I regularly gift *old* computers to friend, family, neighbors, even folks on Craigslist. I just give them away... They're usually no more than a few years old - if they're going to random strangers on Craigslist. I won't be back home until spring. Whereupon, I'll likely refresh a few boxes. Not to mention, I still have some in their original packaging that never have been used.
IOW, I don't think we'd actually have to/build/ them a PC. They wouldn't even be the first person on Slashdot that I've given hardware. I've not really kept track but I think they might not be one of the first twenty people, specifically from this site, that I've given hardware. I understand that some folks don't have much money, I've been there. But this is Slashdot... I find it disheartening to read about someone who doesn't have something recent for a computer - at least as an option.
One of the oddities is that I actually have a ton of old hardware and still use a lot of it. I am just attached to it, for whatever reason. I've got much faster and newer - I've given away much faster and newer. Not having new hardware, as an option, is sad. Friends, family, and neighbors like it because I refresh a couple of times a year - sometimes more often if I read the damned NewEgg newsletters or see something that catches my eye. I don't store much of anything locally and can just slap a copy of/home on a new box and run with it (most of the time). Even here, I store everything on my servers at home. Hell, I'm currently in a VM, via VNC, that's at home - I'm all way way down in Florida.
Ah well... The local elementary school gets first dibs before I put stuff up at Craigslist. I have found a secret. If I put stuff in the free section, for whatever reasons, people seem to not notice. If I list it at a reasonable price then I get emails pretty quickly. So, I list it at a low price (not too low - they don't respond quickly with that) and then I just email them and let them know that it's actually free but that I listed it at a cost to make sure that it was noticed. So far so good. They all seem happy to find out that they're free. It is a bit dishonest but I really buy too much hardware - it's like a crack addiction.
I've not got much time again today (busy, long story) but it's also important to note the differences between the US law and Australian law.
I am not a lawyer in either jurisdiction and I suspect you can explain this better than I. But, I noticed nobody mentioned this so I scrolled back up.
Hmm... How to communicate with an Aussie, lesson one...
It don't mean bugger all, mate. Them poli cunts can write all the laws they want to. When I get down to the court, down there, it's up to the judge to decide my fate and if he can't be stuffed to enforce it then it sets precedent. It doesn't even need to go to the upper-courts, just a bloke down at the local gets to interpret it.
Now in English...
It's not that important. The politicians can make up any laws they want. However, unlike the US, even a lower-court judge gets to decide how it's enforced or even if it is enforced at all. Once that's done, there's usually a precedent set. There's usually no need for the higher/supreme courts to get involved and they often don't.
I didn't have much time yesterday and I probably won't have much today but... Err... Hmm... I'm not sure if this is a good or a bad thing? I own firearms that no wearable armor is even going to remotely help with. There are light armored vehicles that aren't going to deflect a round. There's no body armor they can even dream up that will stop a round from penetrating - at least not that they've come up with yet.
And, they're perfectly legal. Well, not in California. I'm pretty sure CA has a limit at.49 caliber. 'Cause that extra.01" matters. So, of course, we now have.48 and (I'm pretty sure).49. I do not own any of those calibers except for an old-timey muzzle loader which calipers tell me is.4875 or something like that. It has its own casting equipment, it's kind of old. (Early 1800s I think.)
Anyhow, I have not just one but several.50 caliber firearms - not counting a couple of.50 that are muzzle loaders. Not that I'd ever shoot anyone with 'em or anything. It's just that armor doesn't stop as much as one might think. You can triple layer that armor. That won't even make the armor tumble. A friend of mine works in a shop that assembles (not makes, not any more) Kevlar. We've not actually found any width that stops it - and we've gone all the way up to a full inch of the thick woven stuff. It blasts right on through - from a *very* long ways away.
I like to think I'm a bit of an aficionado and not a nut. I don't expect to use firearms to overthrow my government. I'd probably not shoot an intruder. I'd certainly not shoot a mugger or a thief. I've got insurance. But, I'm the quintessential five year old and like things that go boom. So, no... Hell, I'm not even a trivia nut. Things that go vroom and things that go boom bring out the child in me. I really love putting holes in paper. If I could find a *legal* way to do both driving and shooting at the same time, I'd do that. I wouldn't dream or hurting anyone and I eat every living thing I shoot.
Well no... I don't eat the bacteria or whatnot. I've certainly probably shot an insect or two but I didn't eat those. So, aficionado, not nut. The sad thing is I feel obligated to clarify. There are a bunch of gun nuts. It is true, I'm pretty big on the 2nd Amendment, but I'm actually kind of partial to all of them.
Quit sniveling, coward. Seriously. I can't possibly respect you enough to give you any further consideration. There is nothing you can do to earn anything more than disdain at this point. I've seen old ladies with more courage than you. "I want to take your rights 'cause I'm scared!"
The ability to travel free, and without monitoring, is a rather essential liberty. AVs will, no doubt, require monitoring and will limit where you can go. No, no I'm not okay with that being forced on people because you're unable to control your bladder. You get off the road and leave everyone else's rights alone.
You can't be that retarded. That has to be trolling. It has to be.
Yes, the guy pointing out that liberty has consequences and risks is the one arguing from emotion - not the guy who's saying, "OH NO! PEOPLE DIE! BAN IT!"
You can't possibly be that stupid. Well, you can be. I have seen you say stupid shit before but this one's up there.
Reaction time is nearly insignificant if you're driving properly and using situational awareness to ensure you don't need to rely on reaction time. You're on a public highway, drive like it.
I'm reminded of a kid in here who posted a couple of weeks ago. He was happily pointing out that a good driver will always be hitting their brakes and turning sharply. That's the exact opposite of the truth.
I kind of hate to do this but I'm going to do the whole appeal to authority thing. I've driven professionally. I was initially trained in that capacity by the US Government. I've since taken countless additional courses - and can drive most anything with wheels. I can even get a loaded double-clutching 21 speed dump up to speed and control it when it gets there. I've taken dozens (and dozens more) courses for on and off-track driving. I rally on an amateur circuit when I've time. I've spent about two weeks in Germany taking classroom instruction and then hiring a coach and renting exotics and done a pile of laps on Nurburgring. I can go on - and I will, if you want. I've even taken advanced asset protection courses, can parallel park a truck and trailer (with a water-bowl attached) - that'd be about 72' long, by the way which is shorter than some of what you see on the road but still pretty long. It was not a sleeper cab or anything. Like I said, I can go on...
At any rate, the initial sentence isn't entirely accurate. Yes, reaction time is important but no - it shouldn't be. It's very seldom important if you're doing your job. In all but the rarest of rarest events, the primary reason for an accident is that someone was driving too fast for the conditions. (Before folks argue with that, reread it.) I dare say, I'm actually able to speak as an authoritative source on this. I'm not that binary, really. Reaction time is important but it needn't be (shouldn't be) nearly as important as you make it out to be - not if you're doing what you can to drive safely. Of course, it helps if others are also driving safely. What are the chances of that?
And yes, I know you're not alone on the road but you can take many steps to mitigate risks. If you see someone driving like an idiot, move away from them. Be alert not just to the vehicles around you but to how they're driving. Keep a good margin of safety between you and the other vehicles and reaction time becomes less and less important.
I do speed, don't get me wrong. I just save it for track day or a rally. I don't drive slow, not by any means. I have zero at-fault accidents on my record - I have been hit from the rear by an idiot in Boston. If you've driven in Boston, you'd understand that there are some really shitty drivers. I was stopped at a light and had been there for at least 30 seconds. I do have one speeding ticket but it has been off my record for a very long time. I got it in 1978 (I think?). I have zero moving violations. I have had three parking tickets, two of which were because someone else had borrowed my car, I'm still liable. The remaining one was mine. The sign was rather complicated including days of the week, hours, etc... It's my fault, I should have not parked there unless I understood the sign.
So, no... Reaction time isn't really that important. It certainly shouldn't be and even if it is, due to circumstances beyond your control, there are ways to mitigate that and have more time to react and maneuver safely in the event of an emergency situation. You should ALWAYS have room and time to bring yourself to a complete stop without hitting any possible obstructions, regardless. That's your job as a driver. I'm well aware that others can make this a problem and that there are things beyond your control. It is not as binary as it could be and sometimes shit happens.
