How do the daemons refuse to play well with others? Do you have any examples on this?
As far as I see, nothing prevent me from replacing any specific daemon with my own implementation. With the possible exception of systemd/journald/udev
Can you mention any single project which only does one thing?
Let me look at some examples:
Bash: Both an interactive user interface, and a scripting environment. And while the different programs running in bash often do communicate together, they do this using undocumented apis in the form of text output which is the worst way of module communication.
It also confuses matters because the user-readable output from running a command in an interactive bash shell is part of that apps api. Just think about all the problems this causes for api updates, and translation of output to other languages.
Apache: Is composed of a server, and lot's of modules, but none of the modules can be used outside of Apache. This looks to me like what systemd does, but nobody ever complained about this.
gcc:
Don't even get me started. Its a compiler collection of parts which depend on each other.
The linux kernel: Refuses to maintain a stable api, so unless your module is part of the kernel itself, it will break at every linux release. Not modular at all.
Gimp: None of the tools/effects which gimp uses are independent modules.
Conclusion: There were never a modern desktop/server linux distribution using what is refered as the "unix way"
Quote "If, for example you want to run the systemd project's time server, you must run systemd and so journald and dbus"
Really? Could I not just write my own daemon instead of systemd and thus avoid this dependency? The systemd api seems to be stable so it should be possible.
As I see it, the systemd project's time server need functions which are currently only implemented by systemd, but is there any reason an other project could not implement the methods needed by the systemd projects' time server?
Is it a standard us thing, that a merchant get access to any card data when the customer pays with a credit card in a physical shop?
Here in Denmark, a normal merchant newer has access to your card data even if you pay with a credit card.
The data is sent directly from the credit card terminal(The hardware which read the card and card code) to dibs/nets(The payment gateway for credit cards) which then reserve the money and sends a message back to the terminal about the status of the transaction. This transaction status is then send to the merchants cash register to together with the last 4 digits of the credit card number.
"Read the article, summary makes it sound as if Docker doesn't verify the checksums and it does. What his complaint is, that it verifies the checksum AFTER decompress, de-tar'ing from a HTTPS source, and only does a cursory check on the TAR file."
Are you sure about that? From the description from the docker guy, it sounds like they don't verify it at all.
No, Denmark is going to let Greenland be independent as soon as they want to. The sooner the better.
But Greenland can't afford that right now.
75% of the income for Greenland, is direct economic support from Denmark. Think about that: They would lose 75% of their income without Denmark, which is the only reason they are not independent yet.
Except that Apple had no way to intimidated GT. GT did not have any need for Apple, and they could simply have walked away from Apple, and continued their business as before.
I newer understood the "not installing a backup power supply for each furnace" situation.
Who owned and was responsible for the factory? The story has always been that GT produced Sapphire, and that apple maybe wanted to buy it.
So why did GT let apple control anything at all, about their factories?
From the article " after five months Apple demanded a major change in terms, requiring GT to supply the sapphire itself. In fact, Apple wanted GT to build the world’s largest factory to produce the stuff"
So If Apple wanted GT to supply the sapphire, why did they have any say in the day to day running of the factories. Sounds like GT gave far to much factory control to Apple for no reason at all.
Sorry, but that is not what the halting problem say.
The halting problems state that "For any interesting property(In this example: "Is this robot code safe to run") there exists programs with this property, but where you can not prove that the program has the property.
That is: There exists robot programs which are safe to run, but where we can newer prove that they are safe.
And the general solution is to only run programs where we can prove that they are safe. This mean that we do reject safe programs because we can't prove that they are safe*, but it does not in any way change the programs which we can express. That is: For any program which is safe, but where safety cant' be proved, there exists a program which behave in exactly the same way for all input, but which is safe.**
*If we can't prove that a program is safe, then it is either because no such prof exists, or it is because we are not good enough to prove it.
**No this does not contradict the halting problem, due to the assumption that the program is safe. If the program is not safe, then the transformation will convert the program to a safe program which obviously will not do the same
Nobody ever said that Microsoft could not ship their own version of the JRE, and Microsoft newer made their own JRE.
Microsoft distributed a modified version of suns jre, based on source code licensed from Sun. And it was sourcecode licerse, which gave Microsoft problems. If they had just made their own jre, anything would have been fine(Except for the fact that they might not have called it Java(tm)
Sorry, but that is just wrong. He wrote a better(Or worse, depending on who you ask. I would say better) init system, but the decision to use it and thus to wrack your* init system was taken by the different Linux distributions.
*And no it's not your init system. Using something does not make it yours. It would only be yours if you had your own distribution, and in that case you could continue to use what ever backward init system you wanted.
Slashdot Mirror
No no, that is a misunderstanding. This year is the year of a linux desktop. Not The linux desktop.
Interesting? Where is the bug report so this issue with btrfs can be fixed?
How do the daemons refuse to play well with others? Do you have any examples on this?
As far as I see, nothing prevent me from replacing any specific daemon with my own implementation. With the possible exception of systemd/journald/udev
Can you mention any single project which only does one thing?
Let me look at some examples:
Bash:
Both an interactive user interface, and a scripting environment. And while the different programs running in bash often do communicate together, they do this using undocumented apis in the form of text output which is the worst way of module communication.
It also confuses matters because the user-readable output from running a command in an interactive bash shell is part of that apps api. Just think about all the problems this causes for api updates, and translation of output to other languages.
