Linux can be ported anywhere, but the complexity increases if you include other languages as part of the kernel.
Linux is self-hosting in C. There is very little to do in the way of porting, relatively speaking. And by that I mean there is a lot, but you don't have to rewrite giant chunks of the thing.
Would you want to have to implement a minimal compiler for C, or minimal compilers for Rust/Go and C?
Or maybe you mean: Include a native back-end for gcc and let the front-end do the work? I can see value in possibly having a first stage compiler that allows compilation of a Rust/Go compiler/interpreter at the second stage, but that seems complicated.
I admit that at this point I'm kind of confused about how you see this working. Someone with many years in C and assembly, and to be able to judge the quality, performance, effectiveness, and overall do-I-give-a-fuck-tiveness of a patch in a new language?
I expect you know something about running a Linux development project, hcs_$reboot (1536101)? Oh no, wait, that's Linus, and until you have his 20+ years in doing so, you should shut up and color like a good boy instead of wasting our fucking time on idiotic questions like this.
I should be spending my time reading, learning from, and responding to, intelligent points made by intelligent people. But instead here I am with your horseshit and drivel. If you give a shit about posting on DashSlot, then by all means learn what it is to post on DashSlot. Otherwise do us all a favor and take up a more useful career, like being an organ donor.
Isn't SystemD a component of the kernel and so it's something that we should expect him to have an opinion on?
Oh, guess not. Plus, your question is the Trojan Horse, with a masked payload. Maybe he loves it. Maybe he doesn't spend time with the kinds of configurations needed to maintain a rack of servers because the distros take care of it.
Linus has switched desktop environments (more than once) and distros, and seems content to run anything that 1) has Linux at the core, and 2) Works and 3) There is no better option.
Stupid question, should have been rephrased in any number of better ways.
I'm more interested in the context. It's classic click-bait - just dive right in to something without any context.
I assume the reporter asked a question, as opposed to Linus just randomly opening with that line of conversation. The rest are personal details that, if he feels are unimportant because of the competence of existing participants, are likewise unimportant to the rest of us.
IOW we've talked about this, and Linus mainly just merges to main, choosing what to include or what's not ready. There are at least a thousand people in the world who could do that, and maybe 5-10 who are ready to do it today.
The conversation, combined with Linus Torvaldsâ(TM)s aggression behind the wheel, makes this sunny afternoon drive suddenly feel all too serious. Torvaldsâ"the grand ruler of all geeksâ"does not drive like a geek. He plasters his foot to the pedal of a yellow Mercedes convertible with its âoeDAD OF 3â license plate as we rip around a corner on a Portland, Ore., freeway. My body smears across the passenger door. âoeThere is no concrete plan of action if I die,â Torvalds yells to me over the wind and the traffic. âoeBut that would have been a bigger deal 10 or 15 years ago. People would have panicked. Now I think theyâ(TM)d work everything out in a couple of months.â
We frequently have a 5-4 split just because what you assert is not plainly obvious to all 9 Judges. The intent matters to some, interpreting the Constitution as a "living document" that must be interpreted in modern times. Not everyone sees it that way.
We have arguments about why the following text appears, and what it was intended to mean, does mean, or if we can just ignore the meaning completely: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"
If the intent matters, then we can't ignore those words, but many do.
he rules whatever he wants, not what the constitution requires
I think you have interpreted the Constitution in your own way here. If the ruling were somehow prescribed, we wouldn't need judges to interpret. But the Constitution explicitly set them up to do exactly that.
So what you said is "I disagree". And thanks, but you're not helping.
And get fired. Great advice. I got a $200/yr raise once, because I was hourly and became salary. And they wanted to avoid potential overtime. I had no obligation, nor desire, nor reason, to work overtime, but it was worth $200/year to make sure I wouldn't get paid for time worked.
I could have been replaced just as easily, that early in my career.
Just question whether AC is posting for some reason, or another, or no reason at all.