It is incumbent on the driver to be in full control of their vehicle at all times. Full control means the ability to stop safely. If you're doing a panic stop, you're doing it wrong. (And, of course, there are exceptions to that. But it's generally true - even if
He's scared and needs someone to take away his liberties in order to make a safe space for him. I want to say, I can't be certain though, that I've seen them too quoting Franklin's statement on liberties and safety. The mental gymnastics required to hold these views are certainly worthy of a medal. No questions asked, they're well worth a medal. Ask 'em how they feel about back doors in encryption... Given that this system will require monitoring, ask 'em how they feel about data snooping.
What really amuses me, and nobody has done it yet this thread, is someone often pipes up about how Google's car has gone so many miles while operating in autonomous mode without causing an accident. I've only timed it right a couple of times but my question is always, "And how many times would it have caused an action without human intervention?" That usually gets a derailing reply, a "fuck you," and it's "still just a prototype." Well, if they wanted to use those numbers, let's use them - let's use the real numbers.
That said, I fully support the idea of autonomous vehicles as an option. Yes, human driving does mean that bad things will sometimes happen to otherwise good people. So be it. That's a risk we take for the sake of liberty. The thing is, when there's an accident - the fault is a human. When there's an accident with an AV, the fault is not with a human that's even in the vehicle or anywhere near the vehicle. People seem unwilling to grasp that or acknowledge it. Instead, they're wanting to discuss insurance rates.
It's damned amusing. It's sad but all you can do is look at the absurdity and laugh. "I'm scared. Someone make the danger go away! Take away my liberty until I have no risks. I'm unwilling to accept the consequences that come with living in a society." It's not really insulting to say that they're fucking pathetic because that's a statement grounded in reality.
The sniveling coward wants to take away you liberties because someone might poke an eye out. You know what? Maybe these cowards do need a place to live? Maybe they should have their own State or country or something. I say we send 'em to Somalia where they can have all the governance they want. Trust me, I've been to Somalia. It's not not like people claim. There is no lack of government. In fact, they're *over* governed.
The best part is that there's someone out there (lots of them) who doesn't actually understand that statement and would argue against it. However, they're wrong. Somalians are governed far more than many, many other people. It's not a good government and it's sure as hell not a democracy or a representative government but they sure as hell have plenty of governance and government - complete with paperwork.
It's called risk acceptance and it happens in a free society. I imagine you could eliminate even more jobs by having a minder, a cell to return to after work, and to be disallowed travel at all. Hell, there'd even be a lot of new jobs created for minders.
I'm really getting sick of all you cowards trying to reduce our liberties in the name of safety. Further, I've seen you quote Jefferson's quote about liberty and safety. I imagine you'll be unable or unwilling to admit the irony. It's okay, I'm used to it.
Except you're not actually in the majority and, you're right, there's nothing you can do about it. Cars almost outnumber humans in the US. We have enough cars for almost every man, woman, and child. We have more cars than can be legally driven at any one time.
As I said above 809 automobiles for 1000 people. That doesn't include motorcycles and the 1000 people is not how many can lawfully drive but includes children, people without a license, and city dwellers. And no, no most Americans do not live in a city - unless you want to redefine the word city. That stat's made up and is only true for the reasons listed in my above post.
So, how do you like that? You can't have it your way and there's shit all you can do about it.
This is America. You'll have better luck taking the firearms than you will taking the automobiles and the ability to control them.
The car ownership rates are not what you think they are. There are 809 for every 1000 people (not even people of driving age) in the US. That excludes motorcycles.
Come again?
Hell, you probably don't even know what a city is. Seriously, you don't. The bit about more than half of the population living in urban areas? Yeah, that's because they changed the definition of urban for the 2010 census. All it takes is a town with 1500 people (or 2500 people if they have a residential institution) to be considered urban. It's not even a measure of density any more.
'Tis okay, I'm sure you'll find further justifications.
Holy fuck dude. "Some people don't use their rights. They lead fulfilling lives. I'll decide what rights you have and how you use them - because I'm a coward."
Again, why not just add, "Think of the children!!!" I sure as hell hope you don't have children. I'm sure as hell you'll find a way to keep justifying this to yourself. Now it's a matter of pride and it's not like you're going to actually stop wanting to take other people's ability to appreciate their freedoms. Never mind that this system can't work without it being monitored...
I'm not going to change your mind, your ego is not willing to step aside. However, maybe you can consider not breeding or something. Unlike you, I won't force you to not breed. I'll just ask you nicely, for the sake of humanity.
Encryption can be a matter of public health. Putting a back door into it might save lives. A back door should be required. Just like vaccines. Of course, there will be people who want to retain their liberties but they'll have to stay off the public infrastructure with their old fashioned rights - if you can imagine such a thing. How quaint!
Yup. That's what you sound like. The only thing you skipped was "think of the children!"
I gotta admit, I really, really dislike Trump. However, I dislike some of the things being done to him even less. It's quite a conundrum. I really think they'd have built the wall. Especially if they could get Spain to pay for it. Hell, they'd have built a wall along the US/Canada border too, if they could have gotten the UK to pay for it.
One thing I did find funny was someone told Trump that the president of Mexico said something along the lines of "fuck you." His response was something like, "The wall just got 20' taller." I must say, he's entertaining as all hell.
Something else that's odd... And this isn't going to sound very nice but I think it's true. I've even gone back and looked at footage and listened to comments. Lemme explain...
See, people keep saying that Trump's a fascist. Now, that's a fairly vague title with some rather large variations. The meaning really isn't well defined and it's subject to lots of interpretation. I do not think Trump's actually a fascist. No, not at all. However, and this is the scary part, go watch the crowds and listen to the people. Look at the faces, listen to the voices, and watch their mannerisms. Erf... Yeah, this is going to sound *really* bad.
No, Trump isn't a fascist. But... If you look at the supporters - they are behaving pretty much like you'd expect followers of a fascist to behave like. Listen to them speak. Look in their eyes. See the raw emotion? See the zeal? See the blind following and adherence? It's almost religious in nature. He's not the fascist, his followers are the same types of people who would blindly follow a fascist.
Go back and watch some of the pre-war news reels of Germany, Italy, and even Japan. (Though we might want to argue the definitions, let's just agree that these were bad leaders being followed by zealous people, if that works?) Look at their faces. Look at how they carry themselves physically. Look at how they react - you don't even have to speak the language. There's also plenty of free archive access online, if you want to look.
If you do that and then look at the people who are supporting Trump then I think you might be inclined to agree with me. It doesn't take long to note the similarities, I've spent hours doing so - at least two or three hours comparing file footage and looking at documentaries but not really paying attention to anything but the people. And, you know how I said this was going to sound bad? Yeah, about that...
When I thought to myself, "Self, why does this look so familiar?" I realized that I'd seen this in the exact same manner, exact same manner, just eight years ago. Even the comments from the supporters are near verbatim! The looks, the mannerisms, the speech patterns, the body language, the eye movements, the hand gesticulations, the noise level, and all that? Yeah, they're just like what we had with Obama.
If you don't believe me, go look at the video footage. I know that sounds horrible but it's true. Even some of the signs are near verbatim. Unfortunately, that tells me more about the American populous than it does about the candidates. It's easy to hate the other side and to ignore the blights on one's own side. This is some scary shit. We're demanding a level of rhetoric that is only enticing zealots and extremists. I've got a pretty good grasp of history. This is how you get bad things.
Hell, go back to when Rome moved from a Republic to an Empire. Look at when Sparta was largely unmolested after the Persian attack that resulted in the sacking of Rome. Look at the French Revolution, the rise of real Fascism in Spain, in Italy, of Lenin, of Mao, or Pol Pot, or more. For a few of those, we've got pretty good documentation. We've got good video archives - look at the people.
Me? I'll be fine. I've got a few bucks, citizenship in another country, lots of material assets, investments in multiple countries, savings in multiple countries, property in multiple countries, am old, can be largely self-sufficient if need be, and haven't a care in the world
Ah - I think I've got you. upstart! Ubuntu wrote and included upstart. I'm not sure that worked well - ever.
Alright, so you're angry that they changed the initialization system? Hmm... Okay, why?
I guess I'd be angry if it were forced on me. I guess, technically, it isn't. I'm kind of annoyed that it's now decided to include far more than the init system - there's no reason for it to be more than that - that's annoying but, so far so good.
