The fact that there are other things out there that are bigger, smarter, faster, stronger, or better than you, in any regard, in absolutely no way diminishes how special you are.
So it's important because it's a special little snowflake, just like the millennials have been taught to think of themselves. Yea, well, guess what? You're not special. And neither is Pluto.
it takes more manpower to configure and secure a network of 1000 Linux servers than it does a forest of 1000 Windows boxes.
No, it doesn't. I've done both (~820 Windows, ~900 Linux), and the Windows takes more administrator time. But then, the Linux servers were all Red Hat, so the "fees" really weren't any cheaper, but the vendor support was a hell of a lot better.
Take an admin task of blocking USB flash drives from desktops in receiving. With Windows, it is just creating an OU, creating a GPO, and pushing it out. With Linux, this is a lot more difficult and requires more third party add-ons.
I think you're mixing things, here. At first you were comparing server OS's, but now it sounds like you're comparing deploying Windows desktops to deploying Linux servers. Yea, guess what? Managing a monolithic single-OS environment is easier than a mixed environment. If you're deploying Linux workstations you can do the same thing with the right tools. And don't get me started on all the issues you're going to encounter using GPOs in a complex environment. It works better these days, as long as your desktops are all "Enterprise" editions and you don't have any XP or 2003 servers sitting around (then it won't eve work at all).
Or something as basic as performance monitoring. Windows has utilities (SCOM) which make it trivial to watch server performance via WMI. Yes, you can do the same with Splunk, but that doesn't come cheap.
Wow talk about admin resources - have you ever set up a functional WMI infrastructure in a secure network. To say it's non-trivial is an understatement. It's easier if everything is the same version, from a well-tested image, but there are all kinds of snafus that mean your connections don't always work or some functionality goes wrong. SCOM, frankly, is a house of cards.
Actually, I'm impressed with some of the functionality available using PowerShell and remoting in Server 2012 R2, especially being able to roll out a lot of headless stuff. But the learning curve for that, and getting the tools in place for what you want to do, is a major undertaking. Maybe after a few years with it I'd be able to do the same things I do with bash scripts now, but it seems a lot more verbose to me.
They reason they're no longer trusted is because they make big announcements of amazing results and then... later have to admit that they were wrong. Or, worse, they don't admit they're wrong, and we have to wait for someone else to retry the experiment and find that out for themselves.
And also because politicians keep saying that 97% of them agree that we need a massive tax hike on energy or the world will heat up like a furnace and we're all going to burn up and die and the oceans will cover rise up and destroy all the coast lines and Florida will be underwater and there will be no more polar bears.
To what am I "entitled"? If anyone then you act as an "entitled millennial snowflake", i.e. "how dare LP to write useful software, fully compliant of the license I put my libraries under"
It's not fully compliant. It's a technical (and questionable) loophole designed to use my code in ways that I clearly intended it to never be used. That is, it's stealing. You seem to have some attitude that it's perfectly okay to violate the wishes of a copyright holder based solely on the idea that they neglected to think of a convoluted technical work-around to a licensing scheme, and their free (as in speech) code is now being used to make profits for someone else.
If you really don't want that people are writing closed source software using your apps or libraries via IPC protocols, then just add your own license. Something like "This is free software, derivative works must be licensed under the GPL. Derivative works include apps that use my IPC protocols".
That won't work. You aren't understanding the mechanism. I don't expose my services by IPC, you have to link to the library, which means your software must be open source. What LP is doing is writing open source programs that link to open source libraries, then providing IPC interfaces. Those interfaces also expose services in the open source libraries he links to. That's the "glue" he is referring to, and that's what bypasses the licensing restrictions. It's an anti-virus for the GPL virus.
It's the "glue" between the applications and the kernel (at least that's the vision of LP and the systemd developers). As such, closed source developers can use that "glue" using IPC, and still gain access to all those functions in the open source libraries.
