it's about operations being automated via tools maintained by development, using traditional development methodologies.
That's pretty much how it is where I work, it's been that way for as long as anyone remembers (at least 15 years). But no one ever called it DevOps.
In any case, however you define it, it's a concept and as such it can be expressed in a sentence. Most of us are more than capable of extrapolating the implications. Well, at least those of us that understand all seven sigmas.;)
My view is that giving this concept a label and then going on to "over define" it serves only to introduce yet another dogma.
I don't think DevOps is new or non-traditional. The *label* might have been invented recently but it's not like Dev and Ops never worked together before. Everyone should know something about everyone else's job, or maybe (from your post)IT and Development should maintain an awareness of each others' status. I've seen a bunch, they all pretty much mean the same thing, and they're all one sentence. The people who can take one sentence and turn it into this might be a cult.
I like both features...Whatever. You must be a shill. No one can sustain this level of ignorance for this long.
BIOS just didn't cut it...What? Quit making shit up man. Intel makes the motherboards, Apple didn't choose EFI, they ALLOWED it, for ONE reason, secure boot for OSX.
connecting to the Internet (even over wireless) and installing an OS from the Internet. Had that since forever, thanks for playing. http://ipxe.org/ does that and a LOT more, and does it well.
it's only fast on select machines, that probably means the others were programmed by people like these bitching because they don't know how to properly implement UEFI. No, "select" meaning machines with fuck all for hardware. Every implementation everywhere is/was programmed by Intel (excluding screenshots and other irrelevent bullshit). NOT ANYONE ELSE. Do you understand this? This is not and never was about programming UEFI.
Done with Intel and with you, Intel employee #589001, I'll be off playing with AMD and Coreboot, which boots fast on all machines btw.
If you want to 'take the moral high ground' to the extreme, then you just have to recognize that there are going to be plenty of times when you don't get your way because no one else cares about your irrational response to what you perceive as a problem in the natural order of things.
This will not be one of those times. Also, you're wrong about everything else, particularly your attempts to redefine open and paint anyone who disagrees with you as a cult member. You're delusional if you think you're litany changes the fact that software patents are the opposite of open.
Nothing to do with programming, I'm talking about from user perspective -I don't know why you keep going on about that. I don't work for AMI or Intel. I'm starting to think that you do though.
It's broken. It's broken because it's over-engineered and needlessly abstracted. It's that way ONLY to give Intel more control.
Seriously, all you have is a mouse in BIOS (something you should enter once or twice EVER, and a 3TB root file system (where a smaller SSD for the same money is much smarter choice). Whatever, you think that's great. But EFI is the worst possible way to get there.
I have 4 (years old) machines at home, none of them have 16 legacy support.
No one needs a floppy to install an OS from the network. It's a boot option IN THE BIOS.
MAC's have EFI to support their secure boot, and people aren't impressed with it, they labor to work around it.
None of the things you list have any business being in the bios. BIOS should small, dumb, and fast. EFI is bloated and buggy and only fast on select machines. It's painful to watch systems boot so slow.
2+ TB GPT boot drives Meh. No thanks, don't need it EVER if EFI is a requisite. Graphical pre-boot interfaces with mouse Seriously Stupid to even want that. Graphical installation of my OS over the network Everyone's had this since forever. No more legacy 16-bit Why do you even care about that? You're just a user so you don't even know it's there...right? Shill.
The only people who *like* UEFI are the ignorant and the shills. From a user perspective it is an annoying transition that brings NOT ONE SINGLE BENEFIT that can't be had in a much simpler pain free way.
The FACT is that this pile of crap started out life as a HACK for Itanium that inexplicably stayed alive.
Coreboot is a much better path than UEFI. And the code monkeys you refer to are apparently the ones who *wrote* UEFI. It is quite insane, and for no good reason.
But there is a side to be pushed. The side that says that UEFI is a good idea at all. It isn't.
It's an awful thing and I've lost far too much of my life to it. It complicates the process of booting for no real benefit to the OS. The only real advantage we've seen so far is that we can configure boot devices in a vaguely vendor-neutral manner without having to care about BIOS drive numbers. Woo.