But, it's not like it's the first alternative? There's launchd, busybox, SMF (I'm most familiar with that and I think there's a port to Linux?), SystemStarter, etc..
Why not rip it out and put it in there on your own? I guess it might be a bit of work but if there are enough angry people then it's likely some of them know what they're doing well enough to lend a hand? I think (don't quote me on this) Slackware's not systemd yet - or it wasn't the last time I looked.
At any rate, what I'm not seeing is any problems - at all - here. That surely doesn't mean you're not having problems. I've just not seen any. What's up with your config that you're having issues? How often do you have these problems?
Err... If I had to make a wild-ass guess, and I get to count VMs but only VMs that get spun up on a regular basis, I'm gonna take a stab at it and guess that I've probably got 100 or so installs. I realize that's nothing compared with however many you might have to deal with. But, it's on some very varied hardware and doing lots of interesting things. I've had zero issues with systemd itself.
That's not meant to discount your problems or concerns, but meant as an indicator to show why I'm kind of baffled as to what people are doing. 'Cause you're not in the majority - as near as I can tell. I guess I'd complain most about them wrapping more and more things into it and the likelihood that systemd may eat away at developer time and the resulting monoculture more difficult for those wishing to avoid systemd, for whatever reasons they might have.
Oh no, I'm well aware of what init is. You can still use your init scripts, or so I'm told. I've never tried, I've never needed to. At any rate, init is a daemon that starts with the system. I want to say it has PID 1 but I suppose it might be 0 in some systems.
Maybe I'm not getting this "context" or anything but I'm starting to think it might not be my fault. That's not actually a very articulate answer and doesn't actually answer any of the questions.
What was Ubuntu first to fix that didn't need fixing? If it was Ubuntu who first fixed a non-problem with systemd then RedHat's usage must have fixed an existing problem seeing as they did it first and it wasn't a non-problem. I can only go by what you said were your positions. You are quite adamant that Ubuntu is to blame for having done this first and this first was fixing a non-problem. Except, well... RedHat did it first and that must have been a real problem that they fixed? That's what's remaining, unless I'm missing another option in there.
I've actually been looking into going partially DC with some of the other electrical things. I understood that there were some servers that ran straight from DC but I've never seen one in the flesh. Skipping the inverter would be a bit efficiency savings right there. I don't remember the numbers but quite a bit of energy is lost right there.
I'd never seen one for ATX. That would be awesome! Part of the problem is that so many things require varied voltages. I'd have to figure that out and I'm pretty sure I'd have to do a lot of outlets with both AC and DC but that's certainly do-able. When I designed the house, I designed it with upgrading in mind. All of the wiring runs through conduit. Well, not conduit but PVC pipe which is close enough.
I do wish I'd done a race channel (or three) and I really like the functionality of the L-shaped BUS lines that support 110v and 220v depending on the shape of the plug. I did not know those existed and only found out about them after a buddy bought an old factory. They would be awesome! I could just make up lights and snap them into place, move things with impunity, and have access to an outlet everywhere. On my list of things to do is to have an electrician come in and take a look at running them out in the shop, garage, and barn. The barn, shop, and garage do not, but I guess they could for a short while, run on the solar or wind. They use mains electricity but the shop and garage both fail back to the same generator system.
I don't want to swear to it but I'm pretty sure I've seen large scale generators that will output both AC and DC, at house-level capacity. My home is way out in the mountains of NW Maine and, as odd as it may sound, mains electricity is actually more a backup than anything else. I use propane for my stove and clothes dryer. Some of my water is heated with propane. I know I can get DC refrigeration but I understand that's NOT very efficient, less efficient than going through an inverter actually. I'm starting to run a little low on roof-space and I've already got two ground-mount clusters of panels. I guess I could add more and the battery packs from Tesla (the Power Wall units) are attractive - I'd like to look into those further.
Hmm... Thanks again! That gives me some food for thought. I'd pondered this briefly in the past but never looked into it. It seems like it's getting easier and easier and more things are starting to be created for the market. I've seen a lot of devices for RVs and camps but this is interesting. I'll be home in the spring. I'll have to grab a notebook, meander around the house, and take a bunch of notes. I'll have to look into reliability and longevity and then see about hiring someone in to give me an estimate and let me know how realistic this is.
Ha! I remember those. (I haven't cracked open the PDF yet.) I do remember those. I remember when eWeek was actually good and InformationWorld was still reputable. In the 1980s there were tons of magazines but, alas, it wasn't until the late 1980s that I even began to *like* using computers.
This is gonna be a bit long. You have been warned! At the end is your free million dollar idea. If you make it, I will buy 10. I will buy another 40 for gifts and spares. I suspect that even you will want one. Yes, even with your eyesight.
I touched my first one, I went to a ritzy preparatory school, in something like 1969. We had a link to one of the larger universities (Concord maybe?) somewhere around 1971. We even had our own observatory and a giant telescope and, get this, we could actually send images out over the network back then. Err... I'm pretty sure? I did not take any of the astronomy courses but I did go get high and then go up and look at the stars in the middle of the night. Yes, yes that was awesome.
Then, after my first enlistment, I went to school. Again, I was accepted into a very nice (but expensive) school. The GI Bill paid a lot of it and computers were, to me, mostly useless. They didn't do a damned thing unless you knew how to make them do stuff. I seem to recall liking Zork. Other than that, I hated computers. But, I did pick up a Trash 80. And a Vic 20. I think this was pre-Amiga. I kind of liked those a little better, they were largely useless.
Ah - but I discovered some magazines and could type code. Except, I couldn't type worth a damn and still hated them. I could load games via cartridge, cassette, or diskette. (Don't copy that floppy! Like hell I won't.) I started to get a bit of network access. That was pretty boring. I re-upped and came back out and computers really hadn't changed that much from my perspective. I did some courses while I was enlisted but not many. I'd reenlisted to get more of that GI Bill lovin' and I needed it.
Back to school... *sighs* As I said, they were still largely useless but things started to change. And oh boy did they change. Man did they change fast. I could dial into the school and then access so many things. I could dial into local BBS' hosted/owned by private parties. I sent an email to Australia - and it got there... It took like six hours but it not only got there, I got a reply! I was starting to hate them less and less.
Then, I had no choice but to use them. That's kind of the whole premise of my career. It was kind of mandatory. Only I had no formal training - just some typing of BASIC into the system and writing a few small programs to learn a bit more. BASIC was obviously not going to cut it. So, more magazines! More reading! I had a subscription to C User's Journal - I'm pretty sure. I seem to recall that one issue came with a diskette that had a compiler on it. If I'm remembering correctly, the magazine sometimes came with disks but not all that often. I want to say that they might have been free(ish) for subscribers only and that they weren't included in the newsstand issues but that one could order it from the newsstand issue if they wanted - I think it needed PoP/UPC and a couple of bucks shipping? I may be conflating a couple of different publications.
So, yes... I remember those. And newsgroups. Man, if it hadn't been for newsgroups, I'd be a penniless bum today. We were quite a different crowd back then. I was *grateful* for the help and helped others where I could. I'd try to make a couple of free hours, every day, for Usenet. 'comp.lang.c' was a frequent haunt back then. I appreciated some of the help enough to gift hardware and, on more than one occasion, we knew each other well enough so we'd gift money to someone in need. We used real names and damned if someone wasn't gonna get tossed on their ear for trolling. My oh my, how the times change.
And the physical books? Oh, I still have them. Worn, written in, and maybe even missing pages. But, as you mentioned, the print magazines... Those wer
I hate to admit it but you're not alone in wanting that to become a thing. They say great minds think alike, I'm inclined to suggest that so don't not-so-great minds and crazy people. I'm not sure what it says about either of us that we want it to be a thing but it would be awesome. They could even open the PDF in a plain text editor and sign their particular section of the yearbook. Hell, they could even encrypt a message and sign it and include the message in its encrypted form. It could even be marked up or buried in the plain text.
Being geeks and it a matter of pride, I'd not be sure if it's better hidden from casual view and buried in the actual code that makes up a PDF or if it would be better?
Oh! Ha! I've never actually disassembled a PDF before. I thought it would be just like any other markup and readable via plain text and just have markup around it, much like one can do with some other document formats. It looks like that is not the case and all the more geeking out can be had.
I fired up Bless as my go-to for discovery and it looks like, even better, it's probably possible to hack at it with a hex editor. Are you thinking what I'm thinking?
