The person who committed the patch to remove systemd seems like one of the more chill and reasonable people in the open source community. He recognizes that systemd has strengths and weaknesses, and asks for a calm analysis:
It does not help in discussions if you throw around inaccurate
disparaging comments about things you criticize.
What exactly is "good engineering"?
I bet finding a consensus on that one won't be easy.
So, while you and me feel that systemd isn't well engineered,
there will be people (its authors, for one) who honestly believe
it is.
If you will talk to people about it, you need to carefully,
with well-thought-out arguments, explain *why exactly*
it is badly engineered.
And anyway, most of the systems I've seen running BusyBox booted faster than the systems running SystemD.
Let's be honest, faster booting is a nice feature, but not at the cost of lousy architecture and code.
I can't say that I was thrilled with systemd when it came along, but I realized that it wasn't going away any time soon
That's not much of an endorsement.
People who choose Linux do it because they appreciate a quality OS, well built and put together with care. That's why we like Linux.
If you don't care about quality, you might as well use Windows.
I've never heard a server administrator say systemd makes things easier for them. There are probably some server administrators somewhere who will claim that.
Systemd makes things easier for people who write init scripts. Init script writers are the people who have primarily been responsible for its adoption in various distros.
Generally, I've noticed that people are divided into two categories about systemd, depending on their viewpoint:
Those who like systemd almost always talk about features.
Those who dislike systemd almost always talk about architecture and design and code. The Unix way.
Systemd does make things easier for some people and some tasks, which is why it's been adopted. The problem is that it's ugly as sin from an architectural standpoint.
Wonder why so many other devs are so eager to put the systemd dick in their mouths.
I discussed that topic a bit in my journal.
Basically, systemd guys did a good job finding out what the init script writers wanted, at both RedHat and Debian, and giving it to them. When the init script writers needed something, they responded. Since the init script writers were the ones who decided if systemd got included in the distro, that was a good idea.
Oh, I think it's a moronic thing.
If there was any tone of pleasure in my post, it was the pleasure with which a scientist observes and investigates a family of ants or termites.
That is why I believe we should have term limits. I don't mean that one can only serve two terms like POTUS, I mean a person can serve one term in any given office. That should contain the corruption somewhat.
It doesn't seem to work in practice. In places that have term limits, lobbyists gain more power, because the lobbyists get more and more experience at manipulating fresh, naive politicians. And once the politicians learn better, they get kicked out.
You also need a valid case. The fact that your local Ford dealership doesn't sell Chevys isn't a basis for a lawsuit.
Making a valid case is what lawyers do. Anti-trust law is vague enough that your local Ford dealership can start to look like a cartel colluding with other car dealerships, for example.
If you want an anti-trust lawsuit, usually you need political connections, and better political connections than your opponent. And Amazon keeps up on their payments, to both parties.
Meaning, being able to read faster would not help me in any noticeable way. When it comes to understanding code, deciphering character shapes is not the bottleneck. I solve that problem in milliseconds, then can spend minutes or hours or days trying to understand it.
I was initially sceptical of Stroustrup's claims in his book that code (like everything else) is more readable in a proportional font, but I checked the research and he is correct (in objectively measurable ways).
I don't have trouble reading code because of the font, so that is a non-issue for me. When was the last time you had trouble reading code because it was fixed-width? However, a proportional width font makes things extremely difficult to line up vertically. Tabs help a little, but often I want to line things up on a non-tab-stop point.
Yeah, lame product that's not open source. Here are some the features they are touting for the latest release, see which ones of these make you want to pay for a closed-source editor:
* Reduced GC Pauses When Scrolling Editor
* Using Variable Width Fonts
* New Approach to Character Measurement
*
Several Find and Replace Fixes
* Settings Have Nice Descriptions
They're not really selling me on it. Incidentally, when I read the headline, I thought it meant that Intel's Atom processor had been given a GPU.
But if you look at it from the chair's point of view -- you work on something for a decade on how to do something, some new guy shows up, says "let's do it a different" way....
When I try to look at it from the chair's point of view, all I can see is greed from people charging $180 for a textbook.
At my university, some professors wrote a textbook. They charged $30 for it, because they were more interested in people learning than in getting rich. It was a good class (but classes taught by such people typically are).
require H-1Bs be paid more than market wages. That way, it's only cost-effective to hire an H-1B if you honestly need them.
It won't work, because there will be loopholes.
Right now employers are required to pay H-1Bs market wages, but they don't, because there are loopholes.
Right now you also need to prove that you can't hire anyone to do the job in America. To get around that, tell someone to interview every candidate that applies, even if there are 50-60 of them, and find a problem with each one of them. Simple.
I like a lot of my Indian coworkers, but the H1-B program right now pushes down wages for everyone. It's not fair (and Trump's idea won't fix that).
I have seen a lot of programmers who are totally dependent on the IDE to develop the code. They have no idea how it works or where it runs from once it deploys.
But is it part of what they need to know?
I've never known a good programmer who didn't understand that kind of thing. If you're dependent on a single IDE, you're probably crap.
Slashdot Mirror
It does not help in discussions if you throw around inaccurate disparaging comments about things you criticize.
What exactly is "good engineering"? I bet finding a consensus on that one won't be easy. So, while you and me feel that systemd isn't well engineered, there will be people (its authors, for one) who honestly believe it is.
If you will talk to people about it, you need to carefully, with well-thought-out arguments, explain *why exactly* it is badly engineered.
Here's something interesting:
the person who commit that patch to remove systemd was also the first person to merge a systemd patch into BusyBox.
