tbh I don't think it makes a difference. You should be able to use KDE, whether you want to use systemd for process management or djb daemon tools for process management. The WindowManager should not be dependent on a particular process management system.
Negligence is a failure to use reasonable care that results in harm to another party. Under negligence law, there are two different forms of negligence. In one form, a person does something that a reasonable person would not do. In the other form a person fails to take action that a reasonable person would take to prevent harm. Both forms of negligence can result in a negligence lawsuit filed against the party responsible for the damage.
So you would have to show that a reasonable person would not publish usernames and passwords on their homepage (and you would also have to demonstrate harm from their actions).
The fail-fast and fail-often approach could be criticized when applied to human beings.
The only criticism I could reasonably see is that the children were harmed when the school was shut down too quickly. This doesn't seem to be the case, though....the students seem to have been transferred back to larger schools.
I think it's more a problem of people saying, "Since they are not solving the problems that I see, they are not solving problems and therefore bad."
Kind of like the blind men holding on to different parts of the elephant, and each describing it drastically differently. We all see different problems in the world because we have different viewpoints.
For myself, I think the problem of inequality is impossible to solve, and I would not even attempt it. I am willing to fight against poverty, and I do put resources and effort into that problem. That said, if someone else wants to try, good for them.
According to the quote in the article, this is the problem:
"despite their flair for disruption, these philanthropists are no more interested in radical change than their more conservative predecessors. They don’t lobby for the redistribution of wealth; instead, they see poverty and inequality as an engineering problem, and the solution is their own brain power, not a tithe.”
The good the foundation has done, she believes, is far outweighed by the harm
The Gates foundation mainly spends money on education and healthcare. In healthcare, the Gates foundation has spent $15 billion on improving vaccines, etc. This (and money from other sources) has resulted in a reduction of deaths by measles in Africa by 90%. Polio, tuberculosis, and HIV have all been reduced, thanks in part to the Gates foundation.
So what's the problem? According to the author, "The failure to combat obesity, cancer and heart disease epidemics in poor nations,” she observes, “has been one of the most glaring mistakes of global development efforts in recent years." So maybe they could have allocated their resources better.
In education, the author is upset that the Gates foundation spent money on things that didn't work. For example, they spent billions to create small schools based on the idea that it would give students more personalized attention. Unfortunately, that didn't improve college acceptance rates, so Gates ended the program.
If the author thinks that "dropping/modifying a program when data indicates it doesn't work" is a bad thing, then I'm forced to disagree heartily with her. In fact, if the only thing accomplished by the Gates foundation is to get people to do that more often, then it will be a huge success as far as I'm concerned. And I'm no fan of Gates.
Transmitting passwords unencrypted (probably storing them unencrypted) is a pretty clear sign of negligence at this point. I would say that SQL injections are too, but that's (a little) more of a stretch. Considering it's been best practices to encrypt passwords for over two decades if not longer, then I wouldn't be surprised if a class action lawsuit won.
You're preaching to the choir. I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of web developers in existence do not read slashdot
That's why I said "give it to someone who writes sql vulnerabilities. ":) I figured most people here would know how to avoid them (I really, really hope so).
Considering there are PHP tutorials high in Google's search results show aren't teaching parameterized queries, it's going to be a long time before we get rid of the problem completely.
If you know a programmer who writes code vulnerable to SQL injections, tell them to buy this book. If you are a programmer that writes SQL injections, you need it (or a swift kick in the head).
Seriously, this is an old, solved problem. We know how to write code with zero SQL injections. It's been solved, and there is no excuse for having any of them in your code.
I'm not surprised, your reading comprehension is lousy.
The reason I don't write a replacement is because I'm lazy. I take full blame and responsibility for that.
I give full blame and responsibility to the systemd team for writing lousy code. These two things are not exclusive. Both can be true.
You've been around this debate to know that systemd isn't an init system.
Of course. I think I even stated something similar elsewhere. I wasn't trying to imply that it is only an init system.
My complaints are not the features provided by systemd, but rather the architecture of systemd. Being unable to separate the init from the rest of the system is merely one obvious symptom of the larger problem.
I investigated in detail why Debian adopted systemd, and wrote about it here. It largely agrees with your post, that people mostly want to get away from sysv init, and of course sysv init has been controversial since it was created, which is why BSD never used it.
The problem with systemd isn't the features it tries to provide, the features are good. The problem is the architecture of the software is really bad. There is absolutely no reason KDE should depend on a particular init system.
All I can say is you've either never looked at the systemd code, or you don't know what monolithic is. The problem, of course, is that you can't have things like logind without using systemd init.
It is in several parts (so not monolithic)
OK, you don't know what monolithic means. The problem with systemd isn't that it adds features, features are cool. The problem with systemd is the architecture is bad. Unfortunately that isn't something I can discuss with you, because you lack expertise in the area, but if you are interested in learned more, I discussed it in depth here.
I think the linux ecosystem looks more and more like enterprise software because more and more, it is controlled by enterprise companies (RedHat, Oracle, IBM....)
Slashdot Mirror
tbh I don't think it makes a difference. You should be able to use KDE, whether you want to use systemd for process management or djb daemon tools for process management. The WindowManager should not be dependent on a particular process management system.
Negligence is a failure to use reasonable care that results in harm to another party. Under negligence law, there are two different forms of negligence. In one form, a person does something that a reasonable person would not do. In the other form a person fails to take action that a reasonable person would take to prevent harm. Both forms of negligence can result in a negligence lawsuit filed against the party responsible for the damage.