Since when is OS-X a Linux? Or a GNU? Or a systemd? Good subthread to use to display your ignorance, given the title
It's an open source kernel with a proprietary, monolithic, and walled-garden operating system on top. It has all the features you've described as "freaking awesome". It's not a "kernel + some packages", its a true [whatever label] operating system. If that's what you want, buy an MacBook and be done.
What's wrong with NetworkManager, anyway? The resolved module has serious DNS poisoning vulnerabilities - why do you want that? If I want secureboot, I can use Windows. Why would I want a Linux distribution that has to be built by someone with the keys to my firmware?
That also means that this "glue" enables proprietary, close source binaries to run on, and access all the low-level functionality of, the GPL'd open source kernel software.
The fuck? I'm using tons of proprietary, close source apps on my Linux system. What is it to you what kind of software I'm using?
Run whatever you want, nobody cares. Just don't use my GPL licensed libraries in your closed source code - that violates the GPL license.
Ok so reading the slides they're planning on doing network management (byebye NetworkManager), Local DNS cache (yes please), mDNS responder, LLMNR responder, DNSSEC verification, NTP, sandboxing services and applications, OS/App/Container image formats, stateless systems, atomic node initialisations and updates and more. That is freaking awesome. Not only does it bring Linux distributions closer together.. it also takes the distributions as a whole to a new level. Instead of a kernel + some packages the future will bring us a true (GNU/)Linux/systemd operating system. I can understand this may seem scary to some but personally I really think this is awesome.
But we already have that available. It's called OSX.
Seems fine to me bringing a load of pointless differences to become a more sensible and tidy system (bit like fixing the bin and sbin directory set up which were only on separate partitions because they ran out of disk space during Unix development and NOT because it was the "unix way") - should make it easier for admins to use different flavours of linux when all the boot up parts are the same format.
Yea, it won't be easier at all - it will be impossible. Because there will only be one "flavour" of Linux.
"That also means that this "glue" enables proprietary, close source binaries to run on, and access all the low-level functionality of, the GPL'd open source kernel software." - can you explain how is that not the case now? Nvidia is a closed binary.
Yes, but those blobs do not link to any open source libraries. If you're linking to the GPL'd libraries (using the functionality in all that open source code), then you must release your source code too. Systemd and its provides an IPC mechanism for and then links to all those GPL'd libraries. Now you can release your closed-source application or driver that is going through this wrapper or "glue", and still using lots of GPL'd functionality without requiring a GPL release of code.
Some people don't understand the motivations and goals of systemd. The whole "better foundation" view depends on where you are standing. According to the systemd developers:
What's systemd again?
A system and service manager
A platform
The glue between the applications and the kernel
That also means that this "glue" enables proprietary, close source binaries to run on, and access all the low-level functionality of, the GPL'd open source kernel software. The goals actually go even further than that:
What is not our objective?
Never the cathedral, just the building blocks to build it
This is in reference to the differences between open source development and proprietary software - open source has always been the bazaar. But systemd aims to turn that bazaar into something you can put your Cathedral on top of. Want a walled garden like your iOS, or a locked-down device like the Surface RT, that won't run any software not available from the corporate app store? You'll be able to do that with systemd on top of the Linux kernel.
So, are you saying all science and data on every subject should always be public?
Nice straw man you've got there. Obviously, I never said or intimated anything of the sort. If some idea is being used to create public policy, enforced by armed bureaucrats, then, yes, absolutely, the science needs to be public and available.
Indeed, back in Good Old Days one could use water for fuel
Another nice straw man. Oh, right, since we had worse pollution 70 years ago, every little tyrannical behavior of the EPA should be allowed without question.
It will probably be the military first. They're already being sent into Ebola-ravaged African countries for... "support". And they always get the experimental drugs tried on them before the general public.
They are calling to task the "Most transparent US administration in history", which is threatening to veto this bill because "the Environmental Protection Agency should, in some case, be able to write regulations based on science and data that is not made available to the public." There's some transparency for you.