That quote is spot on. UEFI is a giant stack of unnecessary abstraction that doesn't "fix" anything. Everyone who has to work with it at any scale despises it.
Conservative think tanks love to pull this shit. Accuse everyone else of what they themselves are doing. Fucking liars the lot of them. Well not all, some are just idiots buying in to whatever the think tanks tell them to think.
When Bush was acting like a fascist all the conservatives in the country spent all day calling everyone else a fascist.
Now in these times all the conservatives are accusing everyone else of class warfare.
Bullshit. The class warfare is what has been waged on the poor *by the wealthy* for the past 30 years.
I think one thing we really need is to get rid of interfaces that are designed to keep people ignorant.
There are people that have been using computers for 10+ years that cannot find a file they've just downloaded. Our response is to pile on layers of abstraction and remove choices where ever possible -so 20 years later there will still be people that cannot grasp the concept of $PATH.
If basic computer skills (I absolutely do *not* mean office software) were mandatory we wouldn't need a Geek Squad, but more importantly, we would eventually have leaders and decision makers that actually have a clue.
Actually no. I am right and you are wrong. You just have to think farther than "I like firefox" vs. "I no longer like firefox".
At first their decisions were motivated by a need to gain market share, now that motivation is no longer prime. They only need to keep what they have -and that they will likely do no matter how many users get pissed off. They have crossed a tipping point and they know it. You can actually see the hubris behind their reasoning whenever they explain it (or defend it as anonymous cowards on/.)
Also, delivering or not delivering a browser is completely irrelevant to my assertion, and to speak to your underlying premise, it's not like firefox is an effort dominated by volunteers "scratching an itch". They are paid, many are paid well, and they are paid indirectly by their users.
I know zero out of dozens of people that like the direction firefox is going in. None of them read slashdot. None of them post on forums or provide feedback in some other way.
Firefox above 3.6 is BANNED at work. Don't think for a second that this doesn't affect browser choice at home.
For the first time since I can remember "regular" users are having break room conversations about firefox vs. [anybrowser].
YOU are living in your own bubble, not posters on slashdot.
The old interface is cluttered and wasteful. Most people will say that isn't considered "working". If you want the old interface, make a few checkmarks under View and you're there. It's shocking that people on a site that's supposed to be for "nerds" do not know how to use GUI menus.
It's shocking just how out of touch Mozilla has become. This whole "clutter" argument from self titled "UI experts" is just tiresome now.
VNC, RDP, NX and the other remote desktop protocols are not satisfactory replacement for network transparency. Since 30 people say it every time this comes up:
VNC, RDP, NX and the other remote desktop protocols are not satisfactory replacement for network transparency.
VNC, RDP, NX and the other remote desktop protocols are not satisfactory replacement for network transparency.
If the cost of any new features fromm Wayland (so far, zero) is network transparency, it's too expensive. DO NOT WANT.
It's about unnecessary and unwanted abstraction layers that serve only to present a false mental image of what a computer is and how it works, hindering the users ability to actually learn something.
For example, a file browser that removes the "UP" button because dumb users will not understand a directory structure. They should have only a Back button like a web browser does.
The disrespect for users comes not from people complaining about these new UI "improvements" but from the devs who think it's a good idea to implement them. *They* are the ones who think users are dumb and are actively working to keep them that way.
*possible* with the installation/configuration of additional software on an application by application basis vs. certain for every application without any additional software required.
Not even close to the same thing. It is dishonest to continuously imply that there is a comparison.
Slashdot Mirror
it's about operations being automated via tools maintained by development, using traditional development methodologies. ;)
That's pretty much how it is where I work, it's been that way for as long as anyone remembers (at least 15 years). But no one ever called it DevOps.
In any case, however you define it, it's a concept and as such it can be expressed in a sentence. Most of us are more than capable of extrapolating the implications. Well, at least those of us that understand all seven sigmas.
My view is that giving this concept a label and then going on to "over define" it serves only to introduce yet another dogma.
I don't think DevOps is new or non-traditional. The *label* might have been invented recently but it's not like Dev and Ops never worked together before. Everyone should know something about everyone else's job, or maybe (from your post)IT and Development should maintain an awareness of each others' status. I've seen a bunch, they all pretty much mean the same thing, and they're all one sentence.
