I can't speak for them, however in our use cases we use initd to control server processes where we want control over the application latency, generally using CPU isolation and affinity. We built a test lab to understand how systemd would interact with our application and so we could learn it well ahead of our clients attempting deployment. This is a quality mindset used in ISO environments that prevents downtime.
For some inexplicable reason a lot of people seem to think that if you want to use initd you don't know anything about systemd which I find to be a poor understanding of the sheer variety of use cases and perhaps a little condescending.
My reasoning for using initd is specific and based on our test cases. Some of those reasons (off the top of my head) initd isn't a large monolithic process that generates a lot of software interrupts, we don't want a process manager to manage an event system we don't need, unit files are soft replacement for not knowing how to shell script properly, journalctl and binary logging poses a threat to uptime and timely root cause analysis, initd doesn't presume a large base of (potentially redundant) knowledge of the properties required to control it.
Sure there are some good points about systemd and some valid criticisms of initd (particularly the way the rc scripts are used) however all that speaks to is that it is initd needs a matching event management system that controls and is controlled by initd. systemd tries to be that and a process management system.
I have the defaults on EL7 and Debian 8 and all I notice is the VM's come up much faster and with fewer race conditions than under previous inits.
That's great, however systemd has no effect on application processes that take time to start. These are easily parallelizable by using initd's existing inittab file so it doesn't impact boot.
This in practical terms means the difference between going home and doing an all nighter.
The existing anti-terrorism laws didn't work so we need more of the same shit, even if this guy is a loopy mass murderer and has nothing to do with terrorism.
How convenient that governments can use their own incompetence to increase their power.
Under capitalism, everyone who works for someone else is a sucker..
Interesting you should say that. The original premise of forming the Republican party was (IIRC) because they were being forced off their farms to work for industry, instead of selling the product of their labour. This was called selling self in pursuit of wealth and the view was more brutal: everyone who works for someone else is one step above being a slave.
Considering that "Vattenfall" is Swedish/Norwegian for "water fall"...
Vattenfall created an assessment of the energy return of the nuclear industry which painted a much rosier picture of how much CO2 it produces. It was de-bunked and critcised however that didn't stop the IPCC from using the Vattenfall paper to justify using nuclear power as a valid "renewable" source of energy.
There are actually papers that suggest nuclear power produces more CO2 than coal if you take mining, refining and enriching and transportation into account... never checked them though.
This might be the paper you are thinking off as I have look for a similar work and am yet to find one. Vattenfall had one, sort of. These nutty nukkers like to take the simplest explanation that is wrong.
And they send you SMS messages. The best way to describe it is *FUCKING ANNOYING*. You listen to you messages and then you hear some shit "Did you know that such and such is a dick and therefore has no business in politics: Vote Asshole - We're full of shit".
I did the best I could to familiarize myself with the VM controls so I could delete those messages immediately without listening to them. The worst this is you can't leave a message for them telling them to fuck off.
It could also be an gigantic orbital doughnut maker using the star to heat the pig fat. We don't know but it's fun to make up some explanations.
We do know for sure that doughnuts are cooked in pig fat though.
I mean, technically, that would fall into giant alien structure so it's already covered by the article.
Why would aliens waste there time building a gigantic doughnut maker WITHOUT AN ORBITAL ICING MACHINE. It just doesn't make any sense that intelligent alien life would overlook such a thing.
As a long time Windows user I'm glad to find someone in the Linux community who takes security as seriously as my grandmother. I mean I know the Linux community is all for the "open" thing, but I didn't realise that meant open access to their computers.
I worked with your grandmother in doing an ISO27000 implementation for a large bank. She was really good at uncovering exploits and writing firewall rules. Your grandmother is a l33t computor h@x0r, you should really show her more respect*. If she is helping you with the security on your windows machine you are in good hands.;)
* This post in no way construes a dissing of your grandmother
Which I did and the page you cite has no supporting data that references to the energy consumption for mining, variability for hard or soft ores, efficiency of extraction and yield.
Additionally the, now defunct, Vatenfall work used exactly the same methods to estimate industrial energy expenditure in support of the nuclear industry. Even when you use their numbers, mining consumes up to a third of the lifetime energy output of an AP1000 reactor.
Per GWh, even if solar costs about as much as nuclear, solar doesn't need crazy high safety requirements.
It aint cheap, but you nukkers are proposing...... nuclear. And arguably, nuclear could be cheapened a bit if radionuclides didn't have a mutagenic effect on human beings.
I don't know. I can only guess that for the few years they were planning one type of deployment (FTTP) with the vision that they were designing a network to last. When the entire board was replaced to suit the whims of their new political masters the people re-designing the network just didn't give a fuck anymore, their vision for a future proofed network based on fibre everywhere was over.
There was a chance to break Telstra's monopoly over telecommunications and instead the political fuckwits ended up pouring billions into Telstras shareholders pockets for the fibre and rotting copper that was already sitting in the ground, so it could be a case of legacy infrastructure. Now Telstra get to shrug and say to their customers 'Don't blame us, it's the crap NBN network' and yes, a lot of Australians are *that* stupid.
Now instead of having two independent networks, we have one large failing, increasingly obsolete shit network. Very frustrating.
People like to ignore what they cannot fix, instead to learn how to fix it. And then they try to convince others that ignoring it is the right strategy in order to get emotional confirmation.
I couldn't help laughing when I read this as it is so often my experience, especially when people know what you do with technology and they still try to rope you into their illusions so they have a tacit appeal to authority. I gave up trying to help people and just shrugged and let people have their comfort now at the expense of some future disaster that I won't get involved in.
Unfortunately, IT is not a proper engineering field today and many people working in it do not qualify as engineers from their mind-set and skills. I also support giving engineering degrees to people that can prove good skill and understanding what it means to be an engineer in their field, with some additional qualification required if needed.
I started very young and just loved electronics and coding. So I think I was in that category for a good portion of my career until I decided I wanted to understand what I was missing. So I formalised my career with a masters (in software design). What I found is that I had the right mindset, I wanted to do things properly, however I lacked some of the tools to get there. That's what formal qualifications did for me.
They even argue that "programming" is not an engineering activity (it is using technology to build technological artifacts, so how can not be engineering?) and that leads to a lot of really bad coders, designers and architects.
Note that formal qualification is just one way to get that mind-set, and not an absolutely reliable one.
Ironically, now I have the qualifications, I feel less qualified than ever to refer to myself as an engineer, even though my colleagues do. I prefer referring to myself a designer because it seems more honest to say that my efforts are somewhat incomplete.
That is what it means to be an engineer: People can depend on the quality of your work, sometimes with their lives. When we have reached that state in software-engineering (and we will have to reach it, or everything will go to hell), then we will be a mature engineering discipline.
I think you're right. It seems to me that the discipline itself is still maturing and that this has an effect on the people who are drawn to it.
There is art in code, which when tempered into a discipline, functions to create order from chaos. In that process comes the discovery of the types of standardised algorithms that exist in a field of knowledge and that software development isn't software engineering (yet) because the discipline itself is still evolving and we haven't discovered all of the standarised algorithms(yet).
Inevitably, how this dictates the type of people that get into computing is it currently attracts people comfortable with high levels of uncertainty, something engineers are not. My brother is as Nuclear Physicist, he likes to joke that for him, point A and point B are enough to define a straight line, but an engineer needs more data.
This is where you can say it was the libtards fault because that they locked the country into ongoing expensive infrastructure costs.
Assuming a fully loaded 384 port NBN node is to be upgraded from FTTN to FTTP, with 4 fibres already allocated to the FTTN DSLAM for connectivity back to the Fibre Access Node, 8 fibres are remaining to potentially deliver fibre services all the way to the customer’s premises.
However, the 8 fibres will only be capable of delivering GPON services (the FTTP technology that the NBN currently uses) to a maximum of 256 premises (each fibre can be split into 32 premises, 8 × 32 = 256).
Without causing massive disruption to all customers connected to the current node, it may not be possible to transition to FTTP on high-capacity nodes other than by rolling out the network from scratch again.
This means that even if nbn decides to upgrade the network, they will likely continue using copper-based technologies for the years ahead to avoid large capital costs again. Even if you consider that continuing with copper will cost 1Billion in electricity costs *alone* to run the crapper copper network over the next ten years.
Of course let us all forget that copper is unreliable in flood (because the capacitance of wet ground means it need more current to move data) and in fire in a country that is flood and bushfire prone. The stupid hurts me so much.
True that, which probably increases the amount of ransomware we will see in the future. It would seem the sensitive little snowflakes that can't face reality would rather call that a troll than 'calling it as it is seen'.
Slashdot Mirror
What are these server admins doing?
I can't speak for them, however in our use cases we use initd to control server processes where we want control over the application latency, generally using CPU isolation and affinity. We built a test lab to understand how systemd would interact with our application and so we could learn it well ahead of our clients attempting deployment. This is a quality mindset used in ISO environments that prevents downtime.
For some inexplicable reason a lot of people seem to think that if you want to use initd you don't know anything about systemd which I find to be a poor understanding of the sheer variety of use cases and perhaps a little condescending.
My reasoning for using initd is specific and based on our test cases. Some of those reasons (off the top of my head) initd isn't a large monolithic process that generates a lot of software interrupts, we don't want a process manager to manage an event system we don't need, unit files are soft replacement for not knowing how to shell script properly, journalctl and binary logging poses a threat to uptime and timely root cause analysis, initd doesn't presume a large base of (potentially redundant) knowledge of the properties required to control it.
