USB 3.1 will get you over 10Gb/s (>1GB/s) and then there's Thunderbolt 3 as well (40Gb/s, little b) for external enclosures. What is your use case, specifically?
Linux and OS X are "grossly unstable" ? Is this a joke? There are certainly lots of problems with Linux, but as soon as you call it unstable we all just snicker at you and stop reading.
I always thought child processes were killed when the parent was killed, anyway, unless it was deamonized with nohup. I dont know whats new here
Child process ARE killed by default when you logout, unless you explicitly ask the system to keep them running (ie screen/tmux, nohup, disown, etc). Now when you logout, by default, it will kill even the processes you asked the system to continue running. Why would the default behavior be to ignore my instructions to keep processes running?
The behaviour can be disabled, so if you dont like it, just disable it? Whats the big deal.
The problem is this changes long running default behavior for no reason.
It has been discussed for ages now among many OS people
Who? Where? Who are these "OS people" ? The screen/tmux programs and the nohup command was literally invented to take advantage of this behavior to allow long running processes. We've used them for decades. There is no "problem" here. There's nothing to "solve" or "fix". Nothing is wrong!
How does this have anything do with management of allocation of resources to users? Isn't an interactive session just as capable of "consuming resources indefinitely" as a running detached process?
Of course. We have this fancy little thing called cgroups and limits.conf. Any argument that the system is somehow "safer" or "more secure" because a process can't keep running after logout is so ignorant that you have to immediately realize it's not possibly the real reason for this change. This is a change because of the incestuous nature of systemd and GNOME.
The problem is the process shouldn't get to decide if they live forever that's the process manager's job.
I don't need the process manager to decide for me how long my processes should run. The computer works for me, not the other way around. If I explicitly tell the computer I want a process to continue running, it should do so.
And ultimately on a shared system you as an unprivileged user likely shouldn't have the ability to run jobs consuming resources for days or weeks directly but rather through operations.
What exactly is this assumption based on? Why shouldn't a user of a system be able to run a process that takes several days to complete? The system admin can easily control the users access to the system resources so that they're shared appropriately. What if it's the only user on the system?
I have to wonder what dingdong thought that making human health part of the internet of things was a good idea.
If you think consumer health data delivered via the internet is bad, I've got some really bad news for you. There are many commercial EMR platforms delivered via the internet.
Or, alternatively, maybe javascript really isn't a great language for a number of reasons? Like, the insane equality tables. NaN literally doesn't equal NaN. Just google the truth table and behold the wonder.
What else? Two words: global variables. If you've done any javascript, you know what I mean. Or have you ever tried to do any arithmetic in javascript?
Works out fantastic, actually. I'm smart, hard working, have a lot of experience and a strong professional network. If my boss screamed at me I'd walk out on the spot. But I'm a valuable employee so they'd never do that.
Right, so why isn't there any mainstream distro that still allows init as a choice? I'm excluding slackware from mainstream of course. This seems bizarre to me.
I'm talking about at a macro level, not at the individual distribution level. Obviously it's each individual distros choice as to what software is included.
What I'm saying is, most distributions support multiple window managers, multiple desktop environments, multiple anything, but only one init system. Why?
systemd is inevitable. It is winding its tentacles into everything. Sooner or later, it won't be an option. And neither of those distros are seriously workable options, let's be honest. Slackware just barely, Devuan? Come on, man. Be serious.
This is such a mindboggling position for people to take. The entire concept of open source is about flexibility but people think it's fine to blindly force one option down everyone's throats, regardless of what they want. It's surreal to watch. We have 9,000 distributions but only One True Init, apparently.
I use Fedora and CentOS 7, so I'm using systemd on every system I touch now. And it's annoying, I certainly prefer the simplicify of the old init system. I'm really not sure what problem this was supposed to solve. Everyone talks about fast bootup times, but my servers uptimes are measured in years. Why should I add all this complexity to save a couple of seconds a year? I've spent hours reading about and learning systemd, to gain what exactly?
And I'm not saying no one should use systemd. If it solves some problem for you, great, use it. I completely support you. But why don't you also support my desire to use the init system that I want to use?
As opposed to a Macbook which is completely ad free. Until you connect it to the internet and open a web browser, of course.
I can install an adblocker on chromeos just like I can on a Mac.
Slashdot Mirror
USB 3.1 will get you over 10Gb/s (>1GB/s) and then there's Thunderbolt 3 as well (40Gb/s, little b) for external enclosures. What is your use case, specifically?
I personally will never buy another Android device until they actually fix the problem with updates.
Between this and the scary amount of high risk security vulnerabilities I won't either.
Copying large numbers of files across drives takes 1/2 the time.
Source? I can copy files between drives in Windows 7 at the speed of the disks.
The network share performance has improved dramatically.
Source? I can saturate 1Gb/s NIC copying files using Windows 7.
Windows 10 automatically compresses memory, so you have less issues with memory size on older PCs.
Which causes high CPU usage which is especially problematic for "older PCs".
