I've never come across anything I can do in excel with VBA that I can't do with OOBasic. In fact, the opposite is true. What you actually mean is "I can't be bothered switching from VBA to OOBasic - Learning is hard."
Here's one thing - open your old Excel marco spreadsheets and have them work just the same as in Excel.
Can't do that ? Well then you've got to convert them, take cost of converting them vs. cost of Office licence - are you still saving anything ?
Or you parallel run, do new stuff in OO and use Excel for old ones, probably for several years (7 or more at a guess if it's financial stuff) until the old stuff is no longer needed. Now you're not switching from VBA to OOBasic, you're having to learn both and be productive in both at the same time, which is a lot harder, and you won't save anything in Office costs for years.
Come back when it has things like Outline View, first requested oooh about 13yrs ago ( https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show... ), been highest voted or second highest bug/request ever since, but not fixed in 13yrs (apparently it required some reworking of the architecture, and apparently this was done back in 2010...). Having a equivalent of Normal View is also highly voted - I don't use that as much but I can see that if you work on certain types of document layouts it would be essential.
Track changes also lags MS Office significantly.
Excel removed ridiculously low row/column limits almost a decade ago, LO will still only do 1024 columns AFAIK - again, apparently fixing this is too hard. I might only need that for a handful of spreadsheets, but if I have to buy Office anyway for those cases, why would I also use LO and have to master two different tools when I can use Office for everything.
Trouble with OO/LO is similar to electric cars, 80/20 or 90/10 is not a success (against an incumbent tech), it's a problem - if OO/LO can do 90% of my documents or even 95%, I still need Office for the other ones. Similarly if range & charging have improved so that the electric car can do 90% of my journeys or even 95%, that's great - but I still need a fossil fuel car for the others. If I have to have two cars, or two Office suites, instead of one then the new one needs to offer something really compelling that the incumbent doesn't have - and OO/LO doesn't, for me, yet.
Not just the icons either - the buttons are uniformly a disaster. Title bar buttons, explorer controls etc. have all been reduced to ultra thin (single pixel?) pictograms that are flat and borderless. If your eyesight is poor the lines are so thin they start to disappear.
Borderless seems to be the modern style but it too has usability issues - the only way to see the active target area of a button (or even if it is a button) is to hover over it. For the life of me I can't figure out how this is supposed to work for touch - seems the idea is to highlight what you just hit. Take a look at the new calculator, the buttons are just flat text with quite a large (in proportion) button area round the text but no way to see where the actual buttons are.
There are other areas of the UI where buttons and not-buttons look exactly the same, or in-active buttons look the same as active ones, or, in fact I'm not sure what they are, inactive buttons or information or something else. Worst trait of web design brought to the desktop - "hey we can make buttons out of anything", "including things that don't look like buttons, brilliant", "how do users know what buttons look like to click them", "they don't, that's what's brilliant". NO it ****ing isn't.
Yeah that worked right up to the time everything went mobile. Still just about works for high end gaming but that's it.
Nothing is plugged in now, kids or devices, unless it's charging. All is wireless and portable and trivial to hide what you are doing even for feet away. Todays kids come home with tablets provided by the school which need to connect to the net to do their homework. Yes, really, they do.
People need to understand that todays kids have grown up with this stuff, they are intuitively familiar with it in the way we never will be - I was writing games in assembly language at age 12, but when I need to know how to do something on a phone I ask my kids, its quicker than Google. We will never out control or outsmart our kids on tech, best we can do is pass on our experience so they are prepared, and they'll still catch us out.
It is a bit surprising. I have an ASUS TransformerPad TF700, which is pretty close to the ultrabook market segment and came with a 1080p screen. I've had it for a few years and the newer model comes with an even better screen.
And yet as soon as you get into their full-OS transformers the screen res becomes lousy - the TF100TA comes really really close to being all I need on the road (as long as I move dev to cloud based vms - but lugging around a laptop that can run vms is getting old and tiring), but biggest let down is the 1366x768 display. Since I would also like it slightly bigger, I was really looking forward to TF200TA with 11in screen - but they made it 1366x768 again. Really don't see why they think that they have to have high res for Android and lowest possible res for a tablet that can run full Windows / Office.
