Both? I've got someone on WinXP that is running last year's MS Office with no trouble. Yes, 32 bit artificial MS memory ceiling for the non-server range (4 cores would allow 16GB on 32 bit Win2k even in PAE didn't exist in the Pentium two onwards), so not useful for anyone that goes near even cropping photos, but some funky little CD labelling and so-on tools just do not work in anything beyond WinXP. Since the stuff the user is used to can't work on a new platform and the new stuff the user wants to use still works on the old platform there is little reason to upgrade. The "security" argument assumes using Internet Explorer or even doing stuff on the net other than the mundane in the first place. Apparently iPads or whatever are for that with people who take work/life balance more seriously than most of us here.
I was under the impression that if you have Windows 7 set to auto-update, it installs most of the new telemetry 'features' anyway
If you have Windows 7 set to auto-update it installs Win10. Today it did it in the middle of a contractor remoting in to upgrade an accounting package and of course fucked up the database as well as adding a couple of hours to let Win10 install and then roll it back to Win7 (yes, MS server exists, but why use MS server for a low usage toy database when even XP could do it?). On the positive side it was a good way to stress test database backups and see if restores work, and the contractor didn't take as long to do the new tasks a second time. Yes, my fault for not checking up on others and seeing that they were doing what is NOW the sensible thing of turning off auto-update instead of doing what WAS the sensible thing up until a couple of months ago of having auto-update enabled.
But what infuriates me most of all is the way it's been rolled out.
Today I'm home four hours late due to having to rollback a machine with difficult physical access. The accounting software on it does not run in win10 yet so no payroll processing for the people using it if it had stayed on Win10. All hands on deck including the *nix folks. The problem - it had automatic updates turned on - the sensible choice that we've been telling MS users to make to avoid sliding deeper into the malware swamp. That is now permission enough for MS to force Win10 on people who are not ready for it. Other one last week - it broke VPN software (as it should since different network drivers but the user wasn't to know that) and a pile of inhouse dotnet applications. I've got no idea what was wrong with those dotnet applications but with the developer away the user had little choice but to roll back. Once again it was having automatic updates turned on that was seen as permission enough for Win10. Very bad move MS. There's going to be a deeper malware swamp based on unpatched Win7 and Win8 machines since people are going to be turning off updates in droves and not migrating to Win10 when their applications are ready to run on Win10
does seem to indicate that they may know more about the topic than you are led to believe.
You do not have to get down to the three digit slashdot IDs to find people who have been coding longer than Lennart. These are newbie mistakes, not "moving in mysterious ways, but very obvious newbie mistakes. That they are still making them a decade into the project is a real worry.
It appears that in some industries workplace health and safety documentation policies are exactly that kind of stupid. Why I have no idea, but so many tedious artificial emergencies have cropped up from people losing access to their stuff due to insanely deep nesting with even more insane long filenames. The really hilarious (after the things have been recovered) side of it is being able to write stuff with a long path but not being able to read it back later. "I've got a meeting in five minutes and I've copied the files so deep that the sun doesn't shine on them" proves the wisdom of having the files on a fileserver under adult supervison of an OS that can actually get to them. Good to see that problem is going to go away.
It's about time they did away with that limit. It's sort of rare, but you can occasionally run into path limits, especially with deeply nested computer-generated filenames, etc.
For some reason I keep on running into it with Workplace Health and Safety people who like to set policies of incredibly long directory names and filenames with punctuation in them - plus very deep nesting while repeating part of the name of the directory above. Having a *nix fileserver I can rename things for them when they fuck up and a copy will not work but they keep on doing it despite years of advice not to. It snowballs as the copy stuff from the fairly shallow nesting of their laptops or whatever into deep in the final repository and they find that yet again the path is way too long. As ridiculous as this sort of thing but more tedious: Minutes of Meeting on the topic of some_long_topic_here, Friday September 23rd\Joe Bloggs & Fred Nurk on the topic of some_long_topic_here\MSDS submitted by Joe Bloggs & Fred Nurk on the topic of some_long_topic_here Friday September 23rd\MSDS-0000094 Soap on a rope, washing for the use of.PDF
That sort of thing which just looks idiotic given the constraints of the system.
No - massive breakage due to a major policy change that they just do not appear to be aware of. Definitely below the level of understanding of the average sysadmin. I've got no idea why you decided to get personal and attack me, but go ahead if you like and call me below average if that helps with anger issues since this is far worse than that.
It's a newbie mistake.
Background processes were in something like chapter 3 of an old introduction to bourne, ksh and csh book and early on in everything about *nix shells ever since.
Are you really paying so little attention to the world around you that I have to answer that? If you don't trust your country even that much then flee, because your life depends on living in a trustworthy country.
name a single currency backed by anything that isn't blind faith in the issuer
That is kind of the entire point. A currency is based on trust that the issuer can keep promises (and if they don't you know where they live). An unbacked currency has nobody to keep a promise.
