Ironically, the criminals knew what was being said, but not the general populace. Which often seems to be the case when the law gets over-protective.
Incidentally, "Because only an idiot would invest a lot of money and effort into getting trained for a job that's going offshore to the cheapest bidder" is no less a personal perception than "because IT is loaded with pigs". But it, too, deserves a scientific analysis, not just blind assumptions.
In particular, is such a viewpoint actually more common in women than men, and in proportion to the percentages of men and women seeking IT careers? If so, a hypothesis may be formed AND TESTED. If not, other factors should be considered until something is found that fits. Not by asking loaded questions or "push polls", but by sampling data in ways designed as much as possible to eliminate bias both oh the parts of the interviewer and interviewees.
And, should it prove demonstrable that women are simply less idiot enough to pursue careers in fields where the long-term prospects aren't appealing, we may just have to accept the fact that women may simply be inclined to be more pragmatic. Because men and women aren't the same, regardless of what some people would assert. Any more than that they're the same except when men are inferior. They're simply different, and the differences vary from person to person and are only similar in statistical masses.
Again. We have people who assume a conclusion and attempt to work their way back to a "proof" from there.
Just ask them, already?
1. Did you consider a career with computers?
2. Why or why not?
3. What would make you change your decision?
4. To the inquirer. Answers such as "Math is hard" or "the guys are bullies" are NOT objective truths, but personal perceptions and, as such, need to be further reinforced by actual concrete instances. And, in fact, if there is the perception that "math is hard" or "the guys are bullies" without objective proff, then additional research needs to be made. Locate the source of these perceptions, address any actual problems found, work to correct any mis-conceptions.
Lay off the "because Men are Jerks", already. That's not very objective either, and it's just as much a case of bullying, even though it flows in the opposite direction.
so not only your FS is fragmented, but your partitions, too.
I prefer to think of them as "creatively load-balanced".
But actually, no, and no. It's not like I'm running NTFS here. Plus, if I do get my logical volumes too fractured, I can jack in another drive, move them over to the other drive, clean up the original physical volume(s) (logical volumes - unlike partitions - can span drives), move the logical volume back again, all without rebooting the system.
Yup. Recall that even the managers of places like that don't get paid much even now.
Now consider automation that eliminates 1000 low-skill jobs and requires, say, 150 higher-skilled people to run the automated equipment. What do you get when 250 of those displaced low-skill people turn out to be capable of actually doing so?
It is indirectly relative the the income of others. The more money people make, the higher the cost of living. The more your supermarket workers and retails workers get paid, the higher the cost of the goods those companies sell to cover their expenses.
So pay your workers fuck all so you can sell your goods cheap to the fuckers with money? Great logic.
There's also an implied assumption that the wages/prices ratio is something plotted with straight lines. That is, that there's no "sweet spot" where the two intersect.
English doesn't borrow from other languages. English follows other languages down dark alleys, knocks them over, and rummages through their pockets for loose grammar. - Paraphrase of a quote by James Davis Nicoll
A favour that resulted in millions of Pi sales. I could do with a slow favour like that.
For all the endless talks about how slow the RPi is you'd think that the competitors would be outselling them. I guess some people don't care about things like speed.
Not everything needs blinding speed. Sometimes it's more useful to have a slower computer that's the size of a credit card, consumes less thn 5 watts, and costs around $35 or less.
The Pi can be sluggish, true, but it's more than a match for the workhorse PCs of 10-15 years ago.
And it's not dog-slow at everything. It renders Minecraft graphics impressively fast. In Java, no less.
All of these cases are nuanced and require careful balance
It doesn't seem that nuanced. It seems to me the question is whether you're in trouble for expressing an unpopular idea (genuine infringement of freedom of expression), or for encouraging violence/panic. The epilepsy example is a deliberate act to cause harm which happens to take the form of a digital submission, but it's not really 'expression'.
I'm sure there are some interesting edge-cases, but this distinction seems important.