Either way, I concur. This should, very much, become a thing. Emailing out copies, "Can you sign my yearbook?" I wonder how many would respond? Sadly, this might be one of those things best noticed on social media sites. That pretty much means that I'm unable to assist in getting this to the point where it's popular enough to become a thing.
Blame Ubuntu for being the first to "solve" a problem that didn't exist.
Wouldn't Redhat be the first? And, if not, are you saying that it solved a problem for RedHat?
What non-existent problem did Ubuntu fix?
I'm still, after all this time, trying to wrap my head around this. I was working on Unix systems back in the late starting at just about 1990. While I did administration duties, I'd still humbly submit that I am not an admin. It's a bit like I've written many lines of code but I am not a programmer. In both cases, I learned out of necessity and with the aid of many kind and knowledgeable people. I have absolutely no formal training in either but I do have a lot of hands-on.
I noticed your post was moderated troll. The thing is, I'm not really sure if your post *is* a troll. If that makes sense.
I see a lot of complaints with systemd but, in my experience, that's not borne out and some of the complaints seem a bit odd. Like the lack of binary logs. Err... You can not only output binary logs but you can still read them from another OS. I find journalctl to be pretty handy and the startup blame to be handy. You can even still use init scripts and I understand that they work exactly as they have for a long time. Don't ask me *how* to do that, I've not needed to look into it. I have it on good authority that it's not only doable, it's just like it was before.
I mostly learned a few new commands and moved on. I've had no system instability. I've had no problems. But...
I am *not* a professional administrator. I am not administrating 5,000 servers. Lemme count.... Only servers? Only bare metal? I maintain 23. I think... All of them Linux, varied distros. I think all the bare metal have systemd on them. I'm pretty sure at any rate - a quick bit of SSH tells me that this is so for the first half dozen.
Oh, I've had problems. I just recently reconverted to using Linux exclusively, including on the desktop. I used Windows for a long time, I was even an MS MVP award winner for like 6 or 7 years (in various categories) and I'm actually kind of OS agnostic. I not only don't really care what other people use, I'm not all that particular about what I'll use. I'll even use OS X if I gotta.
But, yes... I've had problems. I've had loads of problems over the years. I may not be a diagnostic expert but, as near as I can tell, none of them stem from systemd. If anything, systemd has helped me - on multiple occasions.
So, I'm not sure I follow... What non-existent problem was Ubuntu the first to fix and why is RedHat not the first if they were the first ones to incorporate it?
In your other post, you referenced a comment that I made about Gentoo. I didn't mention Gentoo? Given that spell check is flagging it as an incorrect word, and knowing my own proclivities, I'm inclined to think that I've never mentioned Gentoo. I don't use it. I do have it in a VM somewhere but it's not spun up. I'm also not sure about the upstart comment. I'm wondering if you've confused me with someone else at this point.
Their direction is in the same direction as your monitor, no? If that's the case, I recommend you stand back and throw for all you're worth! Put your back into it. If at first you don't succeed, try again! If throwing it doesn't work, then keep smashing at the monitor with your chair until it does work. Don't let that monitor get the best of you and don't let that site go unpunished! Smash that shit.
Hell, when you're done? Smash the keyboard for good measure. Fire up your favorite email client and jump up and down on your keyboard until you've typed out enough to let them know exactly how angry you are about their profiteering and usurpation of the public interest! Smash the ever living shit out of and make sure they truly understand the power of your rage. You are not impotent! You have a voice! Let it be heard! Let it be heard once and for all, let it be known that you are angry, let it be known that you have something to say and you're not going to stop until you're done saying it.
You know what? Just to be certain, you might still be unheard and unheeded. You should pick up your tower and slam it on the floor hard enough that the very bytes are sent out of the networking card. Jump up and down on it until you see sparks. Put your foot through it until you see the innards. When you get that far, keep kicking that thing until you see the networking card snap from the motherboard or pop out from its socket. Then kick it again for good measure. Those sparks? That's you sending a few more packets to let them know how angry you really are and how insistent you are on getting the message across.
If you've got a router then we can help with that too. There's absolutely no reason for this and you should not stand for it. You should not stand idle while they persist. Your every move, every breath, and every thought should have but one goal and one goal only. You need to make sure that you're heard, heard clearly, and obeyed. Do not stop at that level! No, son... You're on a self-assigned mission to force adherence to your ideals and there's no reason for you to have it any other way.
Violence is like epoxy, if it doesn't work then mix up another batch and use more of it.
In case you're curious, this is not mockery. This is unceasing adoration that knows no bounds. This is admiration and respect! This, Mr. AC, is me thanking you for doing the things I've not the pride nor courage to do myself. We need you, we need you to defend us. We need you to speak on our behalf. We need you to do for us that which we can not do for ourselves! Let us, for just one moment, live vicariously through you and your deeds. Let us bask in your courage and amplitude! Let us learn from you, absorb your courage via osmosis, and strive to become just 1/10th the man you are, for we are not truly worthy but we are sincere in our appreciation!
It doesn't dull that response. Well, more accurately, it doesn't have to. Mindfulness includes awareness of externalities. If anything, one is "in tune" with their surroundings at a higher/greater level and will thus notice abnormalities, such as threats, more rapidly. If I had to raise my hand and make a blind wager, based on experience, I'd submit that it has the opposite effect.
Put it this way, do you want someone who's antsy and easily startled to be on the lookout or do you want someone who is calm and collected? That's not to say that this can't result in someone being less aware - but that it doesn't *have* to result in people being less aware. It's a state of heightened awareness, awareness of yourself, others, your surroundings, and even can include things like someone else's breathing pattern.
I'd say that it depends on the situation, person, goal, and ability. You're not necessarily wrong but that doesn't make you right. There are certainly exceptions to the rule where the best they can muster is simply wrapping themselves up in thoughts. The ultimate goal of being mindful is stillness of the mind and, in the case of some Buddhists, ridding oneself of desire. There are many steps along that path and many ways to achieve it. Entering a deep meditative state that is beyond capacity to recognize externalities is not generally the goal and runs a bit counter to the idea of mindfulness in general. It has its place but it's not the atypical place and goal.
Not sure if that's articulated well... A quick reread doesn't help me make up my mind. I deleted a few paragraphs as they seem to only make it more confusing.
Too funny. I mentioned similar above. IIRC, CBT does also recommend meditation as much as is safe and therapeutic for the individual. I am told that it is helpful. I made a few other posts in this thread with some other details, things not oft shared. I try to avoid the subject of belief systems on Slashdot. What the hell? If my beliefs don't hold up to scrutiny, why hold onto them?
This... If I may opine, being mindful is being exactly that, mindful. You're aware of you - your surroundings, your thoughts, your breathing, your heart rate, you movements, your desires, your everything and - ideally - those things around you. There are varied levels of mindfulness, one might not want to be as mindful as they could be while driving - while being mindful while driving is also a good thing. It's not a binary thing, there are lots of shades of gray and being mindful of different things is a good thing even though the ideal is everything.
Being mindful is nothing more than the name implies. There's no mysticism. It doesn't even require closing your eyes or being seated in any special or awkward positions - you don't even have to starve yourself until your ribs poke through your skin. The goal is being constantly mindful. If you're mindful then you can achieve stillness. With stillness there is no desire. Without desire, you are free. 'Snot really all that complicated.
I believe modern psychology is teaching/practicing something a bit similar. They call it CBT or Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. That's a subset, if I'm understanding how it was described to me. It is where you're "in tune" with your physical self (mindful) and seeing the way you feel physically or what you are physically doing as a way to understand what's mentally going on. People with some forms of mental illness will manifest their symptoms physically before they're actually able to realize it mentally. This gives them the chance to interrupt that process and change their thinking and/or to change their physical state.
I believe there's another called DBT but I have no idea what that entails and I'm too lazy to look it up. Either way, there's no real mysticism or anything. I want to say that it's fairly well understood, as much as anything involving the brain is understood. It's not like it's new, hip, or even unique to Buddhism. It's certainly not trendy, I don't think? I've been engaged in the practice for what must be 20+ years though certainly quite a bit longer than that but with a different perspective and goal.
Slashdot Mirror
I regularly gift *old* computers to friend, family, neighbors, even folks on Craigslist. I just give them away... They're usually no more than a few years old - if they're going to random strangers on Craigslist. I won't be back home until spring. Whereupon, I'll likely refresh a few boxes. Not to mention, I still have some in their original packaging that never have been used.