We are going to die within +/-75 years of being born, and most of us are simply experiments in the gene pool. So quit thinking of yourself as a person who deserves to be alive, and start thinking of yourself as a step in the right direction.
Maybe you are, maybe you aren't, but these things cannot be discerned by individuals. Because to individuals, we all are important.
Pan handlers generally fall under the "don't donate" category. But you may meet someone under the "pan handler" category who deserves support. And don't just give $20 and call it good. Develop a relationship, encourage, and give when in makes sense.
The Renaissance happened in large part because people became patrons. We have Patreon to take a small percentage, or you can care about the people in your area enough to stop the parasitic investor class.
Find someone who shows promise, strike up a conversation, and figure out what they need. Offer it to them. They will be grateful, and you will have helped out a needy individual who will generate both individual profit and, most likely, profit for some bar or art store or indie label or whatever.
Boosting interest helps that individual, but it stimulates in real dollars the local economy.
Do you want to stimulate a foreign economy instead?
Just for the record, I gave you the benefit, and no results. You sound like a crazy person, and should stop posting content-free comments on public sites.
I assume you had a point, but given that you are a crazy person, it must have been as valid as Nick Cage's hair.
That seems low in my neighborhood. It seems like most people under 30 have one. It also seems to be a requirement to work in food service or graphic design.
I guess you are a representative sample, and the people charged with acquiring such data are wrong.
I don't get this at all. Is this because military men used to be the group that mainly had tattoos? If so, is the author telling us that he/she never knew that many people who served?
Have I ever seen my uncle's tattoos? No, because he covered up his arms because he was in the minority and didn't want to explain his tattoos to family. Knowing people who served, and seeing tattoos, are not mutually exclusive.
You sound particularly ignorant, and I'm only observing this because it is a fact, not to emasculate you in a public forum. Please, consider that you are not the only person who has ever lived, and the people you know are not analogous to the people that other people know.
1) Be inspired by Bible 2) Get tattoo 3) Read the rest of the chapter 4) Feel bad for having said tattoo 5) Get mocked by everyone, ever 6) Butthurt 7) Like the butthurt 8) Go over to the dark side
Wait, what were you intending to insinuate? Or inseminate? Whichever is the right word?
Order Of Operations matters, that's my point, in case you were going to ask.
OOO.
Pronounce it like this: "A secretly gay but outwardly homophobic recipient of anal intercourse."
The NYPost link was basically an afterthought, and that is important information. Also, I would not have clicked on the afterthought had you not brought it to my attention. Turns out, it was the beverage.
Are you a shill for the Post, trying to get more clicks?
Relative to the limits of your understanding, yes. Otherwise, I suppose you should ask the European Space Agency, because it would seem that they are, as of now, the experts in such questions.
Free Windows upgrade for testing sounds like barter system. If you want to provide feedback, you will sign on. If not, you won't. If you get paid to test, then don't participate.
Are you going for insightful? Or interesting? Or maybe informative?
Glad to know that you are not part of the ecosystem involved, based on your answer, so, and I say this with the utmost respect because I have no other basis to tear you a new aresehole, fuck off and die please for the betterment of humanity.
Microsoft's Gabe Aul confirmed this method on Twitter yesterday as part of a new blog post detailing some new changes to the way the company tests Windows 10. "As long as you are running an Insider Preview build and connected with the MSA (Microsoft Account) you used to register, you will receive the Windows 10 final release build and remain activated," says Aul
All of the people who use it. And that's a lot of people. Let them do whatever they want? That affects a lot of people. Fail to sound the alarm? Then how do you differentiate you vs. the enemy?
Knowing, but not warning, that makes you feel superior? What about knowing and warning?
I say tell everyone you know, and let them decide. I would prefer to let them wrestle in Jell-O, but time is short and I have other priorities.
But if you have links to Jell-O wrestling where this is a solved problem, do share.