Linux and OS X are "grossly unstable" ? Is this a joke? There are certainly lots of problems with Linux, but as soon as you call it unstable we all just snicker at you and stop reading.
I always thought child processes were killed when the parent was killed, anyway, unless it was deamonized with nohup. I dont know whats new here
Child process ARE killed by default when you logout, unless you explicitly ask the system to keep them running (ie screen/tmux, nohup, disown, etc). Now when you logout, by default, it will kill even the processes you asked the system to continue running. Why would the default behavior be to ignore my instructions to keep processes running?
The behaviour can be disabled, so if you dont like it, just disable it? Whats the big deal.
The problem is this changes long running default behavior for no reason.
If you think using screen/tmux is an "exception" then you have no business being involved in this discussion.
You're comparing a system changing the behavior of one program with distributions replacing one program with another. This is not a good analogy.
It has been discussed for ages now among many OS people
Who? Where? Who are these "OS people" ? The screen/tmux programs and the nohup command was literally invented to take advantage of this behavior to allow long running processes. We've used them for decades. There is no "problem" here. There's nothing to "solve" or "fix". Nothing is wrong!
How does this have anything do with management of allocation of resources to users? Isn't an interactive session just as capable of "consuming resources indefinitely" as a running detached process?
Of course. We have this fancy little thing called cgroups and limits.conf. Any argument that the system is somehow "safer" or "more secure" because a process can't keep running after logout is so ignorant that you have to immediately realize it's not possibly the real reason for this change. This is a change because of the incestuous nature of systemd and GNOME.
The problem is the process shouldn't get to decide if they live forever that's the process manager's job.
I don't need the process manager to decide for me how long my processes should run. The computer works for me, not the other way around. If I explicitly tell the computer I want a process to continue running, it should do so.
And ultimately on a shared system you as an unprivileged user likely shouldn't have the ability to run jobs consuming resources for days or weeks directly but rather through operations.
What exactly is this assumption based on? Why shouldn't a user of a system be able to run a process that takes several days to complete? The system admin can easily control the users access to the system resources so that they're shared appropriately. What if it's the only user on the system?
I have to wonder what dingdong thought that making human health part of the internet of things was a good idea.
If you think consumer health data delivered via the internet is bad, I've got some really bad news for you. There are many commercial EMR platforms delivered via the internet.
Or, alternatively, maybe javascript really isn't a great language for a number of reasons? Like, the insane equality tables. NaN literally doesn't equal NaN. Just google the truth table and behold the wonder.
What else? Two words: global variables. If you've done any javascript, you know what I mean. Or have you ever tried to do any arithmetic in javascript?
So switch to Kubuntu ?
I just use a $30 128GB tiny thumb drive.
WhyTF wasn't there a Windows 7 SP2 already?
Because they are required to provide support based on the release of the last service pack. If they called this a "Service Pack" they would be required to extend the End of Life date on Windows 7 which they obviously don't want to do.
Works out fantastic, actually. I'm smart, hard working, have a lot of experience and a strong professional network. If my boss screamed at me I'd walk out on the spot. But I'm a valuable employee so they'd never do that.
Right, so why isn't there any mainstream distro that still allows init as a choice? I'm excluding slackware from mainstream of course. This seems bizarre to me.
Right, all of those "friends". I'm sure you used it literally two's of times.
the Italian Ministry of Defense announced that they expect to save between 26 and 29 million Euro over the next few years
How many years is "a few" ? 3 or 20?
I'm talking about at a macro level, not at the individual distribution level. Obviously it's each individual distros choice as to what software is included.
What I'm saying is, most distributions support multiple window managers, multiple desktop environments, multiple anything, but only one init system. Why?
systemd is inevitable. It is winding its tentacles into everything. Sooner or later, it won't be an option. And neither of those distros are seriously workable options, let's be honest. Slackware just barely, Devuan? Come on, man. Be serious.
This is such a mindboggling position for people to take. The entire concept of open source is about flexibility but people think it's fine to blindly force one option down everyone's throats, regardless of what they want. It's surreal to watch. We have 9,000 distributions but only One True Init, apparently.
I use Fedora and CentOS 7, so I'm using systemd on every system I touch now. And it's annoying, I certainly prefer the simplicify of the old init system. I'm really not sure what problem this was supposed to solve. Everyone talks about fast bootup times, but my servers uptimes are measured in years. Why should I add all this complexity to save a couple of seconds a year? I've spent hours reading about and learning systemd, to gain what exactly?
And I'm not saying no one should use systemd. If it solves some problem for you, great, use it. I completely support you. But why don't you also support my desire to use the init system that I want to use?
The Battlefield 1 trailer is YouTube's most liked trailer of all-time
Gangnam Style isn't a trailer.
As opposed to Apple who produce all their hardware right there in California. Definitely not in China.
As opposed to a Macbook which is completely ad free. Until you connect it to the internet and open a web browser, of course. I can install an adblocker on chromeos just like I can on a Mac.