IOW, I don't think we'd actually have to /build/ them a PC. They wouldn't even be the first person on Slashdot that I've given hardware. I've not really kept track but I think they might not be one of the first twenty people, specifically from this site, that I've given hardware. I understand that some folks don't have much money, I've been there. But this is Slashdot... I find it disheartening to read about someone who doesn't have something recent for a computer - at least as an option.
One of the oddities is that I actually have a ton of old hardware and still use a lot of it. I am just attached to it, for whatever reason. I've got much faster and newer - I've given away much faster and newer. Not having new hardware, as an option, is sad. Friends, family, and neighbors like it because I refresh a couple of times a year - sometimes more often if I read the damned NewEgg newsletters or see something that catches my eye. I don't store much of anything locally and can just slap a copy of /home on a new box and run with it (most of the time). Even here, I store everything on my servers at home. Hell, I'm currently in a VM, via VNC, that's at home - I'm all way way down in Florida.
Ah well... The local elementary school gets first dibs before I put stuff up at Craigslist. I have found a secret. If I put stuff in the free section, for whatever reasons, people seem to not notice. If I list it at a reasonable price then I get emails pretty quickly. So, I list it at a low price (not too low - they don't respond quickly with that) and then I just email them and let them know that it's actually free but that I listed it at a cost to make sure that it was noticed. So far so good. They all seem happy to find out that they're free. It is a bit dishonest but I really buy too much hardware - it's like a crack addiction.
I've not got much time again today (busy, long story) but it's also important to note the differences between the US law and Australian law.
I am not a lawyer in either jurisdiction and I suspect you can explain this better than I. But, I noticed nobody mentioned this so I scrolled back up.
Hmm... How to communicate with an Aussie, lesson one...
It don't mean bugger all, mate. Them poli cunts can write all the laws they want to. When I get down to the court, down there, it's up to the judge to decide my fate and if he can't be stuffed to enforce it then it sets precedent. It doesn't even need to go to the upper-courts, just a bloke down at the local gets to interpret it.
Now in English...
It's not that important. The politicians can make up any laws they want. However, unlike the US, even a lower-court judge gets to decide how it's enforced or even if it is enforced at all. Once that's done, there's usually a precedent set. There's usually no need for the higher/supreme courts to get involved and they often don't.
Rhyming slang not included.
In reference to both this thread and your signature, I think Poor Ned might be appropriate here.
Why yes, yes you probably would be a bit surprised by the music in my archives.
Hmm... You didn't serve in the military, did you?
I didn't have much time yesterday and I probably won't have much today but... Err... Hmm... I'm not sure if this is a good or a bad thing? I own firearms that no wearable armor is even going to remotely help with. There are light armored vehicles that aren't going to deflect a round. There's no body armor they can even dream up that will stop a round from penetrating - at least not that they've come up with yet.
And, they're perfectly legal. Well, not in California. I'm pretty sure CA has a limit at .49 caliber. 'Cause that extra .01" matters. So, of course, we now have .48 and (I'm pretty sure) .49. I do not own any of those calibers except for an old-timey muzzle loader which calipers tell me is .4875 or something like that. It has its own casting equipment, it's kind of old. (Early 1800s I think.)
Anyhow, I have not just one but several .50 caliber firearms - not counting a couple of .50 that are muzzle loaders. Not that I'd ever shoot anyone with 'em or anything. It's just that armor doesn't stop as much as one might think. You can triple layer that armor. That won't even make the armor tumble. A friend of mine works in a shop that assembles (not makes, not any more) Kevlar. We've not actually found any width that stops it - and we've gone all the way up to a full inch of the thick woven stuff. It blasts right on through - from a *very* long ways away.
I like to think I'm a bit of an aficionado and not a nut. I don't expect to use firearms to overthrow my government. I'd probably not shoot an intruder. I'd certainly not shoot a mugger or a thief. I've got insurance. But, I'm the quintessential five year old and like things that go boom. So, no... Hell, I'm not even a trivia nut. Things that go vroom and things that go boom bring out the child in me. I really love putting holes in paper. If I could find a *legal* way to do both driving and shooting at the same time, I'd do that. I wouldn't dream or hurting anyone and I eat every living thing I shoot.
Well no... I don't eat the bacteria or whatnot. I've certainly probably shot an insect or two but I didn't eat those. So, aficionado, not nut. The sad thing is I feel obligated to clarify. There are a bunch of gun nuts. It is true, I'm pretty big on the 2nd Amendment, but I'm actually kind of partial to all of them.
Quit sniveling, coward. Seriously. I can't possibly respect you enough to give you any further consideration. There is nothing you can do to earn anything more than disdain at this point. I've seen old ladies with more courage than you. "I want to take your rights 'cause I'm scared!"
The ability to travel free, and without monitoring, is a rather essential liberty. AVs will, no doubt, require monitoring and will limit where you can go. No, no I'm not okay with that being forced on people because you're unable to control your bladder. You get off the road and leave everyone else's rights alone.
You're dismissed.
You can't be that retarded. That has to be trolling. It has to be.
Yes, the guy pointing out that liberty has consequences and risks is the one arguing from emotion - not the guy who's saying, "OH NO! PEOPLE DIE! BAN IT!"
You can't possibly be that stupid. Well, you can be. I have seen you say stupid shit before but this one's up there.
Reaction time is nearly insignificant if you're driving properly and using situational awareness to ensure you don't need to rely on reaction time. You're on a public highway, drive like it.
I'm reminded of a kid in here who posted a couple of weeks ago. He was happily pointing out that a good driver will always be hitting their brakes and turning sharply. That's the exact opposite of the truth.
I kind of hate to do this but I'm going to do the whole appeal to authority thing. I've driven professionally. I was initially trained in that capacity by the US Government. I've since taken countless additional courses - and can drive most anything with wheels. I can even get a loaded double-clutching 21 speed dump up to speed and control it when it gets there. I've taken dozens (and dozens more) courses for on and off-track driving. I rally on an amateur circuit when I've time. I've spent about two weeks in Germany taking classroom instruction and then hiring a coach and renting exotics and done a pile of laps on Nurburgring. I can go on - and I will, if you want. I've even taken advanced asset protection courses, can parallel park a truck and trailer (with a water-bowl attached) - that'd be about 72' long, by the way which is shorter than some of what you see on the road but still pretty long. It was not a sleeper cab or anything. Like I said, I can go on...
At any rate, the initial sentence isn't entirely accurate. Yes, reaction time is important but no - it shouldn't be. It's very seldom important if you're doing your job. In all but the rarest of rarest events, the primary reason for an accident is that someone was driving too fast for the conditions. (Before folks argue with that, reread it.) I dare say, I'm actually able to speak as an authoritative source on this. I'm not that binary, really. Reaction time is important but it needn't be (shouldn't be) nearly as important as you make it out to be - not if you're doing what you can to drive safely. Of course, it helps if others are also driving safely. What are the chances of that?
And yes, I know you're not alone on the road but you can take many steps to mitigate risks. If you see someone driving like an idiot, move away from them. Be alert not just to the vehicles around you but to how they're driving. Keep a good margin of safety between you and the other vehicles and reaction time becomes less and less important.
I do speed, don't get me wrong. I just save it for track day or a rally. I don't drive slow, not by any means. I have zero at-fault accidents on my record - I have been hit from the rear by an idiot in Boston. If you've driven in Boston, you'd understand that there are some really shitty drivers. I was stopped at a light and had been there for at least 30 seconds. I do have one speeding ticket but it has been off my record for a very long time. I got it in 1978 (I think?). I have zero moving violations. I have had three parking tickets, two of which were because someone else had borrowed my car, I'm still liable. The remaining one was mine. The sign was rather complicated including days of the week, hours, etc... It's my fault, I should have not parked there unless I understood the sign.
So, no... Reaction time isn't really that important. It certainly shouldn't be and even if it is, due to circumstances beyond your control, there are ways to mitigate that and have more time to react and maneuver safely in the event of an emergency situation. You should ALWAYS have room and time to bring yourself to a complete stop without hitting any possible obstructions, regardless. That's your job as a driver. I'm well aware that others can make this a problem and that there are things beyond your control. It is not as binary as it could be and sometimes shit happens.
It is incumbent on the driver to be in full control of their vehicle at all times. Full control means the ability to stop safely. If you're doing a panic stop, you're doing it wrong. (And, of course, there are exceptions to that. But it's generally true - even if
He's scared and needs someone to take away his liberties in order to make a safe space for him. I want to say, I can't be certain though, that I've seen them too quoting Franklin's statement on liberties and safety. The mental gymnastics required to hold these views are certainly worthy of a medal. No questions asked, they're well worth a medal. Ask 'em how they feel about back doors in encryption... Given that this system will require monitoring, ask 'em how they feel about data snooping.
What really amuses me, and nobody has done it yet this thread, is someone often pipes up about how Google's car has gone so many miles while operating in autonomous mode without causing an accident. I've only timed it right a couple of times but my question is always, "And how many times would it have caused an action without human intervention?" That usually gets a derailing reply, a "fuck you," and it's "still just a prototype." Well, if they wanted to use those numbers, let's use them - let's use the real numbers.
That said, I fully support the idea of autonomous vehicles as an option. Yes, human driving does mean that bad things will sometimes happen to otherwise good people. So be it. That's a risk we take for the sake of liberty. The thing is, when there's an accident - the fault is a human. When there's an accident with an AV, the fault is not with a human that's even in the vehicle or anywhere near the vehicle. People seem unwilling to grasp that or acknowledge it. Instead, they're wanting to discuss insurance rates.
It's damned amusing. It's sad but all you can do is look at the absurdity and laugh. "I'm scared. Someone make the danger go away! Take away my liberty until I have no risks. I'm unwilling to accept the consequences that come with living in a society." It's not really insulting to say that they're fucking pathetic because that's a statement grounded in reality.
The sniveling coward wants to take away you liberties because someone might poke an eye out. You know what? Maybe these cowards do need a place to live? Maybe they should have their own State or country or something. I say we send 'em to Somalia where they can have all the governance they want. Trust me, I've been to Somalia. It's not not like people claim. There is no lack of government. In fact, they're *over* governed.
The best part is that there's someone out there (lots of them) who doesn't actually understand that statement and would argue against it. However, they're wrong. Somalians are governed far more than many, many other people. It's not a good government and it's sure as hell not a democracy or a representative government but they sure as hell have plenty of governance and government - complete with paperwork.
It's called risk acceptance and it happens in a free society. I imagine you could eliminate even more jobs by having a minder, a cell to return to after work, and to be disallowed travel at all. Hell, there'd even be a lot of new jobs created for minders.
I'm really getting sick of all you cowards trying to reduce our liberties in the name of safety. Further, I've seen you quote Jefferson's quote about liberty and safety. I imagine you'll be unable or unwilling to admit the irony. It's okay, I'm used to it.
Except you're not actually in the majority and, you're right, there's nothing you can do about it. Cars almost outnumber humans in the US. We have enough cars for almost every man, woman, and child. We have more cars than can be legally driven at any one time.
As I said above 809 automobiles for 1000 people. That doesn't include motorcycles and the 1000 people is not how many can lawfully drive but includes children, people without a license, and city dwellers. And no, no most Americans do not live in a city - unless you want to redefine the word city. That stat's made up and is only true for the reasons listed in my above post.
So, how do you like that? You can't have it your way and there's shit all you can do about it.
This is America. You'll have better luck taking the firearms than you will taking the automobiles and the ability to control them.
The car ownership rates are not what you think they are. There are 809 for every 1000 people (not even people of driving age) in the US. That excludes motorcycles.
Come again?
Hell, you probably don't even know what a city is. Seriously, you don't. The bit about more than half of the population living in urban areas? Yeah, that's because they changed the definition of urban for the 2010 census. All it takes is a town with 1500 people (or 2500 people if they have a residential institution) to be considered urban. It's not even a measure of density any more.
'Tis okay, I'm sure you'll find further justifications.
Holy fuck dude. "Some people don't use their rights. They lead fulfilling lives. I'll decide what rights you have and how you use them - because I'm a coward."
Again, why not just add, "Think of the children!!!" I sure as hell hope you don't have children. I'm sure as hell you'll find a way to keep justifying this to yourself. Now it's a matter of pride and it's not like you're going to actually stop wanting to take other people's ability to appreciate their freedoms. Never mind that this system can't work without it being monitored...
I'm not going to change your mind, your ego is not willing to step aside. However, maybe you can consider not breeding or something. Unlike you, I won't force you to not breed. I'll just ask you nicely, for the sake of humanity.
Encryption can be a matter of public health. Putting a back door into it might save lives. A back door should be required. Just like vaccines. Of course, there will be people who want to retain their liberties but they'll have to stay off the public infrastructure with their old fashioned rights - if you can imagine such a thing. How quaint!
Yup. That's what you sound like. The only thing you skipped was "think of the children!"
I gotta admit, I really, really dislike Trump. However, I dislike some of the things being done to him even less. It's quite a conundrum. I really think they'd have built the wall. Especially if they could get Spain to pay for it. Hell, they'd have built a wall along the US/Canada border too, if they could have gotten the UK to pay for it.
One thing I did find funny was someone told Trump that the president of Mexico said something along the lines of "fuck you." His response was something like, "The wall just got 20' taller." I must say, he's entertaining as all hell.
Something else that's odd... And this isn't going to sound very nice but I think it's true. I've even gone back and looked at footage and listened to comments. Lemme explain...
See, people keep saying that Trump's a fascist. Now, that's a fairly vague title with some rather large variations. The meaning really isn't well defined and it's subject to lots of interpretation. I do not think Trump's actually a fascist. No, not at all. However, and this is the scary part, go watch the crowds and listen to the people. Look at the faces, listen to the voices, and watch their mannerisms. Erf... Yeah, this is going to sound *really* bad.
No, Trump isn't a fascist. But... If you look at the supporters - they are behaving pretty much like you'd expect followers of a fascist to behave like. Listen to them speak. Look in their eyes. See the raw emotion? See the zeal? See the blind following and adherence? It's almost religious in nature. He's not the fascist, his followers are the same types of people who would blindly follow a fascist.
Go back and watch some of the pre-war news reels of Germany, Italy, and even Japan. (Though we might want to argue the definitions, let's just agree that these were bad leaders being followed by zealous people, if that works?) Look at their faces. Look at how they carry themselves physically. Look at how they react - you don't even have to speak the language. There's also plenty of free archive access online, if you want to look.
If you do that and then look at the people who are supporting Trump then I think you might be inclined to agree with me. It doesn't take long to note the similarities, I've spent hours doing so - at least two or three hours comparing file footage and looking at documentaries but not really paying attention to anything but the people. And, you know how I said this was going to sound bad? Yeah, about that...
When I thought to myself, "Self, why does this look so familiar?" I realized that I'd seen this in the exact same manner, exact same manner, just eight years ago. Even the comments from the supporters are near verbatim! The looks, the mannerisms, the speech patterns, the body language, the eye movements, the hand gesticulations, the noise level, and all that? Yeah, they're just like what we had with Obama.
If you don't believe me, go look at the video footage. I know that sounds horrible but it's true. Even some of the signs are near verbatim. Unfortunately, that tells me more about the American populous than it does about the candidates. It's easy to hate the other side and to ignore the blights on one's own side. This is some scary shit. We're demanding a level of rhetoric that is only enticing zealots and extremists. I've got a pretty good grasp of history. This is how you get bad things.
Hell, go back to when Rome moved from a Republic to an Empire. Look at when Sparta was largely unmolested after the Persian attack that resulted in the sacking of Rome. Look at the French Revolution, the rise of real Fascism in Spain, in Italy, of Lenin, of Mao, or Pol Pot, or more. For a few of those, we've got pretty good documentation. We've got good video archives - look at the people.
Me? I'll be fine. I've got a few bucks, citizenship in another country, lots of material assets, investments in multiple countries, savings in multiple countries, property in multiple countries, am old, can be largely self-sufficient if need be, and haven't a care in the world
Ah - I think I've got you. upstart! Ubuntu wrote and included upstart. I'm not sure that worked well - ever.
Alright, so you're angry that they changed the initialization system? Hmm... Okay, why?
I guess I'd be angry if it were forced on me. I guess, technically, it isn't. I'm kind of annoyed that it's now decided to include far more than the init system - there's no reason for it to be more than that - that's annoying but, so far so good.