Of course propaganda from the left-wing Salon (and the only references in the article are to the even-more-left-wing ThinkProgress site) gets this bill completely wrong. Maybe try reading it?
The whole "controversy" is over some pure conflict of interest language. Exact terms: "Board members may not participate in advisory activities that involve review or application of their own work." Any of the nine board members can provide scientific data from any scientist with defense of that data; however a specific board member cannot self promote his own work. This is language found in nearly every piece of legislation that charters and administrative board. It's the same deal as requiring a judge to recuse himself it he has a personal interest in the judgment.
Anything that curtails the power of the tyrannical EPA is a good thing in my book - they have become way too powerful. If they don't have authority to regulate something, they just call up one of the many NGOs (that they provide grant money to), and tell them "Hey, you should sue us over this so we can stop it or at least tie it up in court until they run out of money or give up." If it doesn't work, at least those colluding organizations can get some settlement money out of it. That's the current SOP for the EPA, and it's undemocratic and should be illegal.
I guess you don't think the sun has anything to do with earth temperature, either - I mean, it's so far away and everything, how could it, right? It's CO2 all the way down...
Actually, it turns out that in the atmosphere, CO2 is a coolant.
That article is quite interesting, but it is not relevant to CO2 warming of the lower atmosphere and climate change.
It's talking about radiative cooling of the thermosphere which is a near vacuum and gas temperatures reach up to 4,500 degrees F (or 2,500C), and how the solar cycle influences the variability in radiative cooling.
Well how relevant CO2 concentrations are to climate change is still up to debate. But this indicates it is more relevant to the cooling of the thermosphere than previously though. It's not like the thermosphere is irrelevant to earth's temperature.
Actually, that was
debunked last year...from someone not exactly an AGW proponent either...
That was NOT the article or the study I sited - my link is from a paper just published last April, and it's about the coolant effect of CO2 in the middle and lower atmosphere, not the troposphere. Since you couldn't even bother to click on the link when I posted it, here is a quote from the abstract:
Infrared radiative cooling of the thermosphere by carbon dioxide (CO2, 15m) and by nitric oxide (NO, 5.3m) has been observed for 12years by the Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry (SABER) instrument on the Thermosphere-Ionosphere-Mesosphere Energetics and Dynamics satellite. For the first time we present a record of the two most important thermospheric infrared cooling agents over a complete solar cycle. SABER has documented dramatic variability in the radiative cooling on time scales ranging from days to the 11 year solar cycle. Deep minima in global mean vertical profiles of radiative cooling are observed in 2008–2009. Current solar maximum conditions, evidenced in the rates of radiative cooling, are substantially weaker than prior maximum conditions in 2002–2003. The observed changes in thermospheric cooling correlate well with changes in solar ultraviolet irradiance and geomagnetic activity during the prior maximum conditions. NO and CO2 combine to emit 7×1018 more Joules annually at solar maximum than at solar minimum.
Back to the propaganda again? You don't have any other records to play? Critical thinking failure. You obviously didn't read the paper. It establishes a much better correlation between certain types of radiation that reaches the earth than has been shown in recent observations than CO2 can show.
Very interesting indeed - and all without mentioning the word "radiation" anywhere in its text.
I'm trying to keep up with too many threads. You're right - that paper simply points out how badly the climate change models have tracked to observations. I was thinking of a paper I linked in another thread that shows CERN experiments confirming Henrik Svensmark’s regarding cosmic rays and global warming. Read it here.
Back to the propaganda again? You don't have any other records to play? Critical thinking failure. You obviously didn't read the paper. It establishes a much better correlation between certain types of radiation that reaches the earth than has been shown in recent observations than CO2 can show. All you've got is "LaLaLa I can't hear you", and rehashing a bunch of propaganda. It's carefully written to only talk about certain observation of solar OUTPUT, and ignores studies such as this one that use real measurements of radiation at the earth's surface.
But you don't want to hear anything that might challenge your ideology. Go back to preaching the faith, man.
Slashdot Mirror
FTA:
The fact that there are other things out there that are bigger, smarter, faster, stronger, or better than you, in any regard, in absolutely no way diminishes how special you are.
So it's important because it's a special little snowflake, just like the millennials have been taught to think of themselves. Yea, well, guess what? You're not special. And neither is Pluto.
it takes more manpower to configure and secure a network of 1000 Linux servers than it does a forest of 1000 Windows boxes.
No, it doesn't. I've done both (~820 Windows, ~900 Linux), and the Windows takes more administrator time. But then, the Linux servers were all Red Hat, so the "fees" really weren't any cheaper, but the vendor support was a hell of a lot better.
Take an admin task of blocking USB flash drives from desktops in receiving. With Windows, it is just creating an OU, creating a GPO, and pushing it out. With Linux, this is a lot more difficult and requires more third party add-ons.
I think you're mixing things, here. At first you were comparing server OS's, but now it sounds like you're comparing deploying Windows desktops to deploying Linux servers. Yea, guess what? Managing a monolithic single-OS environment is easier than a mixed environment. If you're deploying Linux workstations you can do the same thing with the right tools. And don't get me started on all the issues you're going to encounter using GPOs in a complex environment. It works better these days, as long as your desktops are all "Enterprise" editions and you don't have any XP or 2003 servers sitting around (then it won't eve work at all).
Or something as basic as performance monitoring. Windows has utilities (SCOM) which make it trivial to watch server performance via WMI. Yes, you can do the same with Splunk, but that doesn't come cheap.
Wow talk about admin resources - have you ever set up a functional WMI infrastructure in a secure network. To say it's non-trivial is an understatement. It's easier if everything is the same version, from a well-tested image, but there are all kinds of snafus that mean your connections don't always work or some functionality goes wrong. SCOM, frankly, is a house of cards.
Actually, I'm impressed with some of the functionality available using PowerShell and remoting in Server 2012 R2, especially being able to roll out a lot of headless stuff. But the learning curve for that, and getting the tools in place for what you want to do, is a major undertaking. Maybe after a few years with it I'd be able to do the same things I do with bash scripts now, but it seems a lot more verbose to me.
They reason they're no longer trusted is because they make big announcements of amazing results and then... later have to admit that they were wrong. Or, worse, they don't admit they're wrong, and we have to wait for someone else to retry the experiment and find that out for themselves.
And also because politicians keep saying that 97% of them agree that we need a massive tax hike on energy or the world will heat up like a furnace and we're all going to burn up and die and the oceans will cover rise up and destroy all the coast lines and Florida will be underwater and there will be no more polar bears.
To what am I "entitled"? If anyone then you act as an "entitled millennial snowflake", i.e. "how dare LP to write useful software, fully compliant of the license I put my libraries under"
It's not fully compliant. It's a technical (and questionable) loophole designed to use my code in ways that I clearly intended it to never be used. That is, it's stealing. You seem to have some attitude that it's perfectly okay to violate the wishes of a copyright holder based solely on the idea that they neglected to think of a convoluted technical work-around to a licensing scheme, and their free (as in speech) code is now being used to make profits for someone else.
Spoken like a true entitled millennial "snowflake".
Lennert? Is that you?
If you really don't want that people are writing closed source software using your apps or libraries via IPC protocols, then just add your own license. Something like "This is free software, derivative works must be licensed under the GPL. Derivative works include apps that use my IPC protocols".
That won't work. You aren't understanding the mechanism. I don't expose my services by IPC, you have to link to the library, which means your software must be open source. What LP is doing is writing open source programs that link to open source libraries, then providing IPC interfaces. Those interfaces also expose services in the open source libraries he links to. That's the "glue" he is referring to, and that's what bypasses the licensing restrictions. It's an anti-virus for the GPL virus.
Temporarily renting a closed, proprietary OS license is not really the same as having one and actual rights to it.