There's a third path: direct assault with intent to cause distress. That's what trolls are famous for, and recent news reports have had quite a bit of coverage of everything from people having to alter their lifestyles to cases of outright troll-induced suicide.
Slashdot Mirror
Why are binary log files such a big issue? First, Linux already is using binary log files in wtmp, secondly, you can still use text log files in systemd, and third, you can see binary log files just as well as text files. Because there is actually no difference between binary files and text files.
https://wiki.archlinux.org/ind...
# journalctl -b | grep NetworkManager
Versus:
grep /var/log/messages
Which one requires fewer commands? For that matter, which one types faster? The one with a long command name and an option flag, or the one with a short command and auto-complete via tabs for the path name. The one that requires a text dump or the one that's ALREADY a text dump? It's not like I need the extra disk space, after all.
I do a log of log following. It adds up.
Besides, the journal on my Fedora box also doesn't seem to rotate out weekly like the logfile did, so that a text dump gives me everything since the day I "upgraded" to a journalctl Fedora.
As I've said on many occasions, I've had race conditions completely stop boot scripts in their tracks before (pre-upstart RHEL). Any talk of a binary log is a red herring, plain and simple.
No it's not. I'm quite prepared to love systemd init - as soon as they ensure that all existing situations are handled gracefully critical functionality isn't lost.
The binary log, on the other hand, is an abomination. If I could have systemctl WITHOUT journalctl, I could become more productive. the journalctl on Fedora has been a major rage-inducer. It's a lot easier to "cat, grep, or more" a text logfile directly than futz around with a binary extraction process. And besides, everyone knows that no decent *n*x command has a name longer than 4 letters anyway.
In other words are those configuration files going to get replaced every time an upgrade is installed?
Probably not. Red Hat's RPM package manager normally creates an ".rpmnew" file if the existing config file has been changed. When that's insufficient, the old config file becomes an ".rpmsave" file. Manual mods to init scripts however... that's why the /etc/sysconfig directory exists.
Or, almost as bad, is the user going to have to trudge through screens and screens of diffs every time updates are installed in order to pick which differences are customizations to keep and which are part of the upgrade?
THAT, alas, is something I've been doing for years.
I don't believe Red Hat has made this move on RHEL 7 in error. I think they have a pretty good handle on their customers and their needs.
You mean like Microsoft and Windows 8?
You canâ(TM)t hope to build a radio, for example, without understanding how to acquire the raw materials it requires, as well as generate the electricity
Interesting example of where you can seriously jumpstart things. People were drawing wire back in ancient times, and regardless of what they actually were, we know that even batteries were being built back then. The old "cat whisker" style receiver required only a coil of wire, a galena (semiconductor) crystal, and some sort of earphone, which is basically another coil of wire and a thin ferromagnetic metal plate.
Transmitters are harder, since you need oscillating circuits, not to mention more power (especially if the receiver is un-amplified). However, the technology required to create evacuated glass vacuum tubes was pretty much all there since about the mid-late 1700s. What we lacked at the time was knowing how to put it all together.
It all falls apart in the last 50 years, though. Solid-state circuitry can only go so far using natural crystals. You need refining and purification, vacuum deposition and microscopic masking, and undoutably even more things I have no knowledge. You'd need not only tons of technical information, but massive computing facilities to get it all worked out. Obviously, it's not impossible, since we did it once already in under half a century, but I'm not convinced you can jump-start it as easily as older electronic technology could be. And, of course, to do it in 50 years or less, it helps to have most of the other parts of the modern world restored to functionality at the same time. Hard to run a fab factory if it takes most of the workforce to pull plows.
Yes, I always have to sit in a front facing seat in a train otherwise I get motion sickness.
Mostly, however, the train doesn't tilt so that people looking backwards find themselves looking downwards at the top of a steep-looking incline. Which can be a little disturbing.
You don't notice the forward tilt on an airplane. They lose altitude while keeping the nose more or less upwards-pointing. Gaining altitude, on the other hand, especially the initial liftoff does dip the back quite a bit.
