So what you're saying is, frameworks are good at what they do, but not so good at what they don't do?
Just learn friggin javascript already, it's not that hard
Try doing anything none-trivial in 'raw' javascript that has to work on more than one browser and you'll just end up re-inventing jQuery, probably badly, and creating a maintenance nightmare for the next poor bastard who inherits your shit. Please don't do this.
systemd is a suite of tools designed to provide a unified and integrated way to manage Linux systems. It is what it is because a bunch of people got talking about problems they were having with their Linux set-ups and decided that the best way to solve their problems was to re-implement a few system components under the umbrella of one project. This is so these components can interface with each other and do stuff that they couldn't do before.
"Oh but small sharp tools! Do one thing and do it well! It's the UNIX way!" Yes. The vast majority of what they're doing would have been possible if they'd just decided to develop and publish an API of some sort, and let the various authors of each component integrate it at their own various paces. But then you realise that you can publish standards till the cows come home, but it's no guarantee they'll ever be implemented, and you're left suffering with the same problems.
So at least give them credit for taking the bull by the horns and getting shit done.
All non-trivial software has bugs. Given the scope of systemd, I'm surprised there aren't more. As pointed out in your own link, all software has sketchy code in places. This is not a valid reason not to use systemd.
If there are any valid technical reasons why systemd is a bad idea, you clearly don't know them. My point still stands.
One post that begins systemd is basically a huge pile of modules compiled into the PID 1 init process (it isn't), another that states the existence of some bugs (gasp) and someone who had a problem dist-upgrading Debian.
If that's the best you've got, I'll rest easy on my position.
Your little SOAP vs. REST story is only memorable because it almost never happens. Debian has a tendency to eat it's children and I've yet to read a single compelling technical reason on Slashdot why systemd is a bad idea. Most anti-systemd people heard about it then decided they hate it because of its feng-shui or whatever, then retroactively invent bullshit technical reasons for it which are either ignorance or lies.
Living in caves evidently worked fine for humans judging by the fact we're not extinct. So we should go back to living in caves.
Alternatively, given that "don't fix what isn't broken" is quite clearly not a hard-and-fast rule and is subject to some discretion, you can explain why you've decided to apply it here.
No, everything web-based since the original HTML is web-based because writing web apps is piss-easy, you get network transparency for free and there's enough online help, resources and discussion available than anyone would need to solve just about any problem you might run in to.
It's not about hype, it's just an easy way to get shit done.
Refining it? You mean making it incompatible with Debian or any other distros.
No, what I mean is 'reducing boot time' and 'out-of-the-box support for more WiFi and 3G hardware' and 'free cloud-based storage' and the long list of other stuff they do. What the hell does compatibility with Debian matter to them?
They contribute almost NOTHING upstream.
So what if they don't contribute anything upstream? Where does it say they have to? If you're so butthurt about Canonical 'not giving back to the community', stop giving them your shit for free, and see how far that gets you.
If they disappeared tomorrow, NOTHING would be affected.
You've got a monumentally skewed view of reality if you think that if the most popular Linux distro disappeared tomorrow, nobody would be affected. If you honestly think so, you're a better troll than I am. Face it: Shuttleworth has done more for Linux in 5 years than anyone else has in their lifetime, with precious few exceptions.
Ubuntu isn't bringing "fresh meat" to the table - these people would have discovered a real linux distro if it weren't for the n00bs who hit on Ubuntu and thought "OMG this is os KEWL!" and then went all fanboi on it.
one of the weakest distros in the world in terms of contributions back to linux
I'm sorry but this is bullshit. How can anyone criticise Canonical for 'not giving back to the community', when the only reason anyone is aware of their existence is thanks to the thousands and thousands of man-hours they've poured into creating and refining Ubuntu? I'd call that a pretty substantial contribution, right there. That's before you count the tons of fresh meat Ubuntu is responsible for bringing on to the scene thanks to the work they did making desktop Linux as accessible as it is.
Re:We're talking about Samba and Linux here...
on
Samba 3 By Example
·
· Score: -1
That is a great idea but unfortunately is never going to happen. That's the problem with open source stuff - it lacks someone at the helm (in this case, GNU/Linux) telling it where to go and making it abide by standards, which is why UNIX in general still smacks of the 70s and always will.