DotSlash does not attempt to conflate user with identity. So unless I see the exact same thing on BookFace, which I won't since I don't use it, you are noise.
If you intended to make a point, you are logically impaired and you should try again.
A coworker got infected by visiting a reputable programming reference site. He didn't know, and virus scan didn't pick it up. Other employees did get detected malware from the same site, so the security folks examined everyone who visited the site, and detected an anomaly.
Our security settings do not allow us to disable scripting in Internet Explorer, which is the only allowed browser. Nor Flash, because it's needed for training.
This is not hypothetical, and security best practice does not solve the problem. Because best practice should be to only enable scripting when absolutely needed, and that should be never.
I realize web 2.0 has a lot to offer, and I have no issues enabling worthwhile content. Slideshows no. Loading chrome and doing everything else by script no. Crapping out a bunch of absolutely positioned DIVs and fixing up the UI with script, no. But only your site, no advert business, nothing external.
There's a NOSCRIPT option for a reason, and your server should be able to inject a dynamic IMG SRC in that section unless you really don't deserve advertising money.
#1: Corporate policy on open source is extremely difficult, mostly based on the legal teams who have to approve not being familiar with the idea, terms, language, or really any part of it. "This opens us to risk," they say, and the initiative is killed.
#2:
When asked about how well their organizations control which open-source components are used in software development projects, 24 percent did say, "We're completely locked down: We can only use approved components." However, 44 percent answered, "Yes, we have some corporate standards, but they aren't enforced," and 32 percent said, "There are no standards. Each developer of team chooses the components that are the best for their project."
When asked about whether their company's open-source policy addressed security vulnerabilities, 24 percent answered, "We must prove that we are not using components with known vulnerabilities." But the remainder of the respondents indicated a weaker effort on security, saying they simply had a policy to avoid known vulnerabilities or their policy does not address security vulnerabilities.
#3 and #4, pretty much what this article is about.
Wouldn't you want people to be aware of these potential issues and avoid them? You can't avoid problems that you don't know about. And finally, you have 4 examples. I'd like to know how many articles they published in the interim, and why you didn't include any information on them.
What's the flaw? That an organization is not earning enough cash flow or pathos to fix critical flaws in their product?
Or that people choose reusable components poorly?
Or that humans are humans? I suppose that kind of is a flaw, unless you assume from the start that that's kind of true, but if you don't then isn't the flaw on the ignorant?
Or that you are mixing some sort of political statement with asking people to stop whining? Because no matter your politics, someone is either going to whine or feel so unsafe doing so that, while unhappy, they don't.
Why don't you collect your thoughts and try again?
If you write code, part of the documentation before you start should be a "risks" statement, where you state that a dependency on X external, third party library, exists, and that any vulnerability could cause issues in your application. Also, that substantial upgrades to the library interface will affect maintainability if any interfaces are changed, or are deprecated.
When someone throws a pile of libraries at a problem, that risk statement gets lengthy.
Rewriting from scratch is not the best solution when you use a robust, mature library like zlib. They had vulnerabilities, fixed them, and upgrading was no chore.
Management loves risk statements, because they hate risk and want to know where they are exposed. Written correctly, the risk will analyze the maturity of the library and the guarantee that it makes.
Kernel calls in Linux are not guaranteed to break ABI, but some things in Linux do have a level of guarantee. And as much as I hate to say it, COM/ATL interfaces where you can choose which version of the interface to use, but it can be patched behind the scenes - which turned into the idea of a "service contract" that can't be broken.
Your problem isn't with using external libraries, it's using ones without service contracts, or immature ones. And you're reacting by throwing out the baby, bathwater, bathtub, house, plumbing infrastructure, and electrical grid.
You can put a stop to that shit by explaining what a contract is (management should be familiar) and what happens when it breaks. And things diverge, since the answer isn't "lawsuit them to death." Now you research the maturity level of each library, starting with the ones you hate, and make a case for removing some of them.