Right. Unfortunately, systemd aims to enable vendors (read: RedHat) to rent a closed Linux distribution, and retain all control over it.
The GPL does not cover IPC protocols like dbus.
Exactly.
And what have this to do with systemd?
It's the "glue" between the applications and the kernel (at least that's the vision of LP and the systemd developers). As such, closed source developers can use that "glue" using IPC, and still gain access to all those functions in the open source libraries.
Since when is OS-X a Linux? Or a GNU? Or a systemd? Good subthread to use to display your ignorance, given the title
It's an open source kernel with a proprietary, monolithic, and walled-garden operating system on top. It has all the features you've described as "freaking awesome". It's not a "kernel + some packages", its a true [whatever label] operating system. If that's what you want, buy an MacBook and be done.
What's wrong with NetworkManager, anyway? The resolved module has serious DNS poisoning vulnerabilities - why do you want that? If I want secureboot, I can use Windows. Why would I want a Linux distribution that has to be built by someone with the keys to my firmware?
That also means that this "glue" enables proprietary, close source binaries to run on, and access all the low-level functionality of, the GPL'd open source kernel software.
The fuck? I'm using tons of proprietary, close source apps on my Linux system. What is it to you what kind of software I'm using?
Run whatever you want, nobody cares. Just don't use my GPL licensed libraries in your closed source code - that violates the GPL license.
Ok so reading the slides they're planning on doing network management (byebye NetworkManager), Local DNS cache (yes please), mDNS responder, LLMNR responder, DNSSEC verification, NTP, sandboxing services and applications, OS/App/Container image formats, stateless systems, atomic node initialisations and updates and more. That is freaking awesome. Not only does it bring Linux distributions closer together.. it also takes the distributions as a whole to a new level. Instead of a kernel + some packages the future will bring us a true (GNU/)Linux/systemd operating system. I can understand this may seem scary to some but personally I really think this is awesome.
But we already have that available. It's called OSX.
Seems fine to me bringing a load of pointless differences to become a more sensible and tidy system (bit like fixing the bin and sbin directory set up which were only on separate partitions because they ran out of disk space during Unix development and NOT because it was the "unix way") - should make it easier for admins to use different flavours of linux when all the boot up parts are the same format.
Yea, it won't be easier at all - it will be impossible. Because there will only be one "flavour" of Linux.
"That also means that this "glue" enables proprietary, close source binaries to run on, and access all the low-level functionality of, the GPL'd open source kernel software." - can you explain how is that not the case now? Nvidia is a closed binary.
Yes, but those blobs do not link to any open source libraries. If you're linking to the GPL'd libraries (using the functionality in all that open source code), then you must release your source code too. Systemd and its provides an IPC mechanism for and then links to all those GPL'd libraries. Now you can release your closed-source application or driver that is going through this wrapper or "glue", and still using lots of GPL'd functionality without requiring a GPL release of code.
Some people don't understand the motivations and goals of systemd. The whole "better foundation" view depends on where you are standing. According to the systemd developers:
What's systemd again?
A system and service manager
A platform
The glue between the applications and the kernel
That also means that this "glue" enables proprietary, close source binaries to run on, and access all the low-level functionality of, the GPL'd open source kernel software. The goals actually go even further than that:
What is not our objective?
Never the cathedral, just the building blocks to build it
This is in reference to the differences between open source development and proprietary software - open source has always been the bazaar. But systemd aims to turn that bazaar into something you can put your Cathedral on top of. Want a walled garden like your iOS, or a locked-down device like the Surface RT, that won't run any software not available from the corporate app store? You'll be able to do that with systemd on top of the Linux kernel.
Some people dislike systemd because they can see where it is headed. Here is your sign.
So, are you saying all science and data on every subject should always be public?
Nice straw man you've got there. Obviously, I never said or intimated anything of the sort. If some idea is being used to create public policy, enforced by armed bureaucrats, then, yes, absolutely, the science needs to be public and available.