With respect, if this example wasn't enough to show that SystemD is held together by the equivalent of duct tape then there are plenty more. It's rushed, is a fast changing moving target and has not yet got to the point where it can compare well to similar systems that preceded it. I have to disagree with the speed claims at this point and you may have noticed that the developers that initially claimed they would have vast speed improvements have become very quiet on that front. It turned out not to be as easy as they thought when they actually got around to doing it.
they will make sure their stuff works with systemd
No they will do what they have always done and specify an older platform that works.
Not familiar with
From your comments you do not appear to be very familiar with the *nix platform at all - your terminology of "service" seems to indicate a MS background so I suppose that makes sense. Please learn some of the subject matter before delivering such a stream of "corrections" and ignorant lectures in the future. The X lie was especially hilarious as if all you know about X is from reading what Wayland fanboys who have never run either X or Wayland have spouted in ignorance.
X's network transparency have basically been broken for many years for anything complex
If you mean the current gnome that was deliberate on the part of the gtk+ developers since they decided it was not important and to rely on hardware acceleration instead of writing something that would work properly without hardware acceleration. If you mean otherwise you are lying.
If you don't want me to answer your often rather unsavory personal attacks
Pointing out your attempts to pick fights is addressing your actions and is not a personal attack.
that will create a new scope and anything executed from that scope will remain in it
Something handed over to a thing like torque/openpbs or other scheduling systems will obviously not remain in the scope - as would many other things. Closed source workstation software frequently has many parts and it is impractical to write little wrapper scripts around each portion that is called in a non-trivial way.
The old init systems are creaking under the weight of many patches, scripts and hacks
That was the propaganda but the reality can be seen in those distros and operating systems that do not use SystemD and are not "creaking". SystemD is nothing but a "grand unification" project where a single group is trying to take over all of those patches, scripts and hacks, but since they are new at it and don't seem to fully understand what they are working on there are teething problems. Notice how the initial promises about "speed" quietly went away?
So please name me just one example of breakage or non-contrived stuff that are no longer possible to do with the new systemd settings?
Closed source workstation software. The user can't modify the process launch and put "systemd-run" in front of things and when they close the GUI launcher they still expect their stuff to run for hours or days instead of being killed off by a pointless major policy change.
RedHat should kill this with fire since it's a direct threat to the RHEL market.
What is a solid reason then which justifies breaking a lot of stuff and confusing users? We think there are no solid reasons because we are not aware of any of them. Instead of empty excuses how about some of those solid reasons? Are there any?
Slashdot Mirror
Both? I've got someone on WinXP that is running last year's MS Office with no trouble.
Yes, 32 bit artificial MS memory ceiling for the non-server range (4 cores would allow 16GB on 32 bit Win2k even in PAE didn't exist in the Pentium two onwards), so not useful for anyone that goes near even cropping photos, but some funky little CD labelling and so-on tools just do not work in anything beyond WinXP.
Since the stuff the user is used to can't work on a new platform and the new stuff the user wants to use still works on the old platform there is little reason to upgrade.
The "security" argument assumes using Internet Explorer or even doing stuff on the net other than the mundane in the first place. Apparently iPads or whatever are for that with people who take work/life balance more seriously than most of us here.
It's as if they are going out of their way to be deliberately dishonest for nothing more than laughs.
If you have Windows 7 set to auto-update it installs Win10. Today it did it in the middle of a contractor remoting in to upgrade an accounting package and of course fucked up the database as well as adding a couple of hours to let Win10 install and then roll it back to Win7 (yes, MS server exists, but why use MS server for a low usage toy database when even XP could do it?). On the positive side it was a good way to stress test database backups and see if restores work, and the contractor didn't take as long to do the new tasks a second time.
Yes, my fault for not checking up on others and seeing that they were doing what is NOW the sensible thing of turning off auto-update instead of doing what WAS the sensible thing up until a couple of months ago of having auto-update enabled.
Today I'm home four hours late due to having to rollback a machine with difficult physical access. The accounting software on it does not run in win10 yet so no payroll processing for the people using it if it had stayed on Win10. All hands on deck including the *nix folks.
The problem - it had automatic updates turned on - the sensible choice that we've been telling MS users to make to avoid sliding deeper into the malware swamp. That is now permission enough for MS to force Win10 on people who are not ready for it.
Other one last week - it broke VPN software (as it should since different network drivers but the user wasn't to know that) and a pile of inhouse dotnet applications. I've got no idea what was wrong with those dotnet applications but with the developer away the user had little choice but to roll back. Once again it was having automatic updates turned on that was seen as permission enough for Win10.
Very bad move MS.
There's going to be a deeper malware swamp based on unpatched Win7 and Win8 machines since people are going to be turning off updates in droves and not migrating to Win10 when their applications are ready to run on Win10
You do not have to get down to the three digit slashdot IDs to find people who have been coding longer than Lennart.
These are newbie mistakes, not "moving in mysterious ways, but very obvious newbie mistakes. That they are still making them a decade into the project is a real worry.
It appears that in some industries workplace health and safety documentation policies are exactly that kind of stupid. Why I have no idea, but so many tedious artificial emergencies have cropped up from people losing access to their stuff due to insanely deep nesting with even more insane long filenames.