Did you mean C++, which is what GP was talking about, or stating a completely unrelated fact? Because Wikipedia supports either interpretation - I'm just concerned that you might be having a stroke and need help.
Mobile code, you idiot, which is what we are talking about here. There's a thing called "context" which is important when talking with anyone who is not yourself, and you should learn all about it.
Apple later confirmed that the hackers responsible for the leak had obtained the images using a "very targeted attack" on account information, such as passwords, rather than any specific security vulnerability in the iCloud service itself.
Fuck off, fuckhat. That's from your own link you ignorant gaseous bag of arseholes. It doesn't take much to understand what you're talking about if you want to make a point.
Redundant because AC at zero is mostly invisible. And my Karma, despite being a raging arsehole myself, is Excellent, so it will be seen.
Slashdot Mirror
Linux can be ported anywhere, but the complexity increases if you include other languages as part of the kernel.
Linux is self-hosting in C. There is very little to do in the way of porting, relatively speaking. And by that I mean there is a lot, but you don't have to rewrite giant chunks of the thing.
Would you want to have to implement a minimal compiler for C, or minimal compilers for Rust/Go and C?
Or maybe you mean: Include a native back-end for gcc and let the front-end do the work? I can see value in possibly having a first stage compiler that allows compilation of a Rust/Go compiler/interpreter at the second stage, but that seems complicated.
I admit that at this point I'm kind of confused about how you see this working. Someone with many years in C and assembly, and to be able to judge the quality, performance, effectiveness, and overall do-I-give-a-fuck-tiveness of a patch in a new language?
I expect you know something about running a Linux development project, hcs_$reboot (1536101)? Oh no, wait, that's Linus, and until you have his 20+ years in doing so, you should shut up and color like a good boy instead of wasting our fucking time on idiotic questions like this.
I should be spending my time reading, learning from, and responding to, intelligent points made by intelligent people. But instead here I am with your horseshit and drivel. If you give a shit about posting on DashSlot, then by all means learn what it is to post on DashSlot. Otherwise do us all a favor and take up a more useful career, like being an organ donor.
Sincerely,
-Linux Torbalds
Isn't SystemD a component of the kernel and so it's something that we should expect him to have an opinion on?
Oh, guess not. Plus, your question is the Trojan Horse, with a masked payload. Maybe he loves it. Maybe he doesn't spend time with the kinds of configurations needed to maintain a rack of servers because the distros take care of it.
Linus has switched desktop environments (more than once) and distros, and seems content to run anything that 1) has Linux at the core, and 2) Works and 3) There is no better option.
Stupid question, should have been rephrased in any number of better ways.
I'm more interested in the context. It's classic click-bait - just dive right in to something without any context.
I assume the reporter asked a question, as opposed to Linus just randomly opening with that line of conversation. The rest are personal details that, if he feels are unimportant because of the competence of existing participants, are likewise unimportant to the rest of us.
IOW we've talked about this, and Linus mainly just merges to main, choosing what to include or what's not ready. There are at least a thousand people in the world who could do that, and maybe 5-10 who are ready to do it today.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...
We frequently have a 5-4 split just because what you assert is not plainly obvious to all 9 Judges. The intent matters to some, interpreting the Constitution as a "living document" that must be interpreted in modern times. Not everyone sees it that way.
We have arguments about why the following text appears, and what it was intended to mean, does mean, or if we can just ignore the meaning completely: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"
If the intent matters, then we can't ignore those words, but many do.
I think you have interpreted the Constitution in your own way here. If the ruling were somehow prescribed, we wouldn't need judges to interpret. But the Constitution explicitly set them up to do exactly that.
So what you said is "I disagree". And thanks, but you're not helping.
And get fired. Great advice. I got a $200/yr raise once, because I was hourly and became salary. And they wanted to avoid potential overtime. I had no obligation, nor desire, nor reason, to work overtime, but it was worth $200/year to make sure I wouldn't get paid for time worked.