On top of that you've got your usual Microsoft bashing, where 99% of slashdot think the registry is a pox on the face of the earth without even the slightest understanding of how it works. Don't like using regedit? Use a different editor. Don't like it being a binary file? You try storing and managing that much data as uncompressed plain text. Like to be able to 'manually' tinker with the file in vi or emacs? Tell me, what aspect of that is 'manual?' You're not exactly nudging the data around the drive platter with your thumbnail, are you? You've still got to use a piece of software to edit it, and if we all woke up tomorrow and GNU/Linux was governed by a standard registry system, there'd ptobably be tools to manage it, too. Even open source ones! So as long as the software is reasonably well designed, what does it matter?
If you actually sat a team of knowledgeable developers in a room and charged them with the task of coming up with a GNU/Linux 'registry' solution, it'd probably be near-exactly the same as the Microsoft one, although obviously they could stand to make a few improvements with the benefit of hindsight. My point is, if you sat down and actually learned how the registry works you probably wouldn't be so quick to slam it.
Re:We're talking about Samba and Linux here...
on
Samba 3 By Example
·
· Score: -1
In your exhaustive testing of a few dozen distros you obviously never happened upon/usr/local/etc.
Regardless, 99% of your ini files are generated by a legacy/pre-registry application, or by some 'tards who don't know what the registry is or does. The infrastructure for config data has been in place since the birth of the registry, and the filesystem has been locked down since w2k.
Just because you've shat your system up with crap software doesn't make it Windows' fault.
If restricted users can get to critical business files and databases, then it's the admin and/or DBA admin's fault for not setting the proper privilege levels. And yes, DB's have permissions that can be set.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do you think this stuff is happening in the init process?
Then install Upstart, OpenRC or stick with SysV-init. systemd is more than just an init system.
Just learn friggin javascript already, it's not that hard
Try doing anything none-trivial in 'raw' javascript that has to work on more than one browser and you'll just end up re-inventing jQuery, probably badly, and creating a maintenance nightmare for the next poor bastard who inherits your shit. Please don't do this.
systemd is a suite of tools designed to provide a unified and integrated way to manage Linux systems. It is what it is because a bunch of people got talking about problems they were having with their Linux set-ups and decided that the best way to solve their problems was to re-implement a few system components under the umbrella of one project. This is so these components can interface with each other and do stuff that they couldn't do before.
"Oh but small sharp tools! Do one thing and do it well! It's the UNIX way!" Yes. The vast majority of what they're doing would have been possible if they'd just decided to develop and publish an API of some sort, and let the various authors of each component integrate it at their own various paces. But then you realise that you can publish standards till the cows come home, but it's no guarantee they'll ever be implemented, and you're left suffering with the same problems.
So at least give them credit for taking the bull by the horns and getting shit done.
All non-trivial software has bugs. Given the scope of systemd, I'm surprised there aren't more. As pointed out in your own link, all software has sketchy code in places. This is not a valid reason not to use systemd. If there are any valid technical reasons why systemd is a bad idea, you clearly don't know them. My point still stands.
One post that begins systemd is basically a huge pile of modules compiled into the PID 1 init process (it isn't), another that states the existence of some bugs (gasp) and someone who had a problem dist-upgrading Debian.
If that's the best you've got, I'll rest easy on my position.
Your little SOAP vs. REST story is only memorable because it almost never happens. Debian has a tendency to eat it's children and I've yet to read a single compelling technical reason on Slashdot why systemd is a bad idea. Most anti-systemd people heard about it then decided they hate it because of its feng-shui or whatever, then retroactively invent bullshit technical reasons for it which are either ignorance or lies.
Living in caves evidently worked fine for humans judging by the fact we're not extinct. So we should go back to living in caves. Alternatively, given that "don't fix what isn't broken" is quite clearly not a hard-and-fast rule and is subject to some discretion, you can explain why you've decided to apply it here.
"Windows and BlackBerry aren't very good, so I say Windoze and WhackBerry instead" Do you see how much of a fuckwit this makes you look?
No, everything web-based since the original HTML is web-based because writing web apps is piss-easy, you get network transparency for free and there's enough online help, resources and discussion available than anyone would need to solve just about any problem you might run in to. It's not about hype, it's just an easy way to get shit done.