Really ? I don't think you've seen really messy legacy code then. Try >10k LOC per file, 13k lines in a _view_, that's a mess - a "do not touch" mess. Oh, and 200k LOC is a small project, really.
Hyper-V is free on Windows since 8, and is a full hypervisor - should be a lot faster than virtualbox (definitely faster than VMWare Workstation -.binned several licences for that when Win 8 came out).
You just have to decide to leave you start menu behind, or use 10 preview and see how badly they are screwing up bringing it back.
The new menu is both less functional than the old menu AND less functional than the old start screen (see my post http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... below), and there is now no choice.
It's not the start screen though - it's a crippled version of it, with all-apps in a long list instead of over the whole screen. So rather than have everything shown by scrolling over two screenfuls, I have to scroll down over 5 screenfuls and then expand the ones that are hidden in folders. Some applications are randomly in a folder of one item, which has to be expanded before you can click on it. To cap it all they've crippled the search so that you have to click a search bar (it loses focus for no reason), it only shows one result when searching incrementally for applications, and that looks exactly the same as no results - no change if it is clickable (try search for "reg" and "regedit" - exactly the same look but one is a non clickable non result and one gives a clickable result).
It's almost as though they want to make it as difficult as possible to find what's installed on your machine - possibly because so much is metro crap.
And no, we're still not getting our start menu back (despite 2 headlines on/. suggesting otherwise).
Well we've sure as hell lost the start screen, I tried to like the start menu on previous build but reverted to start screen which I've always found much more efficient, now that option is gone - it's start menu only and search for applications is completely broken.
Good news: charms bar's been gone since early preview builds, wonderfully refreshing to be able to hit the scrollbar reliably again.
Bad news: the start menu has not got more functional and sensible, it's gone way backwards in the latest build, and it's now the only option. Incremental search for applications is now completely broken, you get one result (if you are lucky) and half a screen of completely irrelevant web search results. In fact after enjoying using the previous builds, I may now revert to 8, it's that bad.
Actually, I do have one other annoyance: their seeming insistence that you have some kind of an Windows web account (outlook.com or whatever) in order to run the OS I understand that they're actually doing something kind of neat with that, but it's pretty annoying that they won't let you skip it during the Windows setup.
You need _an_ email account - nothing more. It doesn't have to be windows or live.com or outlook,.com at all - I use a throwaway on one of the domains I own.
If you want to have things shared across multiple devices (I am finding now that I do - and I suspect it will become more of a requirement not less) you need a common identity, and without a corporate domain, windows is simply doing what most websites and services do and using an email address.
Also, you can stop it requiring email account, even in 10 (tech preview) - simply disconnect the network during installation, it will allow local account - if you think about it there isn't much else it _can_ do...
why do you need to see what you _were_ working on when starting a _new_ program ?
It's to see the task I am still working on when I am starting a new program to do a new step of working on it. To some novice computer users, an application is a destination, and people don't use several small applications in several steps of a task. But I was brought up in the philosophy of the best tool for each part of the job.
I agree, but don't see the difference, you either know what you want to do next or you don't. Menu or start screen, mouse or keyboard, the process or launching the next thing is one process and I don't see how you'd forget half way through. I use the keyboard mostly now, and I have typically already started the next keypresses before processing the visual of the start screen (or before it appears). I don't see how there is time to forget. Even if you do, it is one keypress to go back to the desktop to refresh your memory..
at absolute worst case you need to read the name of the new program from another window and remember it
Remembering it is an unnecessary cognitive burden. To open an RDP session, is it "msts" or "mstc"? Oh wait, it's "mstsc".
Um, what ? That is command line / run dialog. It is "remote desktop connection" on the menu - but remembering what it is called is not the problem with start menu, it is remembering _where_ it is.
It was actually in "programs -> accessories -> communications" on 7 (but I had to look that up), sometimes it's in "programs -> accessories" on servers, but it's easy to think it is in "administrative tools -> remote desktop services" or "accessories -> system tools" (accessories -> communications being absent...). All that is why most people just use the run dialog and try and remember "mstsc".
On the start screen, I usually pin it so it is right there, because there is room to pin a lot more, or it is two keypresses away - "r" and "e". So much easier.
I have tried to like the new / old start menu on 10, really, I kept resisting the urge to disable it, but in the end I only lasted a week. Start screen it is, for me. I guess the nice thing about 10 is we can choose.