I don't see how a government takeover will enhance competition. Mostly it will increase the cost of cable TV, at least until some other group decides that watching prime time TV is a fundamental human right.
Most people don't care about competition so much as they care about whether they can get decent service to begin with. Non-government monopolies have little interest in service quality, and frankly, it's not the highest priority in most cases for large non-monopoly businesses either. But Please Stay On The Line Your Call Is VERY Important To Us.
The major advantage to government monopoly is that government has a vested interest in listening to the customers, since unlike most corporations, consumer/voters can directly hurt them, unlike say, Comcast where the only voters who count have a few hundred thousand shares in their pockets.
I see no reason to assert, however that switching ownership would inevitably increase the cost of anything. Monopolies tend to charge the highest prices they can get away with anyway.
I can answer your questions from my wife's perspective:
1. Did you consider a career with computers?
No, she did not.
2. Why or why not?
She hates computer programming. During her first job search out of college, she summarily rejected any potential career that might somehow involve computer programming, even a little bit.
3. What would make you change your decision?
Nothing.
I can quote a source closer to home on that one. Same opinion. Expletives optional.
However, that's a subjective statement, not an objective one is a statistical sample of 1 (OK, 2) and lacks details of WHY the person hated programming. Without more concrete info, it cannot be determined whether or not there's really no way to make it more attractive.
If there isn't, of course, trying for force it to be more attractive is futile. Or worse yet, force it to be less attractive to others in order to artificially "balance" things - just another form of bullying those big bad old smelly boys.
Edit:
Originally decrypting scanners were available to the local news services.
Once upon a time, back before Reagan promised to "get the government off the backs of the people", there was this thing called the Telecommunications Act of 1935.
Briefly, it said that it was legal to monitor any unencrypted radion transmission, subject to the restriction that you could not divulge what you heard unless it was specifically broadcast for public consumption (commercial radio, TV, ham traffic and so forth).
You could learn a lot about how your public services operated by listening to the radio. There have been many cases where, in fact, the civilian community has aided in police efforts because they could do this. Also more than a few where people showed up when and where they shouldn't, but existing laws handled that.
In the later 1980s and early 90's several things changed. Firstly, the government forbade monitoring communications in the cell-phone bands (ironically, I had problems with heterodyne leakage down into public service bands, so banning cell-capable radios made little difference).
Secondly, as more and more public service departments switched to fancier communications methods in the higher UHF bands, encryption became the exception, not the norm. No longer limited to things like sensitive police stakeouts, ordinary domestic police/fire/EMT services, public transport, the school system - even the trash collectors are now encrypted.
Then they clamped down. Originally decrypting scanners were available to the local services. Not anymore. They took them all away.
As a result, it's virtually impossible to hear your tax dollars at work over the radio. And this was BEFORE 9/11 and all the insanity that that provoked.
Some lawnorder defenders stoutly maintain that innocent people have no need to be monitoring their police and public service departments. However, in this town, all such communications are recorded as a matter of record.
Furthermore, there has been more than one local case where crimes were assisted because the perpetrators had friends/relatives working as police dispatchers. Ironically, the criminals knew what was being said, but not the general populace. Which often seems to be the case when the law gets over-protective.
You missed the dig.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/leonor...
Item #3.
Incidentally, "Because only an idiot would invest a lot of money and effort into getting trained for a job that's going offshore to the cheapest bidder" is no less a personal perception than "because IT is loaded with pigs". But it, too, deserves a scientific analysis, not just blind assumptions.
In particular, is such a viewpoint actually more common in women than men, and in proportion to the percentages of men and women seeking IT careers? If so, a hypothesis may be formed AND TESTED. If not, other factors should be considered until something is found that fits. Not by asking loaded questions or "push polls", but by sampling data in ways designed as much as possible to eliminate bias both oh the parts of the interviewer and interviewees.