Indeed, back in Good Old Days one could use water for fuel
Another nice straw man. Oh, right, since we had worse pollution 70 years ago, every little tyrannical behavior of the EPA should be allowed without question.
But hey, maybe you fancy living in Mordor.
... and you fancy living in North Korea. nyah.
You first.
It will probably be the military first. They're already being sent into Ebola-ravaged African countries for ... "support". And they always get the experimental drugs tried on them before the general public.
They are calling to task the "Most transparent US administration in history", which is threatening to veto this bill because "the Environmental Protection Agency should, in some case, be able to write regulations based on science and data that is not made available to the public." There's some transparency for you.
Of course propaganda from the left-wing Salon (and the only references in the article are to the even-more-left-wing ThinkProgress site) gets this bill completely wrong. Maybe try reading it?
The whole "controversy" is over some pure conflict of interest language. Exact terms: "Board members may not participate in advisory activities that involve review or application of their own work." Any of the nine board members can provide scientific data from any scientist with defense of that data; however a specific board member cannot self promote his own work. This is language found in nearly every piece of legislation that charters and administrative board. It's the same deal as requiring a judge to recuse himself it he has a personal interest in the judgment.
Anything that curtails the power of the tyrannical EPA is a good thing in my book - they have become way too powerful. If they don't have authority to regulate something, they just call up one of the many NGOs (that they provide grant money to), and tell them "Hey, you should sue us over this so we can stop it or at least tie it up in court until they run out of money or give up." If it doesn't work, at least those colluding organizations can get some settlement money out of it. That's the current SOP for the EPA, and it's undemocratic and should be illegal.
You're paper is based on the same data.
"YOUR" FFS. I can't even go on after that. It's not even my paper./P
I guess you don't think the sun has anything to do with earth temperature, either - I mean, it's so far away and everything, how could it, right? It's CO2 all the way down...
CO2 is a proven heat trapper
Actually, it turns out that in the atmosphere, CO2 is a coolant.
That article is quite interesting, but it is not relevant to CO2 warming of the lower atmosphere and climate change.
It's talking about radiative cooling of the thermosphere which is a near vacuum and gas temperatures reach up to 4,500 degrees F (or 2,500C), and how the solar cycle influences the variability in radiative cooling.
Well how relevant CO2 concentrations are to climate change is still up to debate. But this indicates it is more relevant to the cooling of the thermosphere than previously though. It's not like the thermosphere is irrelevant to earth's temperature.
Actually, that was debunked last year...from someone not exactly an AGW proponent either...
That was NOT the article or the study I sited - my link is from a paper just published last April, and it's about the coolant effect of CO2 in the middle and lower atmosphere, not the troposphere. Since you couldn't even bother to click on the link when I posted it, here is a quote from the abstract:
CO2 is a proven heat trapper
Actually, it turns out that in the atmosphere, CO2 is a coolant.
Back to the propaganda again? You don't have any other records to play? Critical thinking failure. You obviously didn't read the paper. It establishes a much better correlation between certain types of radiation that reaches the earth than has been shown in recent observations than CO2 can show.
Very interesting indeed - and all without mentioning the word "radiation" anywhere in its text.
I'm trying to keep up with too many threads. You're right - that paper simply points out how badly the climate change models have tracked to observations. I was thinking of a paper I linked in another thread that shows CERN experiments confirming Henrik Svensmark’s regarding cosmic rays and global warming. Read it here.
Back to the propaganda again? You don't have any other records to play? Critical thinking failure. You obviously didn't read the paper. It establishes a much better correlation between certain types of radiation that reaches the earth than has been shown in recent observations than CO2 can show. All you've got is "LaLaLa I can't hear you", and rehashing a bunch of propaganda. It's carefully written to only talk about certain observation of solar OUTPUT, and ignores studies such as this one that use real measurements of radiation at the earth's surface.
But you don't want to hear anything that might challenge your ideology. Go back to preaching the faith, man.