1. users (or at least us power users) can configure away
2. (Charms bar) is I think the single most annoying piece of UI design since the blink tag, or possibly ever. It's right there to annoy you every f***ing time you go for the scrollbar (particularly the *$£!%^ new Chrome ones).
Best news of win 10 ? Charms bar is gone. I scrolled happily and error free for days without noticing, before I suddenly realized it had gone - bliss. Free upgrade is good news for that reason alone - I do not want to have to go back from the previews to that stupid charms bar !
The fact that it's forced full-screen rather than snapped is the problem. At least with the Windows 7 Start menu, I could see a bit of what I was working on [...]
I have never understood this argument, why do you need to see what you _were_ working on when starting a _new_ program ? The article you cite doesn't help - it says there is a cognitive burden from the metro/desktop split and hot corners etc., all of which I agree with, but it _doesn't_ say there is a cognitive burden to the start screen (in fact it concludes it's the best choice for tablets and justified on grounds of commonality for desktops).
I fully understand the need to have multiple windows visible when working in one and referring to another, or for drag and drop, and un-moving dialogs (and metro apps) can be a right pain in this regard. But starting a new program is the one part of the desktop workflow where you _don't_ need that at all, at absolute worst case you need to read the name of the new program from another window and remember it - most of the time you already know what you want to start at that point in your workflow.
The start screen is something you flick to, find what you want (with the full screen available to show your options or search results, at least in 8) and then leave, the full screen rendering seems to be faster and a better workflow. I see no reason for the live tiles - I'm not on the start screen for long enough to use them.
In contrast the start menu on 7, with a lot of things installed, I found slow to render and cumbersome to use once you got to two or more levels deep and/or more than a screenful (I seem to recall menu scroll was horrible - 10 is better in this respect but more limited, still prefer the start screen), quite often the start menu would cover most of the screen anyway - it would just take a lot more clicking and scrolling to get there.
If something works, then don't break it. If a vanishingly small number of people need a different alternative, then don't shove it down everyone else's throats.
OpenRC, upstart, launchd, smf, dmd (hurd) and various others. And systemd obviously. All designed to replace sysv/bsd style init.
That's a lot of projects created to replace something that didn't need fixing. Seems to me there must have been a lot of affected people, not "a vanishingly small number" to make all those projects happen.
You may not have problems with sysv init, but that doesn't mean there aren't problems.
Whether systemd is the right solution is a different question, but denying there was a problem just seems silly.
"Great" clearly means different things to different people.
To malware authors, JRE is clearly great, because it is a frequent (successfully attacked) target. Maybe it's also great if you trust Oracle, which I don't.
Oracle's JRE patching record is not great, but worse than that you daren't set it to automatically update itself because Oracle has previously distributed malware bundled with JRE security updates ( http://www.zdnet.com/article/a... ).
Biological sex is not binary, so it is difficult to arbitrarily say that an individual is biologically one sex or another.
It's in the chromosomes. It's all about the X's and Y's.
Er, yes, for many/most people, but for a significant minority, it is not, which is the point (and actually even if it is all about the chromosomes, you still have the trisomy etc. conditions).
Sounds more like doing a crap job does not work - which is pretty much a universal truth.
The underground cable coming into our property looks to be at least 50yrs old and I doubt the path above it has been lifted in that timescale either, and it definitely hasn't been touched in the 17yrs I've been here. Some of the distribution wiring out in the street has been upgraded in the last ten yrs because we were getting outages every couple of months, now we get zero, I doubt that wiring had been touched for decades and I don't expect the new stuff under the street will be replaced in the next few decades either. Doing this stuff right isn't rocket science and we knew how to do it over 50yrs ago.
Transformers sometimes flood, but new ones shouldn't unless you don't have design standards or don't enforce them - just looked up some here and for consumer substations it's 300mm of concrete above the 100 year flood level. There are problems with older substations built to lower standards or because flooding risks have simply changed - there are places that haven't flooded in over 100yrs and then this century have flooded several times, call it climate change or whatever, it means the 100yr flood line has effectively moved. But that is older infrastructure, if you have new areas where transformers are "constantly" getting flooded then you have poor standards or poor monitoring of standards.
For one, the US is big.. really big.. So it's not cost-effective to run power cables and alike underground. So that makes them more vulnerable.
That is not the problem - most of our long distance high voltage stuff is above ground here, but that is usually redundant (hence "grid"). The weird thing about the US is the way the last-mile low voltage stuff, which is more vulnerable and typically _not_ redundant, is above ground too. Many people are convinced that is why your power is more flaky - it is not actually the grid (although the US high voltage grid does not have a good reputation either).
So, how's our grid ? Well, a few years ago we started to get more power outages - by which I mean one every couple of months for a few minutes to a couple of hours. The distribution cable from the substation was either degraded or handling too much new load, anyway that was enough for them to dig up all the roads a year or so ago and replace / add new cables. Haven't had a single noticeable power outage since then.
Exhibit B, God (or Gods), generally regarded as being infinite/omnipresent/omnipotent/otherwise not subject to laws of physics - hence plenty of room for an infinite tape.
God does the complicated bit of deciding whether puny humans should kill or not - the "why" - leaving the humans to decide the simple bits like "when / who" (goes first), "how" (which bits to cut / shoot / throttle / stone), and which way up to hold the camera.
My understanding is that cgroups is moving (for various reasons) to require a single userspace process manager a la systemd. No, it doesn't have to be systemd but it sounds like it will have to be something _like_ systemd if you don't use systemd. Also, if your one process manager needs to manage stuff spawned from init, maybe it is right that it should _be_ init - I am not actually sure, but that seems to be the argument.
I am not sure if RedHat is chasing a phantom use case as you say or a genuine and valuable innovation - probably only time will tell - I just think it is clear they are chasing something in the PAAS / cloud / server space, and that that is where systemd is coming from.
Slashdot Mirror
I've never come across anything I can do in excel with VBA that I can't do with OOBasic. In fact, the opposite is true.
What you actually mean is "I can't be bothered switching from VBA to OOBasic - Learning is hard."
Here's one thing - open your old Excel marco spreadsheets and have them work just the same as in Excel.
Can't do that ? Well then you've got to convert them, take cost of converting them vs. cost of Office licence - are you still saving anything ?
Or you parallel run, do new stuff in OO and use Excel for old ones, probably for several years (7 or more at a guess if it's financial stuff) until the old stuff is no longer needed. Now you're not switching from VBA to OOBasic, you're having to learn both and be productive in both at the same time, which is a lot harder, and you won't save anything in Office costs for years.
Nope, it's not.
Come back when it has things like Outline View, first requested oooh about 13yrs ago ( https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show... ), been highest voted or second highest bug/request ever since, but not fixed in 13yrs (apparently it required some reworking of the architecture, and apparently this was done back in 2010...). Having a equivalent of Normal View is also highly voted - I don't use that as much but I can see that if you work on certain types of document layouts it would be essential.
Track changes also lags MS Office significantly.
Excel removed ridiculously low row/column limits almost a decade ago, LO will still only do 1024 columns AFAIK - again, apparently fixing this is too hard. I might only need that for a handful of spreadsheets, but if I have to buy Office anyway for those cases, why would I also use LO and have to master two different tools when I can use Office for everything.
Trouble with OO/LO is similar to electric cars, 80/20 or 90/10 is not a success (against an incumbent tech), it's a problem - if OO/LO can do 90% of my documents or even 95%, I still need Office for the other ones. Similarly if range & charging have improved so that the electric car can do 90% of my journeys or even 95%, that's great - but I still need a fossil fuel car for the others. If I have to have two cars, or two Office suites, instead of one then the new one needs to offer something really compelling that the incumbent doesn't have - and OO/LO doesn't, for me, yet.
Not just the icons either - the buttons are uniformly a disaster. Title bar buttons, explorer controls etc. have all been reduced to ultra thin (single pixel?) pictograms that are flat and borderless. If your eyesight is poor the lines are so thin they start to disappear.
Borderless seems to be the modern style but it too has usability issues - the only way to see the active target area of a button (or even if it is a button) is to hover over it. For the life of me I can't figure out how this is supposed to work for touch - seems the idea is to highlight what you just hit. Take a look at the new calculator, the buttons are just flat text with quite a large (in proportion) button area round the text but no way to see where the actual buttons are.
There are other areas of the UI where buttons and not-buttons look exactly the same, or in-active buttons look the same as active ones, or, in fact I'm not sure what they are, inactive buttons or information or something else. Worst trait of web design brought to the desktop - "hey we can make buttons out of anything", "including things that don't look like buttons, brilliant", "how do users know what buttons look like to click them", "they don't, that's what's brilliant". NO it ****ing isn't.
Maybe, but that doesn't explain it. 768 is the _minimum_ vertical res for Windows, and Surface Pro runs at up to 2160 x 1440.
Yeah that worked right up to the time everything went mobile. Still just about works for high end gaming but that's it.
Nothing is plugged in now, kids or devices, unless it's charging. All is wireless and portable and trivial to hide what you are doing even for feet away. Todays kids come home with tablets provided by the school which need to connect to the net to do their homework. Yes, really, they do.
People need to understand that todays kids have grown up with this stuff, they are intuitively familiar with it in the way we never will be - I was writing games in assembly language at age 12, but when I need to know how to do something on a phone I ask my kids, its quicker than Google. We will never out control or outsmart our kids on tech, best we can do is pass on our experience so they are prepared, and they'll still catch us out.
It is a bit surprising. I have an ASUS TransformerPad TF700, which is pretty close to the ultrabook market segment and came with a 1080p screen. I've had it for a few years and the newer model comes with an even better screen.
And yet as soon as you get into their full-OS transformers the screen res becomes lousy - the TF100TA comes really really close to being all I need on the road (as long as I move dev to cloud based vms - but lugging around a laptop that can run vms is getting old and tiring), but biggest let down is the 1366x768 display. Since I would also like it slightly bigger, I was really looking forward to TF200TA with 11in screen - but they made it 1366x768 again. Really don't see why they think that they have to have high res for Android and lowest possible res for a tablet that can run full Windows / Office.
Really ? I don't think you've seen really messy legacy code then.
Try >10k LOC per file, 13k lines in a _view_, that's a mess - a "do not touch" mess.
Oh, and 200k LOC is a small project, really.
Hyper-V is free on Windows since 8, and is a full hypervisor - should be a lot faster than virtualbox (definitely faster than VMWare Workstation - .binned several licences for that when Win 8 came out).
You just have to decide to leave you start menu behind, or use 10 preview and see how badly they are screwing up bringing it back.
The new menu is both less functional than the old menu AND less functional than the old start screen (see my post http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... below), and there is now no choice.
It's not the start screen though - it's a crippled version of it, with all-apps in a long list instead of over the whole screen. So rather than have everything shown by scrolling over two screenfuls, I have to scroll down over 5 screenfuls and then expand the ones that are hidden in folders. Some applications are randomly in a folder of one item, which has to be expanded before you can click on it. To cap it all they've crippled the search so that you have to click a search bar (it loses focus for no reason), it only shows one result when searching incrementally for applications, and that looks exactly the same as no results - no change if it is clickable (try search for "reg" and "regedit" - exactly the same look but one is a non clickable non result and one gives a clickable result).
It's almost as though they want to make it as difficult as possible to find what's installed on your machine - possibly because so much is metro crap.
a new version of Windows significantly faster performing and more secure
Then you'll LOVE Windows 10. Because it's mostly just Windows 7 faster and with more battery life.
So was Windows 8...
And no, we're still not getting our start menu back (despite 2 headlines on /. suggesting otherwise).
Well we've sure as hell lost the start screen, I tried to like the start menu on previous build but reverted to start screen which I've always found much more efficient, now that option is gone - it's start menu only and search for applications is completely broken.
Good news: charms bar's been gone since early preview builds, wonderfully refreshing to be able to hit the scrollbar reliably again.
Bad news: the start menu has not got more functional and sensible, it's gone way backwards in the latest build, and it's now the only option. Incremental search for applications is now completely broken, you get one result (if you are lucky) and half a screen of completely irrelevant web search results. In fact after enjoying using the previous builds, I may now revert to 8, it's that bad.
Actually, I do have one other annoyance: their seeming insistence that you have some kind of an Windows web account (outlook.com or whatever) in order to run the OS I understand that they're actually doing something kind of neat with that, but it's pretty annoying that they won't let you skip it during the Windows setup.
You need _an_ email account - nothing more. It doesn't have to be windows or live.com or outlook,.com at all - I use a throwaway on one of the domains I own.
If you want to have things shared across multiple devices (I am finding now that I do - and I suspect it will become more of a requirement not less) you need a common identity, and without a corporate domain, windows is simply doing what most websites and services do and using an email address.
Also, you can stop it requiring email account, even in 10 (tech preview) - simply disconnect the network during installation, it will allow local account - if you think about it there isn't much else it _can_ do...
why do you need to see what you _were_ working on when starting a _new_ program ?
It's to see the task I am still working on when I am starting a new program to do a new step of working on it. To some novice computer users, an application is a destination, and people don't use several small applications in several steps of a task. But I was brought up in the philosophy of the best tool for each part of the job.
I agree, but don't see the difference, you either know what you want to do next or you don't. Menu or start screen, mouse or keyboard, the process or launching the next thing is one process and I don't see how you'd forget half way through. I use the keyboard mostly now, and I have typically already started the next keypresses before processing the visual of the start screen (or before it appears). I don't see how there is time to forget. Even if you do, it is one keypress to go back to the desktop to refresh your memory..
at absolute worst case you need to read the name of the new program from another window and remember it
Remembering it is an unnecessary cognitive burden. To open an RDP session, is it "msts" or "mstc"? Oh wait, it's "mstsc".
Um, what ? That is command line / run dialog. It is "remote desktop connection" on the menu - but remembering what it is called is not the problem with start menu, it is remembering _where_ it is.
It was actually in "programs -> accessories -> communications" on 7 (but I had to look that up), sometimes it's in "programs -> accessories" on servers, but it's easy to think it is in "administrative tools -> remote desktop services" or "accessories -> system tools" (accessories -> communications being absent...). All that is why most people just use the run dialog and try and remember "mstsc".
On the start screen, I usually pin it so it is right there, because there is room to pin a lot more, or it is two keypresses away - "r" and "e". So much easier.
I have tried to like the new / old start menu on 10, really, I kept resisting the urge to disable it, but in the end I only lasted a week. Start screen it is, for me. I guess the nice thing about 10 is we can choose.
1. users (or at least us power users) can configure away
2. (Charms bar) is I think the single most annoying piece of UI design since the blink tag, or possibly ever. It's right there to annoy you every f***ing time you go for the scrollbar (particularly the *$£!%^ new Chrome ones).
Best news of win 10 ? Charms bar is gone. I scrolled happily and error free for days without noticing, before I suddenly realized it had gone - bliss. Free upgrade is good news for that reason alone - I do not want to have to go back from the previews to that stupid charms bar !
I have never understood this argument, why do you need to see what you _were_ working on when starting a _new_ program ? The article you cite doesn't help - it says there is a cognitive burden from the metro/desktop split and hot corners etc., all of which I agree with, but it _doesn't_ say there is a cognitive burden to the start screen (in fact it concludes it's the best choice for tablets and justified on grounds of commonality for desktops).
I fully understand the need to have multiple windows visible when working in one and referring to another, or for drag and drop, and un-moving dialogs (and metro apps) can be a right pain in this regard. But starting a new program is the one part of the desktop workflow where you _don't_ need that at all, at absolute worst case you need to read the name of the new program from another window and remember it - most of the time you already know what you want to start at that point in your workflow.
The start screen is something you flick to, find what you want (with the full screen available to show your options or search results, at least in 8) and then leave, the full screen rendering seems to be faster and a better workflow. I see no reason for the live tiles - I'm not on the start screen for long enough to use them.
In contrast the start menu on 7, with a lot of things installed, I found slow to render and cumbersome to use once you got to two or more levels deep and/or more than a screenful (I seem to recall menu scroll was horrible - 10 is better in this respect but more limited, still prefer the start screen), quite often the start menu would cover most of the screen anyway - it would just take a lot more clicking and scrolling to get there.
OpenRC, upstart, launchd, smf, dmd (hurd) and various others. And systemd obviously. All designed to replace sysv/bsd style init.
That's a lot of projects created to replace something that didn't need fixing. Seems to me there must have been a lot of affected people, not "a vanishingly small number" to make all those projects happen.