I could have been replaced just as easily, that early in my career.
Just question whether AC is posting for some reason, or another, or no reason at all.
Help someone who shows promise.
We are going to die within +/-75 years of being born, and most of us are simply experiments in the gene pool. So quit thinking of yourself as a person who deserves to be alive, and start thinking of yourself as a step in the right direction.
Maybe you are, maybe you aren't, but these things cannot be discerned by individuals. Because to individuals, we all are important.
Pan handlers generally fall under the "don't donate" category. But you may meet someone under the "pan handler" category who deserves support. And don't just give $20 and call it good. Develop a relationship, encourage, and give when in makes sense.
The Renaissance happened in large part because people became patrons. We have Patreon to take a small percentage, or you can care about the people in your area enough to stop the parasitic investor class.
Find someone who shows promise, strike up a conversation, and figure out what they need. Offer it to them. They will be grateful, and you will have helped out a needy individual who will generate both individual profit and, most likely, profit for some bar or art store or indie label or whatever.
Boosting interest helps that individual, but it stimulates in real dollars the local economy.
Do you want to stimulate a foreign economy instead?
Just for the record, I gave you the benefit, and no results. You sound like a crazy person, and should stop posting content-free comments on public sites.
I assume you had a point, but given that you are a crazy person, it must have been as valid as Nick Cage's hair.
I guess you are a representative sample, and the people charged with acquiring such data are wrong.
Have I ever seen my uncle's tattoos? No, because he covered up his arms because he was in the minority and didn't want to explain his tattoos to family. Knowing people who served, and seeing tattoos, are not mutually exclusive.
You sound particularly ignorant, and I'm only observing this because it is a fact, not to emasculate you in a public forum. Please, consider that you are not the only person who has ever lived, and the people you know are not analogous to the people that other people know.
1) Be inspired by Bible
2) Get tattoo
3) Read the rest of the chapter
4) Feel bad for having said tattoo
5) Get mocked by everyone, ever
6) Butthurt
7) Like the butthurt
8) Go over to the dark side
Wait, what were you intending to insinuate? Or inseminate? Whichever is the right word?
Order Of Operations matters, that's my point, in case you were going to ask.
OOO.
Pronounce it like this: "A secretly gay but outwardly homophobic recipient of anal intercourse."
The NYPost link was basically an afterthought, and that is important information. Also, I would not have clicked on the afterthought had you not brought it to my attention. Turns out, it was the beverage.
Are you a shill for the Post, trying to get more clicks?
Because there are no edits, I'm going to ask for a citation. For the record. Otherwise, AC can fuck right the shite off.
by whom? Citation needed.
Relative to the limits of your understanding, yes. Otherwise, I suppose you should ask the European Space Agency, because it would seem that they are, as of now, the experts in such questions.
Free Windows upgrade for testing sounds like barter system. If you want to provide feedback, you will sign on. If not, you won't. If you get paid to test, then don't participate.
Are you going for insightful? Or interesting? Or maybe informative?
Glad to know that you are not part of the ecosystem involved, based on your answer, so, and I say this with the utmost respect because I have no other basis to tear you a new aresehole, fuck off and die please for the betterment of humanity.
All of the people who use it. And that's a lot of people. Let them do whatever they want? That affects a lot of people. Fail to sound the alarm? Then how do you differentiate you vs. the enemy?
Knowing, but not warning, that makes you feel superior? What about knowing and warning?
I say tell everyone you know, and let them decide. I would prefer to let them wrestle in Jell-O, but time is short and I have other priorities.
But if you have links to Jell-O wrestling where this is a solved problem, do share.
DotSlash does not attempt to conflate user with identity. So unless I see the exact same thing on BookFace, which I won't since I don't use it, you are noise.
If you intended to make a point, you are logically impaired and you should try again.