So you would have to show that a reasonable person would not publish usernames and passwords on their homepage (and you would also have to demonstrate harm from their actions).
The fail-fast and fail-often approach could be criticized when applied to human beings.
The only criticism I could reasonably see is that the children were harmed when the school was shut down too quickly. This doesn't seem to be the case, though....the students seem to have been transferred back to larger schools.
Does the book recommend the fail fast approach?
It should.
I think it's more a problem of people saying, "Since they are not solving the problems that I see, they are not solving problems and therefore bad."
Kind of like the blind men holding on to different parts of the elephant, and each describing it drastically differently. We all see different problems in the world because we have different viewpoints.
For myself, I think the problem of inequality is impossible to solve, and I would not even attempt it. I am willing to fight against poverty, and I do put resources and effort into that problem. That said, if someone else wants to try, good for them.
"despite their flair for disruption, these philanthropists are no more interested in radical change than their more conservative predecessors. They don’t lobby for the redistribution of wealth; instead, they see poverty and inequality as an engineering problem, and the solution is their own brain power, not a tithe.”
The good the foundation has done, she believes, is far outweighed by the harm
The Gates foundation mainly spends money on education and healthcare. In healthcare, the Gates foundation has spent $15 billion on improving vaccines, etc. This (and money from other sources) has resulted in a reduction of deaths by measles in Africa by 90%. Polio, tuberculosis, and HIV have all been reduced, thanks in part to the Gates foundation.
So what's the problem? According to the author, "The failure to combat obesity, cancer and heart disease epidemics in poor nations,” she observes, “has been one of the most glaring mistakes of global development efforts in recent years." So maybe they could have allocated their resources better.
In education, the author is upset that the Gates foundation spent money on things that didn't work. For example, they spent billions to create small schools based on the idea that it would give students more personalized attention. Unfortunately, that didn't improve college acceptance rates, so Gates ended the program.
If the author thinks that "dropping/modifying a program when data indicates it doesn't work" is a bad thing, then I'm forced to disagree heartily with her. In fact, if the only thing accomplished by the Gates foundation is to get people to do that more often, then it will be a huge success as far as I'm concerned. And I'm no fan of Gates.
At the same time, I'd also fire the entire QA department responsible for allowing this to get into prod.
I'm willing to bet they don't have a QA department.
Transmitting passwords unencrypted (probably storing them unencrypted) is a pretty clear sign of negligence at this point. I would say that SQL injections are too, but that's (a little) more of a stretch. Considering it's been best practices to encrypt passwords for over two decades if not longer, then I wouldn't be surprised if a class action lawsuit won.
You're preaching to the choir. I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of web developers in existence do not read slashdot
That's why I said "give it to someone who writes sql vulnerabilities. " :) I figured most people here would know how to avoid them (I really, really hope so).
Considering there are PHP tutorials high in Google's search results show aren't teaching parameterized queries, it's going to be a long time before we get rid of the problem completely.
If you know a programmer who writes code vulnerable to SQL injections, tell them to buy this book. If you are a programmer that writes SQL injections, you need it (or a swift kick in the head).
Seriously, this is an old, solved problem. We know how to write code with zero SQL injections. It's been solved, and there is no excuse for having any of them in your code.
You're comparing NYT to Fox News. The primary difference there isn't party affiliation, it's quality of the product.
ok, let me think about that.
Of course, I fully blame myself for being too lazy to write a replacement.
But I blame the systemd team for writing lousy code, and I reserve the right to complain about it.
I am a registered Planethunter How does one register as a planethunter?
...what really will happen is that in a few years the advertisements will be full of religious propaganda and proselytizing.
Only if they work.
Anyway, I'd rather have pro-sharia advertising than another ad for heartburn medicine. The entertainment factor would be higher.
I cannot understand your "logic".
I'm not surprised, your reading comprehension is lousy.
The reason I don't write a replacement is because I'm lazy. I take full blame and responsibility for that.
I give full blame and responsibility to the systemd team for writing lousy code. These two things are not exclusive. Both can be true.
Does that makes sense to you now?
You've been around this debate to know that systemd isn't an init system.
Of course. I think I even stated something similar elsewhere. I wasn't trying to imply that it is only an init system.
My complaints are not the features provided by systemd, but rather the architecture of systemd. Being unable to separate the init from the rest of the system is merely one obvious symptom of the larger problem.
I investigated in detail why Debian adopted systemd, and wrote about it here. It largely agrees with your post, that people mostly want to get away from sysv init, and of course sysv init has been controversial since it was created, which is why BSD never used it.
The problem with systemd isn't the features it tries to provide, the features are good. The problem is the architecture of the software is really bad. There is absolutely no reason KDE should depend on a particular init system.
It is in several parts (so not monolithic)
OK, you don't know what monolithic means. The problem with systemd isn't that it adds features, features are cool. The problem with systemd is the architecture is bad. Unfortunately that isn't something I can discuss with you, because you lack expertise in the area, but if you are interested in learned more, I discussed it in depth here.
I think the linux ecosystem looks more and more like enterprise software because more and more, it is controlled by enterprise companies (RedHat, Oracle, IBM....)
Bad standards do not encourage varied implementations. E.g. systemd. Good standards do
Well said.
Yes you can. It's a SMOP. That nobody else can be bothered to do the programming isn't systemd's fault.
That the systemd team writes crap code is their fault, and I do blame them for it.
That's true, upower switched over to systemd.
Lennart Poettering has been actively pushing other projects to depend on systemd. Here's one example from the Gnome mailing lists.
It's a distinction that doesn't matter when you can't run the tools without systemd having control of pid 1.