Service outage due to developer error. Stop the fucking presses.
Refining it? You mean making it incompatible with Debian or any other distros.
No, what I mean is 'reducing boot time' and 'out-of-the-box support for more WiFi and 3G hardware' and 'free cloud-based storage' and the long list of other stuff they do. What the hell does compatibility with Debian matter to them?
They contribute almost NOTHING upstream.
So what if they don't contribute anything upstream? Where does it say they have to? If you're so butthurt about Canonical 'not giving back to the community', stop giving them your shit for free, and see how far that gets you.
If they disappeared tomorrow, NOTHING would be affected.
You've got a monumentally skewed view of reality if you think that if the most popular Linux distro disappeared tomorrow, nobody would be affected. If you honestly think so, you're a better troll than I am. Face it: Shuttleworth has done more for Linux in 5 years than anyone else has in their lifetime, with precious few exceptions.
Ubuntu isn't bringing "fresh meat" to the table - these people would have discovered a real linux distro if it weren't for the n00bs who hit on Ubuntu and thought "OMG this is os KEWL!" and then went all fanboi on it.
NO TRUE LINUX DISTRO
Their server offering is a piece of sh*t.
Who cares
one of the weakest distros in the world in terms of contributions back to linux
I'm sorry but this is bullshit. How can anyone criticise Canonical for 'not giving back to the community', when the only reason anyone is aware of their existence is thanks to the thousands and thousands of man-hours they've poured into creating and refining Ubuntu? I'd call that a pretty substantial contribution, right there. That's before you count the tons of fresh meat Ubuntu is responsible for bringing on to the scene thanks to the work they did making desktop Linux as accessible as it is.
Ubuntu is dying
Oh please.
I call digital photography "temporary photography."
Hahaha that's great. Do you have any other lol names like that
Please explain to me exactly how that would work?
But then they'd be left with a sub-standard operating system. I don't see your logic.
I'd suggest you find another profession.
That is a great idea but unfortunately is never going to happen. That's the problem with open source stuff - it lacks someone at the helm (in this case, GNU/Linux) telling it where to go and making it abide by standards, which is why UNIX in general still smacks of the 70s and always will.
On top of that you've got your usual Microsoft bashing, where 99% of slashdot think the registry is a pox on the face of the earth without even the slightest understanding of how it works. Don't like using regedit? Use a different editor. Don't like it being a binary file? You try storing and managing that much data as uncompressed plain text. Like to be able to 'manually' tinker with the file in vi or emacs? Tell me, what aspect of that is 'manual?' You're not exactly nudging the data around the drive platter with your thumbnail, are you? You've still got to use a piece of software to edit it, and if we all woke up tomorrow and GNU/Linux was governed by a standard registry system, there'd ptobably be tools to manage it, too. Even open source ones! So as long as the software is reasonably well designed, what does it matter?
If you actually sat a team of knowledgeable developers in a room and charged them with the task of coming up with a GNU/Linux 'registry' solution, it'd probably be near-exactly the same as the Microsoft one, although obviously they could stand to make a few improvements with the benefit of hindsight. My point is, if you sat down and actually learned how the registry works you probably wouldn't be so quick to slam it.
In your exhaustive testing of a few dozen distros you obviously never happened upon /usr/local/etc.
Regardless, 99% of your ini files are generated by a legacy/pre-registry application, or by some 'tards who don't know what the registry is or does. The infrastructure for config data has been in place since the birth of the registry, and the filesystem has been locked down since w2k.
Just because you've shat your system up with crap software doesn't make it Windows' fault.
If slashbots started doing that, this site would probably cease be be.
I wonder how long before someone with lots of time on their hands hacks into the system and starts tampering with the messages
If they chose Microsoft products, it shouldn't be too long!
Better idea: you do that for me, and then point out how/why you're right.
OH WAIT.
Its LOL because you're calling me a retard when you plainly can't even fucking read.
gg nextmap
Microsoft makes a claim that Windows XP will successfully run DOS games ALL DOS games? Where? That's the most retarded thing I've heard thismorning.
Hey techie boy
If restricted users can get to critical business files and databases, then it's the admin and/or DBA admin's fault for not setting the proper privilege levels. And yes, DB's have permissions that can be set.
DOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY