Perhaps they are obvious to a System Administrator but to someone who is not an admin, everything in SMART probably looks like an error. In addition to that, the article describes common errors that sound indicative of a drive failure but are actually relatively benign. So there is definitely value in this information.
As someone who is suspicious of a couple of hard drives, this data will help me to determine just how concerned I should be. I don't know what Backblaze gets out of making this information public (except publicity), but it is refreshing to a company release information such as this rather than guard it as a trade secret or sell it.
Please speak for yourself. We developers are often horrible at recognizing what users want, but we are often excellent at recognizing poorly engineered software and systemd reeks of poor engineering. I'm all for tighter integration of components in the operating system so long as they make sense, but systemd tightly couples all kinds of components that should be optional and, in general, pisses all over basic engineering principles such as KISS. I started out very neutral in the systemd debate, but the more I learn about how it is implemented, the more I understand why there are so many people who vehemently oppose it.
The real use of this software is so that companies can monitor the likelihood of a departure of their critical employees as they slowly cut benefits and stagnate wages across the board.
FFS, we've been over this a thousand times. No one is suggesting that Net Neutrality does away with ISPs performing QoS. Net Neutrality just means that ISPs can't prioritize traffic for their services of video/VOIP/etc over competing video/VOIP/etc. It's one of the few problems that has a relatively easy solution and the only reason we haven't implemented it is because there are enough special interest groups with enough power and money to make sure that they're not forced to play fairly with their customers' traffic.
I have heard people make these claims, but I was not at a maturity level to determine whether or not they were exaggerated at the time Apple released their first PCs. I do know that the GUI was largely invented by Xerox PARC but they failed to capitalize on it while Apple recognized the opportunity and seized it. However, while Apple may have had decent success with the PC in its time, I think Windows 95 was the first OS that really brought the modern GUI-driven PC into the vast majority of homes. And I say that as an vehement critic of Microsoft.
Steve Jobs revolutionized personal music players and smartphones. Elon Musk is revolutionizing energy production, battery technology, ground-based transportation, and space transportation. His goals are way more ambitious than any of the goals of Steve Jobs. And even though he has only achieved wide-scale success on one of those goals so far, producing a car that is safe, efficient, luxurious, and fast is much more difficult than doing the same for a phone. In that regard, Elon Musk has already surpassed Steve Jobs and he's only getting started.
This will likely make life even easier for law enforcement as they can easily get the owner's fingerprints to unlock the device as opposed to a password which requires cooperation from the suspect (or a back door or password cracker).
It would only be "Planned Obsolescence" if the user was forced to install an iOS Upgrade. But they aren't; so it isn't.
App developers can be pretty quick to drop support for older versions of iOS. So while you are correct, you'll eventually have to bite the bullet and upgrade once you're not able to get any more apps. At least that was my experience. I held off upgrading until I wiped the phone to trade it for a non-Apple phone. When I flashed to the latest version of iOS before the trade-in, the phone became so laggy that it was nearly unusable. And that was with no apps installed as I had wiped it clean of apps and data.
Much of the systemd debacle has been a clash of mindsets between the old Unix guard and a newer generation of developers focused on integration. The old Unix philosophy of each module doing one thing and doing it well allows developers to take a bottom-up approach and glue existing modules together to provide solutions rapidly. However, as Linus alludes, this method doesn't scale well, especially as many modules are cobbled together to implement much more complicated tasks. At a certain point, a top-down approach works a lot better for those larger tasks. The top-down approach provides a more user-centric look at how to create a well-integrated solution and may use existing modules just as would be the case in the bottom-up approach. Since it is more focused on the user's perspective (rather than the developer's perspective), it tends to realize shortcomings in existing modules earlier and therefore may lead the developers to make the decision to write some of their own modules rather than mostly relying on extending modules well-beyond their intended purposes.
Systemd takes a top-down approach, and while some may argue that it's design leaves a lot to be desired, that doesn't mean that a bottom-up approach is automatically better. Based on the dependency tree, this appears to be a project that started out with few requirements and quickly grew after it was deep in the implementation phase, which is a problem regardless of either development approach. And then you have just bone-headed moves on top of that such as using binary logging. In any event, it's being widely adopted, it's here to stay, and I'm sure it will continue to remain controversial.
Not necessarily. Someone who only downloads small, cheap apps would want to download them immediately over their cellular connection and would not expect to have relatively large downloads forced upon them.
Running this version of Chrome requires that I install a new OS which means that I need to back up all of my application settings spread out across the entire system, install the new OS, and then try to put all of the pieces together again. And that's if the new OS supports my old hardware. So it's not as easy as you make it out to be unless you're willing to pay for my new hardware.