The people who can take one sentence and turn it into this might be a cult.
I like both features...Whatever. You must be a shill. No one can sustain this level of ignorance for this long.
BIOS just didn't cut it...What? Quit making shit up man. Intel makes the motherboards, Apple didn't choose EFI, they ALLOWED it, for ONE reason, secure boot for OSX.
connecting to the Internet (even over wireless) and installing an OS from the Internet. Had that since forever, thanks for playing. http://ipxe.org/ does that and a LOT more, and does it well.
it's only fast on select machines, that probably means the others were programmed by people like these bitching because they don't know how to properly implement UEFI. No, "select" meaning machines with fuck all for hardware. Every implementation everywhere is/was programmed by Intel (excluding screenshots and other irrelevent bullshit). NOT ANYONE ELSE. Do you understand this? This is not and never was about programming UEFI.
Done with Intel and with you, Intel employee #589001, I'll be off playing with AMD and Coreboot, which boots fast on all machines btw.
http://kerneltrap.org/node/6884 \--Read.
If you want to 'take the moral high ground' to the extreme, then you just have to recognize that there are going to be plenty of times when you don't get your way because no one else cares about your irrational response to what you perceive as a problem in the natural order of things.
This will not be one of those times. Also, you're wrong about everything else, particularly your attempts to redefine open and paint anyone who disagrees with you as a cult member. You're delusional if you think you're litany changes the fact that software patents are the opposite of open.
Nothing to do with programming, I'm talking about from user perspective -I don't know why you keep going on about that. I don't work for AMI or Intel. I'm starting to think that you do though.
It's broken. It's broken because it's over-engineered and needlessly abstracted. It's that way ONLY to give Intel more control.
Seriously, all you have is a mouse in BIOS (something you should enter once or twice EVER, and a 3TB root file system (where a smaller SSD for the same money is much smarter choice). Whatever, you think that's great. But EFI is the worst possible way to get there.
I have 4 (years old) machines at home, none of them have 16 legacy support.
No one needs a floppy to install an OS from the network. It's a boot option IN THE BIOS.
MAC's have EFI to support their secure boot, and people aren't impressed with it, they labor to work around it.
None of the things you list have any business being in the bios. BIOS should small, dumb, and fast. EFI is bloated and buggy and only fast on select machines. It's painful to watch systems boot so slow.
2+ TB GPT boot drives Meh. No thanks, don't need it EVER if EFI is a requisite.
Graphical pre-boot interfaces with mouse Seriously Stupid to even want that.
Graphical installation of my OS over the network Everyone's had this since forever.
No more legacy 16-bit Why do you even care about that? You're just a user so you don't even know it's there...right? Shill.
What's it bring to the table ? NOT A DAMN THING.
NO IT DOESN'T.
The only people who *like* UEFI are the ignorant and the shills. From a user perspective it is an annoying transition that brings NOT ONE SINGLE BENEFIT that can't be had in a much simpler pain free way.
The FACT is that this pile of crap started out life as a HACK for Itanium that inexplicably stayed alive.
Coreboot is a much better path than UEFI. And the code monkeys you refer to are apparently the ones who *wrote* UEFI. It is quite insane, and for no good reason.
It's like someone wrote a BIOS with .net
There isn't a 'Side' to be pushed.
But there is a side to be pushed. The side that says that UEFI is a good idea at all. It isn't.
It's an awful thing and I've lost far too much of my life to it. It complicates the process of booting for no real benefit to the OS. The only real advantage we've seen so far is that we can configure boot devices in a vaguely vendor-neutral manner without having to care about BIOS drive numbers. Woo.
That quote is spot on. UEFI is a giant stack of unnecessary abstraction that doesn't "fix" anything. Everyone who has to work with it at any scale despises it.
I disagree. UEFI has no benefits. It's needlessly abstract and complicated, is a royal pain to work with, and it's slow.
"New" isn't a benefit.
The BIOS should be small, dumb and just get out of the fucking way.
Oh please, it's been explained a million times.
Again and again tax breaks and subsidies for the wealthy.