But, it's not like it's the first alternative? There's launchd, busybox, SMF (I'm most familiar with that and I think there's a port to Linux?), SystemStarter, etc..
Why not rip it out and put it in there on your own? I guess it might be a bit of work but if there are enough angry people then it's likely some of them know what they're doing well enough to lend a hand? I think (don't quote me on this) Slackware's not systemd yet - or it wasn't the last time I looked.
At any rate, what I'm not seeing is any problems - at all - here. That surely doesn't mean you're not having problems. I've just not seen any. What's up with your config that you're having issues? How often do you have these problems?
Err... If I had to make a wild-ass guess, and I get to count VMs but only VMs that get spun up on a regular basis, I'm gonna take a stab at it and guess that I've probably got 100 or so installs. I realize that's nothing compared with however many you might have to deal with. But, it's on some very varied hardware and doing lots of interesting things. I've had zero issues with systemd itself.
That's not meant to discount your problems or concerns, but meant as an indicator to show why I'm kind of baffled as to what people are doing. 'Cause you're not in the majority - as near as I can tell. I guess I'd complain most about them wrapping more and more things into it and the likelihood that systemd may eat away at developer time and the resulting monoculture more difficult for those wishing to avoid systemd, for whatever reasons they might have.
Oh no, I'm well aware of what init is. You can still use your init scripts, or so I'm told. I've never tried, I've never needed to. At any rate, init is a daemon that starts with the system. I want to say it has PID 1 but I suppose it might be 0 in some systems.
Maybe I'm not getting this "context" or anything but I'm starting to think it might not be my fault. That's not actually a very articulate answer and doesn't actually answer any of the questions.
What was Ubuntu first to fix that didn't need fixing? If it was Ubuntu who first fixed a non-problem with systemd then RedHat's usage must have fixed an existing problem seeing as they did it first and it wasn't a non-problem. I can only go by what you said were your positions. You are quite adamant that Ubuntu is to blame for having done this first and this first was fixing a non-problem. Except, well... RedHat did it first and that must have been a real problem that they fixed? That's what's remaining, unless I'm missing another option in there.
I must be missing something.
Sweet! Thanks. Seriously, thanks a bunch.
I've actually been looking into going partially DC with some of the other electrical things. I understood that there were some servers that ran straight from DC but I've never seen one in the flesh. Skipping the inverter would be a bit efficiency savings right there. I don't remember the numbers but quite a bit of energy is lost right there.
I'd never seen one for ATX. That would be awesome! Part of the problem is that so many things require varied voltages. I'd have to figure that out and I'm pretty sure I'd have to do a lot of outlets with both AC and DC but that's certainly do-able. When I designed the house, I designed it with upgrading in mind. All of the wiring runs through conduit. Well, not conduit but PVC pipe which is close enough.
I do wish I'd done a race channel (or three) and I really like the functionality of the L-shaped BUS lines that support 110v and 220v depending on the shape of the plug. I did not know those existed and only found out about them after a buddy bought an old factory. They would be awesome! I could just make up lights and snap them into place, move things with impunity, and have access to an outlet everywhere. On my list of things to do is to have an electrician come in and take a look at running them out in the shop, garage, and barn. The barn, shop, and garage do not, but I guess they could for a short while, run on the solar or wind. They use mains electricity but the shop and garage both fail back to the same generator system.
I don't want to swear to it but I'm pretty sure I've seen large scale generators that will output both AC and DC, at house-level capacity. My home is way out in the mountains of NW Maine and, as odd as it may sound, mains electricity is actually more a backup than anything else. I use propane for my stove and clothes dryer. Some of my water is heated with propane. I know I can get DC refrigeration but I understand that's NOT very efficient, less efficient than going through an inverter actually. I'm starting to run a little low on roof-space and I've already got two ground-mount clusters of panels. I guess I could add more and the battery packs from Tesla (the Power Wall units) are attractive - I'd like to look into those further.
Hmm... Thanks again! That gives me some food for thought. I'd pondered this briefly in the past but never looked into it. It seems like it's getting easier and easier and more things are starting to be created for the market. I've seen a lot of devices for RVs and camps but this is interesting. I'll be home in the spring. I'll have to grab a notebook, meander around the house, and take a bunch of notes. I'll have to look into reliability and longevity and then see about hiring someone in to give me an estimate and let me know how realistic this is.
No, I'm not kidding - thanks.
Ha! I remember those. (I haven't cracked open the PDF yet.) I do remember those. I remember when eWeek was actually good and InformationWorld was still reputable. In the 1980s there were tons of magazines but, alas, it wasn't until the late 1980s that I even began to *like* using computers.
This is gonna be a bit long. You have been warned! At the end is your free million dollar idea. If you make it, I will buy 10. I will buy another 40 for gifts and spares. I suspect that even you will want one. Yes, even with your eyesight.
I touched my first one, I went to a ritzy preparatory school, in something like 1969. We had a link to one of the larger universities (Concord maybe?) somewhere around 1971. We even had our own observatory and a giant telescope and, get this, we could actually send images out over the network back then. Err... I'm pretty sure? I did not take any of the astronomy courses but I did go get high and then go up and look at the stars in the middle of the night. Yes, yes that was awesome.
Then, after my first enlistment, I went to school. Again, I was accepted into a very nice (but expensive) school. The GI Bill paid a lot of it and computers were, to me, mostly useless. They didn't do a damned thing unless you knew how to make them do stuff. I seem to recall liking Zork. Other than that, I hated computers. But, I did pick up a Trash 80. And a Vic 20. I think this was pre-Amiga. I kind of liked those a little better, they were largely useless.
Ah - but I discovered some magazines and could type code. Except, I couldn't type worth a damn and still hated them. I could load games via cartridge, cassette, or diskette. (Don't copy that floppy! Like hell I won't.) I started to get a bit of network access. That was pretty boring. I re-upped and came back out and computers really hadn't changed that much from my perspective. I did some courses while I was enlisted but not many. I'd reenlisted to get more of that GI Bill lovin' and I needed it.
Back to school... *sighs* As I said, they were still largely useless but things started to change. And oh boy did they change. Man did they change fast. I could dial into the school and then access so many things. I could dial into local BBS' hosted/owned by private parties. I sent an email to Australia - and it got there... It took like six hours but it not only got there, I got a reply! I was starting to hate them less and less.
Then, I had no choice but to use them. That's kind of the whole premise of my career. It was kind of mandatory. Only I had no formal training - just some typing of BASIC into the system and writing a few small programs to learn a bit more. BASIC was obviously not going to cut it. So, more magazines! More reading! I had a subscription to C User's Journal - I'm pretty sure. I seem to recall that one issue came with a diskette that had a compiler on it. If I'm remembering correctly, the magazine sometimes came with disks but not all that often. I want to say that they might have been free(ish) for subscribers only and that they weren't included in the newsstand issues but that one could order it from the newsstand issue if they wanted - I think it needed PoP/UPC and a couple of bucks shipping? I may be conflating a couple of different publications.
So, yes... I remember those. And newsgroups. Man, if it hadn't been for newsgroups, I'd be a penniless bum today. We were quite a different crowd back then. I was *grateful* for the help and helped others where I could. I'd try to make a couple of free hours, every day, for Usenet. 'comp.lang.c' was a frequent haunt back then. I appreciated some of the help enough to gift hardware and, on more than one occasion, we knew each other well enough so we'd gift money to someone in need. We used real names and damned if someone wasn't gonna get tossed on their ear for trolling. My oh my, how the times change.
And the physical books? Oh, I still have them. Worn, written in, and maybe even missing pages. But, as you mentioned, the print magazines... Those wer
I hate to admit it but you're not alone in wanting that to become a thing. They say great minds think alike, I'm inclined to suggest that so don't not-so-great minds and crazy people. I'm not sure what it says about either of us that we want it to be a thing but it would be awesome. They could even open the PDF in a plain text editor and sign their particular section of the yearbook. Hell, they could even encrypt a message and sign it and include the message in its encrypted form. It could even be marked up or buried in the plain text.
Being geeks and it a matter of pride, I'd not be sure if it's better hidden from casual view and buried in the actual code that makes up a PDF or if it would be better?
Oh! Ha! I've never actually disassembled a PDF before. I thought it would be just like any other markup and readable via plain text and just have markup around it, much like one can do with some other document formats. It looks like that is not the case and all the more geeking out can be had.