A coworker got infected by visiting a reputable programming reference site. He didn't know, and virus scan didn't pick it up. Other employees did get detected malware from the same site, so the security folks examined everyone who visited the site, and detected an anomaly.
Our security settings do not allow us to disable scripting in Internet Explorer, which is the only allowed browser. Nor Flash, because it's needed for training.
This is not hypothetical, and security best practice does not solve the problem. Because best practice should be to only enable scripting when absolutely needed, and that should be never.
I realize web 2.0 has a lot to offer, and I have no issues enabling worthwhile content. Slideshows no. Loading chrome and doing everything else by script no. Crapping out a bunch of absolutely positioned DIVs and fixing up the UI with script, no. But only your site, no advert business, nothing external.
There's a NOSCRIPT option for a reason, and your server should be able to inject a dynamic IMG SRC in that section unless you really don't deserve advertising money.
For the same reason I do - to yell at stupid people? Because there's not really much else to offer.
Some of us are exceptional, however. Your name is missing an 'r' and you left your end anchor just dangling out there, so...
Are you refuting any of these claims?
#1: Corporate policy on open source is extremely difficult, mostly based on the legal teams who have to approve not being familiar with the idea, terms, language, or really any part of it. "This opens us to risk," they say, and the initiative is killed.
#2:
#3 and #4, pretty much what this article is about.
Wouldn't you want people to be aware of these potential issues and avoid them? You can't avoid problems that you don't know about. And finally, you have 4 examples. I'd like to know how many articles they published in the interim, and why you didn't include any information on them.
What's the flaw? That an organization is not earning enough cash flow or pathos to fix critical flaws in their product?
Or that people choose reusable components poorly?
Or that humans are humans? I suppose that kind of is a flaw, unless you assume from the start that that's kind of true, but if you don't then isn't the flaw on the ignorant?
Or that you are mixing some sort of political statement with asking people to stop whining? Because no matter your politics, someone is either going to whine or feel so unsafe doing so that, while unhappy, they don't.
Why don't you collect your thoughts and try again?
Wait, what?
If you write code, part of the documentation before you start should be a "risks" statement, where you state that a dependency on X external, third party library, exists, and that any vulnerability could cause issues in your application. Also, that substantial upgrades to the library interface will affect maintainability if any interfaces are changed, or are deprecated.
When someone throws a pile of libraries at a problem, that risk statement gets lengthy.
Rewriting from scratch is not the best solution when you use a robust, mature library like zlib. They had vulnerabilities, fixed them, and upgrading was no chore.
Management loves risk statements, because they hate risk and want to know where they are exposed. Written correctly, the risk will analyze the maturity of the library and the guarantee that it makes.
Kernel calls in Linux are not guaranteed to break ABI, but some things in Linux do have a level of guarantee. And as much as I hate to say it, COM/ATL interfaces where you can choose which version of the interface to use, but it can be patched behind the scenes - which turned into the idea of a "service contract" that can't be broken.
Your problem isn't with using external libraries, it's using ones without service contracts, or immature ones. And you're reacting by throwing out the baby, bathwater, bathtub, house, plumbing infrastructure, and electrical grid.
You can put a stop to that shit by explaining what a contract is (management should be familiar) and what happens when it breaks. And things diverge, since the answer isn't "lawsuit them to death." Now you research the maturity level of each library, starting with the ones you hate, and make a case for removing some of them.
Did you mean C++, which is what GP was talking about, or stating a completely unrelated fact? Because Wikipedia supports either interpretation - I'm just concerned that you might be having a stroke and need help.
Mobile code, you idiot, which is what we are talking about here. There's a thing called "context" which is important when talking with anyone who is not yourself, and you should learn all about it.
Fuck off, fuckhat. That's from your own link you ignorant gaseous bag of arseholes. It doesn't take much to understand what you're talking about if you want to make a point.
Redundant because AC at zero is mostly invisible. And my Karma, despite being a raging arsehole myself, is Excellent, so it will be seen.