Apache:
Is composed of a server, and lot's of modules, but none of the modules can be used outside of Apache. This looks to me like what systemd does, but nobody ever complained about this.
gcc:
Don't even get me started. Its a compiler collection of parts which depend on each other.
The linux kernel:
Refuses to maintain a stable api, so unless your module is part of the kernel itself, it will break at every linux release. Not modular at all.
Gimp:
None of the tools/effects which gimp uses are independent modules.
Conclusion:
There were never a modern desktop/server linux distribution using what is refered as the "unix way"
Quote
"If, for example you want to run the systemd project's time server, you must run systemd and so journald and dbus"
Really? Could I not just write my own daemon instead of systemd and thus avoid this dependency? The systemd api seems to be stable so it should be possible.
As I see it, the systemd project's time server need functions which are currently only implemented by systemd, but is there any reason an other project could not implement the methods needed by the systemd projects' time server?
Primary implicit shared edit by multiple people, and access from any computer without having to install any software.
True, but make -j8 is also faster then make -j4 on a i5 because make is not 100% cpu bound.
But It would be very interesting to compare make -j8 on a i5 and i7 with the same frequency, to see how much ht helps.
What the oop languages did, was to add explicit language support for all the features and idioms which software developers did anyway.
This make development and maintenance much more easy.
Sorry, but I take deleting most media on my test iPhone, over having to install both Windows and iTunes(ARG!) on my computer.
Is it a standard us thing, that a merchant get access to any card data when the customer pays with a credit card in a physical shop?
Here in Denmark, a normal merchant newer has access to your card data even if you pay with a credit card.
The data is sent directly from the credit card terminal(The hardware which read the card and card code) to dibs/nets(The payment gateway for credit cards) which then reserve the money and sends a message back to the terminal about the status of the transaction. This transaction status is then send to the merchants cash register to together with the last 4 digits of the credit card number.
Does the cache control commands require root access on Windows or Linux?
"Read the article, summary makes it sound as if Docker doesn't verify the checksums and it does. What his complaint is, that it verifies the checksum AFTER decompress, de-tar'ing from a HTTPS source, and only does a cursory check on the TAR file."
Are you sure about that? From the description from the docker guy, it sounds like they don't verify it at all.
No, Denmark is going to let Greenland be independent as soon as they want to. The sooner the better.
But Greenland can't afford that right now.
75% of the income for Greenland, is direct economic support from Denmark. Think about that: They would lose 75% of their income without Denmark, which is the only reason they are not independent yet.
Sorry about that. But I am not sure about the oil.
The official danish position is that there is no oil at all in the newly claimed area. (Yes that is a direct quote from our foreign minister).
(Now with logged in user).
Except that Apple had no way to intimidated GT. GT did not have any need for Apple, and they could simply have walked away from Apple, and continued their business as before.
I newer understood the "not installing a backup power supply for each furnace" situation.
Who owned and was responsible for the factory? The story has always been that GT produced Sapphire, and that apple maybe wanted to buy it.
So why did GT let apple control anything at all, about their factories?
From the article " after five months Apple demanded a major change in terms, requiring GT to supply the sapphire itself. In fact, Apple wanted GT to build the world’s largest factory to produce the stuff"
So If Apple wanted GT to supply the sapphire, why did they have any say in the day to day running of the factories. Sounds like GT gave far to much factory control to Apple for no reason at all.
Sorry, but that is not what the halting problem say.
The halting problems state that "For any interesting property(In this example: "Is this robot code safe to run") there exists programs with this property, but where you can not prove that the program has the property.
That is: There exists robot programs which are safe to run, but where we can newer prove that they are safe.
And the general solution is to only run programs where we can prove that they are safe. This mean that we do reject safe programs because we can't prove that they are safe*, but it does not in any way change the programs which we can express. That is: For any program which is safe, but where safety cant' be proved, there exists a program which behave in exactly the same way for all input, but which is safe.**
*If we can't prove that a program is safe, then it is either because no such prof exists, or it is because we are not good enough to prove it.
**No this does not contradict the halting problem, due to the assumption that the program is safe. If the program is not safe, then the transformation will convert the program to a safe program which obviously will not do the same
Or if you don't have a Windows 7 installed.
Sorry, you are wrong here. The chips with pid0 works fine with Linux, so there is no reason, the vendor could not make a working Windows driver.
Why not? Both Postgresql and Openoffice does that.
Nobody ever said that Microsoft could not ship their own version of the JRE, and Microsoft newer made their own JRE.
Microsoft distributed a modified version of suns jre, based on source code licensed from Sun. And it was sourcecode licerse, which gave Microsoft problems. If they had just made their own jre, anything would have been fine(Except for the fact that they might not have called it Java(tm)
Sorry, but that is just wrong. He wrote a better(Or worse, depending on who you ask. I would say better) init system, but the decision to use it and thus to wrack your* init system was taken by the different Linux distributions.
*And no it's not your init system. Using something does not make it yours. It would only be yours if you had your own distribution, and in that case you could continue to use what ever backward init system you wanted.
If you have a debt of more then 578M, and no way to earn more money.
How it it "semantic nonsense" ?
The design is responsive, in that it respond to changes in the size of the viewport(Screen/Window size). Makes perfect sense to me :}
He said it did work, it's just not as effective as other existing compression solutions.