You may not have problems with sysv init, but that doesn't mean there aren't problems.
Whether systemd is the right solution is a different question, but denying there was a problem just seems silly.
"Great" clearly means different things to different people.
To malware authors, JRE is clearly great, because it is a frequent (successfully attacked) target. Maybe it's also great if you trust Oracle, which I don't.
Oracle's JRE patching record is not great, but worse than that you daren't set it to automatically update itself because Oracle has previously distributed malware bundled with JRE security updates ( http://www.zdnet.com/article/a... ).
It's in the chromosomes. It's all about the X's and Y's.
Er, yes, for many/most people, but for a significant minority, it is not, which is the point (and actually even if it is all about the chromosomes, you still have the trisomy etc. conditions).
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medline...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I... (see definitions section)
Thought I'd actually look up some real numbers for reliability by country (terms can be found on wikipedia, larger is not better...):
International Comparison of 2007 Reliability Indices
..... SAIDI SAIFI .. 1.5 .. 33 .. 0.3 ...... 72 .. 0.9 ...... 24 .. 0.5 ....... 62 .. 1.0 ...... 23 .. 0.5 ........ 58 .. 2.2 ....... 104 .. 2.2 ........... 90 .. 0.8
COUNTRY
United States 240
Netherlands
Austria
Denmark
France
Germany
Italy
Spain
UK
Source: Council of European Energy Regulators ASBL. (2008). 4th Benchmarking Report on the Quality of Electricity Supply. Brussels: CEER.
Sounds more like doing a crap job does not work - which is pretty much a universal truth.
The underground cable coming into our property looks to be at least 50yrs old and I doubt the path above it has been lifted in that timescale either, and it definitely hasn't been touched in the 17yrs I've been here. Some of the distribution wiring out in the street has been upgraded in the last ten yrs because we were getting outages every couple of months, now we get zero, I doubt that wiring had been touched for decades and I don't expect the new stuff under the street will be replaced in the next few decades either. Doing this stuff right isn't rocket science and we knew how to do it over 50yrs ago.
Transformers sometimes flood, but new ones shouldn't unless you don't have design standards or don't enforce them - just looked up some here and for consumer substations it's 300mm of concrete above the 100 year flood level. There are problems with older substations built to lower standards or because flooding risks have simply changed - there are places that haven't flooded in over 100yrs and then this century have flooded several times, call it climate change or whatever, it means the 100yr flood line has effectively moved. But that is older infrastructure, if you have new areas where transformers are "constantly" getting flooded then you have poor standards or poor monitoring of standards.
For one, the US is big.. really big.. So it's not cost-effective to run power cables and alike underground. So that makes them more vulnerable.
That is not the problem - most of our long distance high voltage stuff is above ground here, but that is usually redundant (hence "grid"). The weird thing about the US is the way the last-mile low voltage stuff, which is more vulnerable and typically _not_ redundant, is above ground too. Many people are convinced that is why your power is more flaky - it is not actually the grid (although the US high voltage grid does not have a good reputation either).
So, how's our grid ? Well, a few years ago we started to get more power outages - by which I mean one every couple of months for a few minutes to a couple of hours. The distribution cable from the substation was either degraded or handling too much new load, anyway that was enough for them to dig up all the roads a year or so ago and replace / add new cables. Haven't had a single noticeable power outage since then.
Exhibit B, God (or Gods), generally regarded as being infinite/omnipresent/omnipotent/otherwise not subject to laws of physics - hence plenty of room for an infinite tape.
God does the complicated bit of deciding whether puny humans should kill or not - the "why" - leaving the humans to decide the simple bits like "when / who" (goes first), "how" (which bits to cut / shoot / throttle / stone), and which way up to hold the camera.
My understanding is that cgroups is moving (for various reasons) to require a single userspace process manager a la systemd. No, it doesn't have to be systemd but it sounds like it will have to be something _like_ systemd if you don't use systemd. Also, if your one process manager needs to manage stuff spawned from init, maybe it is right that it should _be_ init - I am not actually sure, but that seems to be the argument.
I am not sure if RedHat is chasing a phantom use case as you say or a genuine and valuable innovation - probably only time will tell - I just think it is clear they are chasing something in the PAAS / cloud / server space, and that that is where systemd is coming from.