The really hilarious (after the things have been recovered) side of it is being able to write stuff with a long path but not being able to read it back later.
"I've got a meeting in five minutes and I've copied the files so deep that the sun doesn't shine on them" proves the wisdom of having the files on a fileserver under adult supervison of an OS that can actually get to them.
Good to see that problem is going to go away.
For some reason I keep on running into it with Workplace Health and Safety people who like to set policies of incredibly long directory names and filenames with punctuation in them - plus very deep nesting while repeating part of the name of the directory above. Having a *nix fileserver I can rename things for them when they fuck up and a copy will not work but they keep on doing it despite years of advice not to. It snowballs as the copy stuff from the fairly shallow nesting of their laptops or whatever into deep in the final repository and they find that yet again the path is way too long.
As ridiculous as this sort of thing but more tedious:
Minutes of Meeting on the topic of some_long_topic_here, Friday September 23rd\Joe Bloggs & Fred Nurk on the topic of some_long_topic_here\MSDS submitted by Joe Bloggs & Fred Nurk on the topic of some_long_topic_here Friday September 23rd\MSDS-0000094 Soap on a rope, washing for the use of.PDF
That sort of thing which just looks idiotic given the constraints of the system.
No - massive breakage due to a major policy change that they just do not appear to be aware of. Definitely below the level of understanding of the average sysadmin. I've got no idea why you decided to get personal and attack me, but go ahead if you like and call me below average if that helps with anger issues since this is far worse than that.
It's a newbie mistake.
Background processes were in something like chapter 3 of an old introduction to bourne, ksh and csh book and early on in everything about *nix shells ever since.
Don't have to believe, can see it in action.
Are you really paying so little attention to the world around you that I have to answer that? If you don't trust your country even that much then flee, because your life depends on living in a trustworthy country.
That is kind of the entire point. A currency is based on trust that the issuer can keep promises (and if they don't you know where they live). An unbacked currency has nobody to keep a promise.
With respect, if this example wasn't enough to show that SystemD is held together by the equivalent of duct tape then there are plenty more.
It's rushed, is a fast changing moving target and has not yet got to the point where it can compare well to similar systems that preceded it. I have to disagree with the speed claims at this point and you may have noticed that the developers that initially claimed they would have vast speed improvements have become very quiet on that front. It turned out not to be as easy as they thought when they actually got around to doing it.
No they will do what they have always done and specify an older platform that works.
From your comments you do not appear to be very familiar with the *nix platform at all - your terminology of "service" seems to indicate a MS background so I suppose that makes sense. Please learn some of the subject matter before delivering such a stream of "corrections" and ignorant lectures in the future.
The X lie was especially hilarious as if all you know about X is from reading what Wayland fanboys who have never run either X or Wayland have spouted in ignorance.
If you mean the current gnome that was deliberate on the part of the gtk+ developers since they decided it was not important and to rely on hardware acceleration instead of writing something that would work properly without hardware acceleration. If you mean otherwise you are lying.
Pointing out your attempts to pick fights is addressing your actions and is not a personal attack.
Definitely trolling. What an utterly useless waste of space you are.
Something handed over to a thing like torque/openpbs or other scheduling systems will obviously not remain in the scope - as would many other things.
Closed source workstation software frequently has many parts and it is impractical to write little wrapper scripts around each portion that is called in a non-trivial way.
The pathetic little troll appears to have no idea that running applications remotely via X instead of MS Windows RDP is a thing.
Peter H.S. - why are you wasting all the time of all these people with your nonsense and deliberate antagonism?
That was the propaganda but the reality can be seen in those distros and operating systems that do not use SystemD and are not "creaking". SystemD is nothing but a "grand unification" project where a single group is trying to take over all of those patches, scripts and hacks, but since they are new at it and don't seem to fully understand what they are working on there are teething problems.
Notice how the initial promises about "speed" quietly went away?
You see guys - they just don't get multi-user and cannot even dream that a second user may want to use something like screen as well.
That stupid single user MSDOS mentality was obsolete before MSDOS even started and should be kept out of modern systems.
I'm truly convinced now - definitely trolling and having a laugh at all these geeky linux folk. Scum.
Guys I think this Peter H.S. is deliberately trolling and is writing this ridiculous stuff just to get people angry.
Closed source workstation software. The user can't modify the process launch and put "systemd-run" in front of things and when they close the GUI launcher they still expect their stuff to run for hours or days instead of being killed off by a pointless major policy change.
RedHat should kill this with fire since it's a direct threat to the RHEL market.
What is a solid reason then which justifies breaking a lot of stuff and confusing users?
We think there are no solid reasons because we are not aware of any of them.
Instead of empty excuses how about some of those solid reasons? Are there any?
No problem - just change the way we do things to the way Lennart decided to do things this month?
Sounds like a problem to me.
Different systems. You don't need alsa with pulseaudio and vice-versa, but most distros come with both since they both have weaknesses.