I fired up Bless as my go-to for discovery and it looks like, even better, it's probably possible to hack at it with a hex editor. Are you thinking what I'm thinking?
Either way, I concur. This should, very much, become a thing. Emailing out copies, "Can you sign my yearbook?" I wonder how many would respond? Sadly, this might be one of those things best noticed on social media sites. That pretty much means that I'm unable to assist in getting this to the point where it's popular enough to become a thing.
This is what you said:
Blame Ubuntu for being the first to "solve" a problem that didn't exist.
Wouldn't Redhat be the first? And, if not, are you saying that it solved a problem for RedHat?
What non-existent problem did Ubuntu fix?
I'm still, after all this time, trying to wrap my head around this. I was working on Unix systems back in the late starting at just about 1990. While I did administration duties, I'd still humbly submit that I am not an admin. It's a bit like I've written many lines of code but I am not a programmer. In both cases, I learned out of necessity and with the aid of many kind and knowledgeable people. I have absolutely no formal training in either but I do have a lot of hands-on.
I noticed your post was moderated troll. The thing is, I'm not really sure if your post *is* a troll. If that makes sense.
I see a lot of complaints with systemd but, in my experience, that's not borne out and some of the complaints seem a bit odd. Like the lack of binary logs. Err... You can not only output binary logs but you can still read them from another OS. I find journalctl to be pretty handy and the startup blame to be handy. You can even still use init scripts and I understand that they work exactly as they have for a long time. Don't ask me *how* to do that, I've not needed to look into it. I have it on good authority that it's not only doable, it's just like it was before.
I mostly learned a few new commands and moved on. I've had no system instability. I've had no problems. But...
I am *not* a professional administrator. I am not administrating 5,000 servers. Lemme count.... Only servers? Only bare metal? I maintain 23. I think... All of them Linux, varied distros. I think all the bare metal have systemd on them. I'm pretty sure at any rate - a quick bit of SSH tells me that this is so for the first half dozen.
Oh, I've had problems. I just recently reconverted to using Linux exclusively, including on the desktop. I used Windows for a long time, I was even an MS MVP award winner for like 6 or 7 years (in various categories) and I'm actually kind of OS agnostic. I not only don't really care what other people use, I'm not all that particular about what I'll use. I'll even use OS X if I gotta.
But, yes... I've had problems. I've had loads of problems over the years. I may not be a diagnostic expert but, as near as I can tell, none of them stem from systemd. If anything, systemd has helped me - on multiple occasions.
So, I'm not sure I follow... What non-existent problem was Ubuntu the first to fix and why is RedHat not the first if they were the first ones to incorporate it?
In your other post, you referenced a comment that I made about Gentoo. I didn't mention Gentoo? Given that spell check is flagging it as an incorrect word, and knowing my own proclivities, I'm inclined to think that I've never mentioned Gentoo. I don't use it. I do have it in a VM somewhere but it's not spun up. I'm also not sure about the upstart comment. I'm wondering if you've confused me with someone else at this point.
Their direction is in the same direction as your monitor, no? If that's the case, I recommend you stand back and throw for all you're worth! Put your back into it. If at first you don't succeed, try again! If throwing it doesn't work, then keep smashing at the monitor with your chair until it does work. Don't let that monitor get the best of you and don't let that site go unpunished! Smash that shit.
Hell, when you're done? Smash the keyboard for good measure. Fire up your favorite email client and jump up and down on your keyboard until you've typed out enough to let them know exactly how angry you are about their profiteering and usurpation of the public interest! Smash the ever living shit out of and make sure they truly understand the power of your rage. You are not impotent! You have a voice! Let it be heard! Let it be heard once and for all, let it be known that you are angry, let it be known that you have something to say and you're not going to stop until you're done saying it.
You know what? Just to be certain, you might still be unheard and unheeded. You should pick up your tower and slam it on the floor hard enough that the very bytes are sent out of the networking card. Jump up and down on it until you see sparks. Put your foot through it until you see the innards. When you get that far, keep kicking that thing until you see the networking card snap from the motherboard or pop out from its socket. Then kick it again for good measure. Those sparks? That's you sending a few more packets to let them know how angry you really are and how insistent you are on getting the message across.
If you've got a router then we can help with that too. There's absolutely no reason for this and you should not stand for it. You should not stand idle while they persist. Your every move, every breath, and every thought should have but one goal and one goal only. You need to make sure that you're heard, heard clearly, and obeyed. Do not stop at that level! No, son... You're on a self-assigned mission to force adherence to your ideals and there's no reason for you to have it any other way.
Violence is like epoxy, if it doesn't work then mix up another batch and use more of it.
In case you're curious, this is not mockery. This is unceasing adoration that knows no bounds. This is admiration and respect! This, Mr. AC, is me thanking you for doing the things I've not the pride nor courage to do myself. We need you, we need you to defend us. We need you to speak on our behalf. We need you to do for us that which we can not do for ourselves! Let us, for just one moment, live vicariously through you and your deeds. Let us bask in your courage and amplitude! Let us learn from you, absorb your courage via osmosis, and strive to become just 1/10th the man you are, for we are not truly worthy but we are sincere in our appreciation!
It doesn't dull that response. Well, more accurately, it doesn't have to. Mindfulness includes awareness of externalities. If anything, one is "in tune" with their surroundings at a higher/greater level and will thus notice abnormalities, such as threats, more rapidly. If I had to raise my hand and make a blind wager, based on experience, I'd submit that it has the opposite effect.
Put it this way, do you want someone who's antsy and easily startled to be on the lookout or do you want someone who is calm and collected? That's not to say that this can't result in someone being less aware - but that it doesn't *have* to result in people being less aware. It's a state of heightened awareness, awareness of yourself, others, your surroundings, and even can include things like someone else's breathing pattern.
I'd say that it depends on the situation, person, goal, and ability. You're not necessarily wrong but that doesn't make you right. There are certainly exceptions to the rule where the best they can muster is simply wrapping themselves up in thoughts. The ultimate goal of being mindful is stillness of the mind and, in the case of some Buddhists, ridding oneself of desire. There are many steps along that path and many ways to achieve it. Entering a deep meditative state that is beyond capacity to recognize externalities is not generally the goal and runs a bit counter to the idea of mindfulness in general. It has its place but it's not the atypical place and goal.
Not sure if that's articulated well... A quick reread doesn't help me make up my mind. I deleted a few paragraphs as they seem to only make it more confusing.
Too funny. I mentioned similar above. IIRC, CBT does also recommend meditation as much as is safe and therapeutic for the individual. I am told that it is helpful. I made a few other posts in this thread with some other details, things not oft shared. I try to avoid the subject of belief systems on Slashdot. What the hell? If my beliefs don't hold up to scrutiny, why hold onto them?
This... If I may opine, being mindful is being exactly that, mindful. You're aware of you - your surroundings, your thoughts, your breathing, your heart rate, you movements, your desires, your everything and - ideally - those things around you. There are varied levels of mindfulness, one might not want to be as mindful as they could be while driving - while being mindful while driving is also a good thing. It's not a binary thing, there are lots of shades of gray and being mindful of different things is a good thing even though the ideal is everything.
Being mindful is nothing more than the name implies. There's no mysticism. It doesn't even require closing your eyes or being seated in any special or awkward positions - you don't even have to starve yourself until your ribs poke through your skin. The goal is being constantly mindful. If you're mindful then you can achieve stillness. With stillness there is no desire. Without desire, you are free. 'Snot really all that complicated.
I believe modern psychology is teaching/practicing something a bit similar. They call it CBT or Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. That's a subset, if I'm understanding how it was described to me. It is where you're "in tune" with your physical self (mindful) and seeing the way you feel physically or what you are physically doing as a way to understand what's mentally going on. People with some forms of mental illness will manifest their symptoms physically before they're actually able to realize it mentally. This gives them the chance to interrupt that process and change their thinking and/or to change their physical state.
I believe there's another called DBT but I have no idea what that entails and I'm too lazy to look it up. Either way, there's no real mysticism or anything. I want to say that it's fairly well understood, as much as anything involving the brain is understood. It's not like it's new, hip, or even unique to Buddhism. It's certainly not trendy, I don't think? I've been engaged in the practice for what must be 20+ years though certainly quite a bit longer than that but with a different perspective and goal.