And, should it prove demonstrable that women are simply less idiot enough to pursue careers in fields where the long-term prospects aren't appealing, we may just have to accept the fact that women may simply be inclined to be more pragmatic. Because men and women aren't the same, regardless of what some people would assert. Any more than that they're the same except when men are inferior. They're simply different, and the differences vary from person to person and are only similar in statistical masses.
Again. We have people who assume a conclusion and attempt to work their way back to a "proof" from there.
Just ask them, already?
1. Did you consider a career with computers?
2. Why or why not?
3. What would make you change your decision?
4. To the inquirer. Answers such as "Math is hard" or "the guys are bullies" are NOT objective truths, but personal perceptions and, as such, need to be further reinforced by actual concrete instances. And, in fact, if there is the perception that "math is hard" or "the guys are bullies" without objective proff, then additional research needs to be made. Locate the source of these perceptions, address any actual problems found, work to correct any mis-conceptions.
Lay off the "because Men are Jerks", already. That's not very objective either, and it's just as much a case of bullying, even though it flows in the opposite direction.
Ideological fights solve no problems.
so not only your FS is fragmented, but your partitions, too.
I prefer to think of them as "creatively load-balanced".
But actually, no, and no. It's not like I'm running NTFS here. Plus, if I do get my logical volumes too fractured, I can jack in another drive, move them over to the other drive, clean up the original physical volume(s) (logical volumes - unlike partitions - can span drives), move the logical volume back again, all without rebooting the system.
Yup. Recall that even the managers of places like that don't get paid much even now.
Now consider automation that eliminates 1000 low-skill jobs and requires, say, 150 higher-skilled people to run the automated equipment. What do you get when 250 of those displaced low-skill people turn out to be capable of actually doing so?
they will be doing the harder more demanding jobs, and they will be payed more.
ROTFL
It is indirectly relative the the income of others.
The more money people make, the higher the cost of living.
The more your supermarket workers and retails workers get paid, the higher the cost of the goods those companies sell to cover their expenses.
So pay your workers fuck all so you can sell your goods cheap to the fuckers with money? Great logic.
There's also an implied assumption that the wages/prices ratio is something plotted with straight lines. That is, that there's no "sweet spot" where the two intersect.
An amusing quote I read once:
English doesn't borrow from other languages.
English follows other languages down dark alleys, knocks them over, and rummages through their pockets for loose grammar.
- Paraphrase of a quote by James Davis Nicoll
AND their words.
Google is your friend. The Romance languages are those that came from common (everyday/"Vulgar") Latin.
Id est, the Romans.
If you use Unix on a server, you should have multiple partitions.
I use LVM, you insensitive clod!
Juggling physical partitions is a royal pain.
A favour that resulted in millions of Pi sales. I could do with a slow favour like that.
For all the endless talks about how slow the RPi is you'd think that the competitors would be outselling them. I guess some people don't care about things like speed.
Not everything needs blinding speed. Sometimes it's more useful to have a slower computer that's the size of a credit card, consumes less thn 5 watts, and costs around $35 or less.
The Pi can be sluggish, true, but it's more than a match for the workhorse PCs of 10-15 years ago.
And it's not dog-slow at everything. It renders Minecraft graphics impressively fast. In Java, no less.
We live in a world, wrong or right, were people innovate for profit, not the betterment of society.
Not always, thank goodness. Sometimes people innovate and give it away. Some of what's given away is quite valuable.
Sexting is sooo last decade!
US prices, too.
Give 'em an inch, they'll take an ell.
All of these cases are nuanced and require careful balance
It doesn't seem that nuanced. It seems to me the question is whether you're in trouble for expressing an unpopular idea (genuine infringement of freedom of expression), or for encouraging violence/panic. The epilepsy example is a deliberate act to cause harm which happens to take the form of a digital submission, but it's not really 'expression'.
I'm sure there are some interesting edge-cases, but this distinction seems important.
There's a third path: direct assault with intent to cause distress. That's what trolls are famous for, and recent news reports have had quite a bit of coverage of everything from people having to alter their lifestyles to cases of outright troll-induced suicide.