Again and again cuts to programs that benefit the poor.
Steady decreasing wages for working class over the past 40 years.
Steady increasing wealth for the already super rich over the past 40 years.
SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMICS IS CLASS WARFARE.
Conservative think tanks love to pull this shit. Accuse everyone else of what they themselves are doing. Fucking liars the lot of them. Well not all, some are just idiots buying in to whatever the think tanks tell them to think.
When Bush was acting like a fascist all the conservatives in the country spent all day calling everyone else a fascist.
Now in these times all the conservatives are accusing everyone else of class warfare.
Bullshit. The class warfare is what has been waged on the poor *by the wealthy* for the past 30 years.
I think one thing we really need is to get rid of interfaces that are designed to keep people ignorant.
There are people that have been using computers for 10+ years that cannot find a file they've just downloaded. Our response is to pile on layers of abstraction and remove choices where ever possible -so 20 years later there will still be people that cannot grasp the concept of $PATH.
If basic computer skills (I absolutely do *not* mean office software) were mandatory we wouldn't need a Geek Squad, but more importantly, we would eventually have leaders and decision makers that actually have a clue.
Wow. I would love to discuss this with you at a coffee shop or something. I mean holy shit you're insane (and really really ignorant).
Are you on youtube?
Actually no. I am right and you are wrong. You just have to think farther than "I like firefox" vs. "I no longer like firefox".
At first their decisions were motivated by a need to gain market share, now that motivation is no longer prime. They only need to keep what they have -and that they will likely do no matter how many users get pissed off. They have crossed a tipping point and they know it. You can actually see the hubris behind their reasoning whenever they explain it (or defend it as anonymous cowards on /.)
Also, delivering or not delivering a browser is completely irrelevant to my assertion, and to speak to your underlying premise, it's not like firefox is an effort dominated by volunteers "scratching an itch". They are paid, many are paid well, and they are paid indirectly by their users.
That means I get to bitch. Deal with it.
That's bullshit and you know it. This "cluttered GUI syndrome" started well before anyone was using netbooks or touch screens.
I know zero out of dozens of people that like the direction firefox is going in. None of them read slashdot. None of them post on forums or provide feedback in some other way.
Firefox above 3.6 is BANNED at work. Don't think for a second that this doesn't affect browser choice at home.
For the first time since I can remember "regular" users are having break room conversations about firefox vs. [anybrowser].
YOU are living in your own bubble, not posters on slashdot.
Have you ever used FF4+?
Nope. Too late.
The old interface is cluttered and wasteful. Most people will say that isn't considered "working". If you want the old interface, make a few checkmarks under View and you're there. It's shocking that people on a site that's supposed to be for "nerds" do not know how to use GUI menus.
It's shocking just how out of touch Mozilla has become. This whole "clutter" argument from self titled "UI experts" is just tiresome now.
3.6 is the last one me or anyone I know will ever use. They've jumped the shark.
Dude. 'EVERYONE' hates this shit. It isn't simple dissent.
Are you fucking kidding? There's an EIGHT? There's a sane fork of firefox somewhere, I'll find it.
Please read my post.
VNC, RDP, NX and the other remote desktop protocols are not satisfactory replacement for network transparency. Since 30 people say it every time this comes up:
VNC, RDP, NX and the other remote desktop protocols are not satisfactory replacement for network transparency.
VNC, RDP, NX and the other remote desktop protocols are not satisfactory replacement for network transparency.
If the cost of any new features fromm Wayland (so far, zero) is network transparency, it's too expensive. DO NOT WANT.
I will explain it to you.
It's about unnecessary and unwanted abstraction layers that serve only to present a false mental image of what a computer is and how it works, hindering the users ability to actually learn something.
For example, a file browser that removes the "UP" button because dumb users will not understand a directory structure. They should have only a Back button like a web browser does.
The disrespect for users comes not from people complaining about these new UI "improvements" but from the devs who think it's a good idea to implement them. *They* are the ones who think users are dumb and are actively working to keep them that way.
*possible* with the installation/configuration of additional software on an application by application basis vs. certain for every application without any additional software required.
Not even close to the same thing. It is dishonest to continuously imply that there is a comparison.