Sure there are some good points about systemd and some valid criticisms of initd (particularly the way the rc scripts are used) however all that speaks to is that it is initd needs a matching event management system that controls and is controlled by initd. systemd tries to be that and a process management system.
I have the defaults on EL7 and Debian 8 and all I notice is the VM's come up much faster and with fewer race conditions than under previous inits.
That's great, however systemd has no effect on application processes that take time to start. These are easily parallelizable by using initd's existing inittab file so it doesn't impact boot.
This in practical terms means the difference between going home and doing an all nighter.
The existing anti-terrorism laws didn't work so we need more of the same shit, even if this guy is a loopy mass murderer and has nothing to do with terrorism.
How convenient that governments can use their own incompetence to increase their power.
Wish the ACM was as good as the AMA at protecting the privileges of programmers
*Drops mic*
Under capitalism, everyone who works for someone else is a sucker..
Interesting you should say that. The original premise of forming the Republican party was (IIRC) because they were being forced off their farms to work for industry, instead of selling the product of their labour. This was called selling self in pursuit of wealth and the view was more brutal: everyone who works for someone else is one step above being a slave.
Considering that "Vattenfall" is Swedish/Norwegian for "water fall" ...
Vattenfall created an assessment of the energy return of the nuclear industry which painted a much rosier picture of how much CO2 it produces. It was de-bunked and critcised however that didn't stop the IPCC from using the Vattenfall paper to justify using nuclear power as a valid "renewable" source of energy.
There are actually papers that suggest nuclear power produces more CO2 than coal if you take mining, refining and enriching and transportation into account ... never checked them though.
This might be the paper you are thinking off as I have look for a similar work and am yet to find one. Vattenfall had one, sort of. These nutty nukkers like to take the simplest explanation that is wrong.
And they send you SMS messages. The best way to describe it is *FUCKING ANNOYING*. You listen to you messages and then you hear some shit "Did you know that such and such is a dick and therefore has no business in politics: Vote Asshole - We're full of shit".
I did the best I could to familiarize myself with the VM controls so I could delete those messages immediately without listening to them. The worst this is you can't leave a message for them telling them to fuck off.
Yeah, it's *that* annoying.
I'm picturing a giant dimmer switch and an alien of some sort saying "Watch what they do when I do this ..."
I was wrong. It's an alien projector, and we're the movie that better not suck.
It could also be an gigantic orbital doughnut maker using the star to heat the pig fat. We don't know but it's fun to make up some explanations.
We do know for sure that doughnuts are cooked in pig fat though.
I mean, technically, that would fall into giant alien structure so it's already covered by the article.
Why would aliens waste there time building a gigantic doughnut maker WITHOUT AN ORBITAL ICING MACHINE. It just doesn't make any sense that intelligent alien life would overlook such a thing.
It could also be an gigantic orbital doughnut maker using the star to heat the pig fat. We don't know but it's fun to make up some explanations.
We do know for sure that doughnuts are cooked in pig fat though.
Something new that we've never seen before, again.
Account's should not have decisions in making movies, erh, franchises.
As a long time Windows user I'm glad to find someone in the Linux community who takes security as seriously as my grandmother. I mean I know the Linux community is all for the "open" thing, but I didn't realise that meant open access to their computers.
I worked with your grandmother in doing an ISO27000 implementation for a large bank. She was really good at uncovering exploits and writing firewall rules. Your grandmother is a l33t computor h@x0r, you should really show her more respect*. If she is helping you with the security on your windows machine you are in good hands. ;)
* This post in no way construes a dissing of your grandmother
That's some great info - thanks.
The author of that study, Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen, is a known anti-nuclear figurehead.
You are welcome to provide an equivalent work.
The study you cite has been widely panned by scientists,
Whose critiques are addressed in the work
as can be seen with even just a cursory look at Wikipedia.
Which I did and the page you cite has no supporting data that references to the energy consumption for mining, variability for hard or soft ores, efficiency of extraction and yield.
Additionally the, now defunct, Vatenfall work used exactly the same methods to estimate industrial energy expenditure in support of the nuclear industry. Even when you use their numbers, mining consumes up to a third of the lifetime energy output of an AP1000 reactor.
Per GWh, even if solar costs about as much as nuclear, solar doesn't need crazy high safety requirements.
It aint cheap, but you nukkers are proposing...... nuclear. And arguably, nuclear could be cheapened a bit if radionuclides didn't have a mutagenic effect on human beings.
FTFY
As a long time Linux user, I just realized I don't know or care what Linux kernel I am using.
Saint Vattenfall
That's how the IPCC sees them too.