You beat me to it. Since most of the cable companies are also ISPs, they have full motive to throttle the connections of any threatening content providers into oblivion. After all, every minute spent watching content from another provider is a minute not consuming the cable company's channels or their ad-laden video-on-demand. And since we have no net neutrality laws, there is no legal reason for them not to throttle competing content providers. With the current situation, if you want to be a major content provider in the U.S., then you had better be prepared to roll out your own nationwide fiber optic network.
Then you would be removing an option for people who are victims to tell their stories anonymously. The current system appears to be working - all of the anonymous trolls are being modded down to oblivion and rational posts are being modded up.
That is how the technology will start but as it improves, it will surpass humans. For example, we already have numerous systems to assist drivers: blind spot warnings, lane stability control, and front-end collision detection. Most of these systems have been around for several years and over time they will be refined to the point that they're better at detecting danger and reacting than humans. For the time being, I'm with you in that I wouldn't trust a vehicle to take control away from me, but we're rapidly reaching a point where we will have to admit that the technology is better than we are. But we're going to need to test the hell out of these systems to be sure that they're reliable and secure.
You either failed to read TFS or you simply glossed over the most important detail:
NHTSA believes that V2V capability will not develop absent regulation, because there would not be any immediate safety benefits for consumers who are early adopters of V2V
The point is that given the current situation, there won't be any standard because there is no motivation for car manufacturers to develop such a system since there would initially be so few cars that could communicate with each other in the first place. Even if you got past that barrier, it would require the independent cooperation of competing car companies to implement in order to build a feasible system. Worse yet, if you did manage to get companies to voluntarily cooperate, their cooperation could easily turn to collusion as they could lock out smaller car manufacturers from participating in the creation of the standard or they could develop a closed standard altogether.
No, this is the precise situation that government should be getting involved in. The current situation has little to no financial incentive to motivate the private sector to implement, so making it mandatory and letting them participate heavily in the creation of the standard is the next best option.
I think your tin foil helmet is on too tight and is cutting off the circulation to your brain. Normally I would recommend loosening or removing the helmet, but either way I think time will resolve the issue.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps they are obvious to a System Administrator but to someone who is not an admin, everything in SMART probably looks like an error. In addition to that, the article describes common errors that sound indicative of a drive failure but are actually relatively benign. So there is definitely value in this information.
As someone who is suspicious of a couple of hard drives, this data will help me to determine just how concerned I should be. I don't know what Backblaze gets out of making this information public (except publicity), but it is refreshing to a company release information such as this rather than guard it as a trade secret or sell it.
Please speak for yourself. We developers are often horrible at recognizing what users want, but we are often excellent at recognizing poorly engineered software and systemd reeks of poor engineering. I'm all for tighter integration of components in the operating system so long as they make sense, but systemd tightly couples all kinds of components that should be optional and, in general, pisses all over basic engineering principles such as KISS. I started out very neutral in the systemd debate, but the more I learn about how it is implemented, the more I understand why there are so many people who vehemently oppose it.
The real use of this software is so that companies can monitor the likelihood of a departure of their critical employees as they slowly cut benefits and stagnate wages across the board.
FFS, we've been over this a thousand times. No one is suggesting that Net Neutrality does away with ISPs performing QoS. Net Neutrality just means that ISPs can't prioritize traffic for their services of video/VOIP/etc over competing video/VOIP/etc. It's one of the few problems that has a relatively easy solution and the only reason we haven't implemented it is because there are enough special interest groups with enough power and money to make sure that they're not forced to play fairly with their customers' traffic.
Just to expand on your knowledge, all DDL commands autocommit.
They're just making sure that there will be enough memory free on people's machines for when they merge systemd.
Yeah, but is it encrypted?
Or maybe he just has a 2G phone plan.
At least not until the next version of systemd is released.
I have heard people make these claims, but I was not at a maturity level to determine whether or not they were exaggerated at the time Apple released their first PCs. I do know that the GUI was largely invented by Xerox PARC but they failed to capitalize on it while Apple recognized the opportunity and seized it. However, while Apple may have had decent success with the PC in its time, I think Windows 95 was the first OS that really brought the modern GUI-driven PC into the vast majority of homes. And I say that as an vehement critic of Microsoft.
Steve Jobs revolutionized personal music players and smartphones. Elon Musk is revolutionizing energy production, battery technology, ground-based transportation, and space transportation. His goals are way more ambitious than any of the goals of Steve Jobs. And even though he has only achieved wide-scale success on one of those goals so far, producing a car that is safe, efficient, luxurious, and fast is much more difficult than doing the same for a phone. In that regard, Elon Musk has already surpassed Steve Jobs and he's only getting started.