And anyway, most of the systems I've seen running BusyBox booted faster than the systems running SystemD.
Let's be honest, faster booting is a nice feature, but not at the cost of lousy architecture and code.
I can't say that I was thrilled with systemd when it came along, but I realized that it wasn't going away any time soon
That's not much of an endorsement.
People who choose Linux do it because they appreciate a quality OS, well built and put together with care. That's why we like Linux.
If you don't care about quality, you might as well use Windows.
Systemd is funded by Redhat, isn't it?
Mostly, yes.
How does it make server administration easier?
I've never heard a server administrator say systemd makes things easier for them. There are probably some server administrators somewhere who will claim that.
Systemd makes things easier for people who write init scripts. Init script writers are the people who have primarily been responsible for its adoption in various distros.
Generally, I've noticed that people are divided into two categories about systemd, depending on their viewpoint:
Those who like systemd almost always talk about features.
Those who dislike systemd almost always talk about architecture and design and code. The Unix way.
Systemd does make things easier for some people and some tasks, which is why it's been adopted. The problem is that it's ugly as sin from an architectural standpoint.
Wonder why so many other devs are so eager to put the systemd dick in their mouths.
I discussed that topic a bit in my journal.
Basically, systemd guys did a good job finding out what the init script writers wanted, at both RedHat and Debian, and giving it to them. When the init script writers needed something, they responded. Since the init script writers were the ones who decided if systemd got included in the distro, that was a good idea.
Oh, I think it's a moronic thing.
If there was any tone of pleasure in my post, it was the pleasure with which a scientist observes and investigates a family of ants or termites.
That is why I believe we should have term limits. I don't mean that one can only serve two terms like POTUS, I mean a person can serve one term in any given office. That should contain the corruption somewhat.
It doesn't seem to work in practice. In places that have term limits, lobbyists gain more power, because the lobbyists get more and more experience at manipulating fresh, naive politicians. And once the politicians learn better, they get kicked out.
But that's it: a handful of rocks.
Don't deceive yourself, it's not about rocks, it's about natural resources and trade routes.
You also need a valid case. The fact that your local Ford dealership doesn't sell Chevys isn't a basis for a lawsuit.
Making a valid case is what lawyers do. Anti-trust law is vague enough that your local Ford dealership can start to look like a cartel colluding with other car dealerships, for example.
Call them and see what they say. Type a transcript (or summary)
If you want an anti-trust lawsuit, usually you need political connections, and better political connections than your opponent. And Amazon keeps up on their payments, to both parties.
Define 'trouble'.
Meaning, being able to read faster would not help me in any noticeable way. When it comes to understanding code, deciphering character shapes is not the bottleneck. I solve that problem in milliseconds, then can spend minutes or hours or days trying to understand it.
omg closed source means terrible eeeek
Actually, it means not free. Obviously freedom isn't something you value.
I was initially sceptical of Stroustrup's claims in his book that code (like everything else) is more readable in a proportional font, but I checked the research and he is correct (in objectively measurable ways).
I don't have trouble reading code because of the font, so that is a non-issue for me. When was the last time you had trouble reading code because it was fixed-width? However, a proportional width font makes things extremely difficult to line up vertically. Tabs help a little, but often I want to line things up on a non-tab-stop point.
Yeah, lame product that's not open source. Here are some the features they are touting for the latest release, see which ones of these make you want to pay for a closed-source editor:
* Reduced GC Pauses When Scrolling Editor
* Using Variable Width Fonts
* New Approach to Character Measurement
* Several Find and Replace Fixes
* Settings Have Nice Descriptions
They're not really selling me on it. Incidentally, when I read the headline, I thought it meant that Intel's Atom processor had been given a GPU.
I've gone on some architecture tours recently, but a cave house in the side of a canyon ranks easily in the top 10 of awesomeness. Nice.
But if you look at it from the chair's point of view -- you work on something for a decade on how to do something, some new guy shows up, says "let's do it a different" way....
When I try to look at it from the chair's point of view, all I can see is greed from people charging $180 for a textbook.
At my university, some professors wrote a textbook. They charged $30 for it, because they were more interested in people learning than in getting rich. It was a good class (but classes taught by such people typically are).
That's incorrect, there is no such requirement at all.
Maybe you're right. A quick search through wikipedia didn't find anything for me. A lot of companies do post a job opening, though.
Simply fixing the loopholes will go a long way towards curbing H1B abuse.
I don't think there's a way to fix all the loopholes.
This is why I refused a 401K when I started work.
OK, that was really dumb. You should use your 401k, especially if your employer has matching. You need to save for your retirement.
require H-1Bs be paid more than market wages. That way, it's only cost-effective to hire an H-1B if you honestly need them.
It won't work, because there will be loopholes.
Right now employers are required to pay H-1Bs market wages, but they don't, because there are loopholes.
Right now you also need to prove that you can't hire anyone to do the job in America. To get around that, tell someone to interview every candidate that applies, even if there are 50-60 of them, and find a problem with each one of them. Simple.
I like a lot of my Indian coworkers, but the H1-B program right now pushes down wages for everyone. It's not fair (and Trump's idea won't fix that).
I have seen a lot of programmers who are totally dependent on the IDE to develop the code. They have no idea how it works or where it runs from once it deploys.
But is it part of what they need to know?
I've never known a good programmer who didn't understand that kind of thing. If you're dependent on a single IDE, you're probably crap.
How has Scratch been working? Have the kids been getting good results?
I don't think that's a lawn.
Those are green points.