Personally, I have wanted current reactors shut down for a long time to be replaced by new, modern ones.
Just out of curiosity, which ones did you have in mind for replacing them?
Reading that broke the part of my brain that deals with language comprehension.
Here is a peer reviewed study on the net energy return of Nuclear Power. Let's just say the outcome isn't positive.
Watch RT: Where we tell you what your state run news won't.
Why so few ONUs?
I don't know. I can only guess that for the few years they were planning one type of deployment (FTTP) with the vision that they were designing a network to last. When the entire board was replaced to suit the whims of their new political masters the people re-designing the network just didn't give a fuck anymore, their vision for a future proofed network based on fibre everywhere was over.
There was a chance to break Telstra's monopoly over telecommunications and instead the political fuckwits ended up pouring billions into Telstras shareholders pockets for the fibre and rotting copper that was already sitting in the ground, so it could be a case of legacy infrastructure. Now Telstra get to shrug and say to their customers 'Don't blame us, it's the crap NBN network' and yes, a lot of Australians are *that* stupid.
Now instead of having two independent networks, we have one large failing, increasingly obsolete shit network. Very frustrating.
People like to ignore what they cannot fix, instead to learn how to fix it. And then they try to convince others that ignoring it is the right strategy in order to get emotional confirmation.
I couldn't help laughing when I read this as it is so often my experience, especially when people know what you do with technology and they still try to rope you into their illusions so they have a tacit appeal to authority. I gave up trying to help people and just shrugged and let people have their comfort now at the expense of some future disaster that I won't get involved in.
Unfortunately, IT is not a proper engineering field today and many people working in it do not qualify as engineers from their mind-set and skills. I also support giving engineering degrees to people that can prove good skill and understanding what it means to be an engineer in their field, with some additional qualification required if needed.
I started very young and just loved electronics and coding. So I think I was in that category for a good portion of my career until I decided I wanted to understand what I was missing. So I formalised my career with a masters (in software design). What I found is that I had the right mindset, I wanted to do things properly, however I lacked some of the tools to get there. That's what formal qualifications did for me.
They even argue that "programming" is not an engineering activity (it is using technology to build technological artifacts, so how can not be engineering?) and that leads to a lot of really bad coders, designers and architects.
Note that formal qualification is just one way to get that mind-set, and not an absolutely reliable one.
Ironically, now I have the qualifications, I feel less qualified than ever to refer to myself as an engineer, even though my colleagues do. I prefer referring to myself a designer because it seems more honest to say that my efforts are somewhat incomplete.
That is what it means to be an engineer: People can depend on the quality of your work, sometimes with their lives. When we have reached that state in software-engineering (and we will have to reach it, or everything will go to hell), then we will be a mature engineering discipline.
I think you're right. It seems to me that the discipline itself is still maturing and that this has an effect on the people who are drawn to it.
There is art in code, which when tempered into a discipline, functions to create order from chaos. In that process comes the discovery of the types of standardised algorithms that exist in a field of knowledge and that software development isn't software engineering (yet) because the discipline itself is still evolving and we haven't discovered all of the standarised algorithms(yet).
Inevitably, how this dictates the type of people that get into computing is it currently attracts people comfortable with high levels of uncertainty, something engineers are not. My brother is as Nuclear Physicist, he likes to joke that for him, point A and point B are enough to define a straight line, but an engineer needs more data.
This is where you can say it was the libtards fault because that they locked the country into ongoing expensive infrastructure costs.
Assuming a fully loaded 384 port NBN node is to be upgraded from FTTN to FTTP, with 4 fibres already allocated to the FTTN DSLAM for connectivity back to the Fibre Access Node, 8 fibres are remaining to potentially deliver fibre services all the way to the customer’s premises.
However, the 8 fibres will only be capable of delivering GPON services (the FTTP technology that the NBN currently uses) to a maximum of 256 premises (each fibre can be split into 32 premises, 8 × 32 = 256).
Without causing massive disruption to all customers connected to the current node, it may not be possible to transition to FTTP on high-capacity nodes other than by rolling out the network from scratch again.
This means that even if nbn decides to upgrade the network, they will likely continue using copper-based technologies for the years ahead to avoid large capital costs again. Even if you consider that continuing with copper will cost 1Billion in electricity costs *alone* to run the crapper copper network over the next ten years.
Of course let us all forget that copper is unreliable in flood (because the capacitance of wet ground means it need more current to move data) and in fire in a country that is flood and bushfire prone. The stupid hurts me so much.
This video explains why political correctness got Australian voters the network they deserved.
True that, which probably increases the amount of ransomware we will see in the future. It would seem the sensitive little snowflakes that can't face reality would rather call that a troll than 'calling it as it is seen'.