This will likely make life even easier for law enforcement as they can easily get the owner's fingerprints to unlock the device as opposed to a password which requires cooperation from the suspect (or a back door or password cracker).
App developers can be pretty quick to drop support for older versions of iOS. So while you are correct, you'll eventually have to bite the bullet and upgrade once you're not able to get any more apps. At least that was my experience. I held off upgrading until I wiped the phone to trade it for a non-Apple phone. When I flashed to the latest version of iOS before the trade-in, the phone became so laggy that it was nearly unusable. And that was with no apps installed as I had wiped it clean of apps and data.
It's music that can't be heard and Apple figured U2 would be the perfect band to use this new technology.
Much of the systemd debacle has been a clash of mindsets between the old Unix guard and a newer generation of developers focused on integration. The old Unix philosophy of each module doing one thing and doing it well allows developers to take a bottom-up approach and glue existing modules together to provide solutions rapidly. However, as Linus alludes, this method doesn't scale well, especially as many modules are cobbled together to implement much more complicated tasks. At a certain point, a top-down approach works a lot better for those larger tasks. The top-down approach provides a more user-centric look at how to create a well-integrated solution and may use existing modules just as would be the case in the bottom-up approach. Since it is more focused on the user's perspective (rather than the developer's perspective), it tends to realize shortcomings in existing modules earlier and therefore may lead the developers to make the decision to write some of their own modules rather than mostly relying on extending modules well-beyond their intended purposes.
Systemd takes a top-down approach, and while some may argue that it's design leaves a lot to be desired, that doesn't mean that a bottom-up approach is automatically better. Based on the dependency tree, this appears to be a project that started out with few requirements and quickly grew after it was deep in the implementation phase, which is a problem regardless of either development approach. And then you have just bone-headed moves on top of that such as using binary logging. In any event, it's being widely adopted, it's here to stay, and I'm sure it will continue to remain controversial.
Thanks for pointing that out. It sounds like iOS has grown since I've last used it.
Not necessarily. Someone who only downloads small, cheap apps would want to download them immediately over their cellular connection and would not expect to have relatively large downloads forced upon them.
Running this version of Chrome requires that I install a new OS which means that I need to back up all of my application settings spread out across the entire system, install the new OS, and then try to put all of the pieces together again. And that's if the new OS supports my old hardware. So it's not as easy as you make it out to be unless you're willing to pay for my new hardware.
You beat me to it. Since most of the cable companies are also ISPs, they have full motive to throttle the connections of any threatening content providers into oblivion. After all, every minute spent watching content from another provider is a minute not consuming the cable company's channels or their ad-laden video-on-demand. And since we have no net neutrality laws, there is no legal reason for them not to throttle competing content providers. With the current situation, if you want to be a major content provider in the U.S., then you had better be prepared to roll out your own nationwide fiber optic network.
Then you would be removing an option for people who are victims to tell their stories anonymously. The current system appears to be working - all of the anonymous trolls are being modded down to oblivion and rational posts are being modded up.
That is how the technology will start but as it improves, it will surpass humans. For example, we already have numerous systems to assist drivers: blind spot warnings, lane stability control, and front-end collision detection. Most of these systems have been around for several years and over time they will be refined to the point that they're better at detecting danger and reacting than humans. For the time being, I'm with you in that I wouldn't trust a vehicle to take control away from me, but we're rapidly reaching a point where we will have to admit that the technology is better than we are. But we're going to need to test the hell out of these systems to be sure that they're reliable and secure.
I know, right?! It's like the government doesn't even know the first thing about cutting-edge technology.
The point is that given the current situation, there won't be any standard because there is no motivation for car manufacturers to develop such a system since there would initially be so few cars that could communicate with each other in the first place. Even if you got past that barrier, it would require the independent cooperation of competing car companies to implement in order to build a feasible system. Worse yet, if you did manage to get companies to voluntarily cooperate, their cooperation could easily turn to collusion as they could lock out smaller car manufacturers from participating in the creation of the standard or they could develop a closed standard altogether.
No, this is the precise situation that government should be getting involved in. The current situation has little to no financial incentive to motivate the private sector to implement, so making it mandatory and letting them participate heavily in the creation of the standard is the next best option.
I think your tin foil helmet is on too tight and is cutting off the circulation to your brain. Normally I would recommend loosening or removing the helmet, but either way I think time will resolve the issue.