Re: Temporary Apple Fanboy Here
I'll drink to that.
1917 posts • joined 5 Mar 2007
I'll drink to that.
Poettering's arrogance is the reason the "project" refuses to address it. He will insist that clear, replicable bugs aren't actually bugs and that people are just using it wrong.
We're past microsoft and into Apple territory now. "It just works", as long as you hold it right.
The pushback against systemd is because it takes what were independent systems and rolls them into a tightly coupled monolith. The independence of those prior systems was their greatest strength - the more independent those systems are, the less opportunity there is to bring down the entire OS by crashing one of those systems.
systemd can claim to be modular all it wants; the fact that you can take down the entire OS via the init with a malicious dns response is a fucking travesty in this day and age. It's the sort of thing that even Windows left behind at the turn of the century.
That advice essentially amounts to "turn off the update service", followed by laborious manual checking every day. That is not in any way acceptable.
Raed it again.
They made that joke because he'd already run. He's run on and off since the 90s.
He also worked two hours a day, three days a week.
Or they might announce that Google voice is just a beta and is being discontinued in a month.
We didn't need it. The usmc top brass wanted a replacement for their version of the harrier, so we decided to build a carrier around that planned replacement rather than go back to regular carriers and much cheaper conventional airframes.
Basically everyone involved decided to be an idiot and pick the most retarded way of doing things, as usual.
Dogs are Haram. It's running cat licky now.
The fact that much of that post made sense to me has got me quite worried about my own sanity now.
Why must you insist on reading things that simply aren't there? If you can point to anything I wrote that plainly states "brexit is a response to unfair treatment of third-world countries" I'll give you a thousand pounds. Cash.
My argument was against the concept of the EU in general, not one of why the UK chose to leave in particular. Perhaps you should spend less time strawmanning everyone who disagrees with you and more time engaging with the actual arguments that have been made.
It's like talking to a bloody brick wall with you.
The UNECE was established in 1947 with the stated aim of encouraging economic integration between the nations of Europe, which was believed to be a way to prevent future war. Generally speaking, greater economic integration does reduce the likelihood of war between participants.
The ECSC was established in 1950, with the stated aim of preventing war through political integration, by ensuring that each member had to rely on other members for material goods.
I stated that the EEA/EFTA emerged from the stated goals and the efforts of the UNECE. This is a fact. All your muddying the water with when particular nations joined the ECE or switched from the EFTA to the EU, and putting words in my mouth doesn't change this fact.
I certainly agree that the EU is a more ambitious plan. It is ambitious to want to create and enforce resource interdependence between states. It is ambitious to increasingly bypass national legislatures and remove their ability to create their own laws over wider and wider swathes of policy. It is ambitious to create a protectionist border against the outside world while dumping internal surpluses at below market rates on north africa, driving local farmers and fishermen out of business and creating a huge immigration issue.
Ambitious is not synonymous with better.
I didn't say the eea came first, I said that the eu (then eec) coopted the stated goals of the unece, from which the eea/efta later emerged, and added an unnecessary element of political union.
None of what you say changes the simple facts: the eu and the single market are not synonymous and the eu is a protectionist organisation.
The regulations that allow the common market to function are only a small fraction of the rules that govern the EU, and most of those regulations originate at the international level anyway. Neither is the Single Market an invention of the EU, but rather is part of the EEA agreement. The EU is simply a member of it along with all other EEA/EFTA members.
EFTA/EEA members can act independently in trade with other nations instead of having to abide by the common position of the EU and they also aren't bound by the decisions of the ECJ. There is a great deal of voluntary compliance with the ECJ, but the fact that it's voluntary is entirely the point: the EFTA/EEA is not politically bound to "ever closer union".
The EU and EEA were parallel developments, with the EEA being a development of the activities of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, a body devoted solely to abolishing trade barriers between european nations without any pretence of political integration. The EU coopted that aim, but the fact that we're now arguing about the return of trade barriers between the UK and the EU shows that it isn't really interested in facilitation of trade, but instead in the protection of internal markets from the outside world.
The EU was a mistake. It took what was a good idea - economic integration and trade facilitation through common standards - and mixed in trade protectionism and political integration within a common border. It is recreating at the edge of the Union the same protectionist attitude that the EEA was established to abolish.
Those restrictions are imposed by Norway, not the EU. I don't doubt that the EU will impose some duty on personal imports from the UK, but I suspect that our government will be very keen in imposing strict restrictions and high duties on individual imports, both for the revenue and to satisfy the increasingly moralistic anti-pleasure tendencies of successive governments.
Glad to see someone else got here with this.
Of course, if we join the EEA/EFTA as a transitional step while we sort out wherever it is we're going in the long term, we could actually make use of such a system. This is of course assuming that May and the Wallbangers are not nearly as dense as they currently appear to be and that, after the election, May will use her larger majority to reduce the power of the "hard brexit" morons, shoot Davis in the foot he has jammed in his mouth and fire Boris out of a cannon into the sun.
All is for the best in this the best of all possible worlds.
The KDE packages they use are derived from Debian, where a dependency exists between KDE and systemd through, amongst other things, systemd-logind, which manages users and userspace access to hardware. They're also implementing more dependencies on systemd's various integrated subsystems.
I imagine they'll eventually repackage KDE to remove the dependency, but that's going to be increasingly difficult as time passes. KDE is already moving to make use of more of systemd's "features".
If systemd only handled init, there wouldn't be an argument. The fact that it has swallowed logging, interprocess communication and device management, to name just three formerly independent subsystems, is precisely any there is so much hostility. Each new subsystem it absorbs is one less that can be replaced with alternatives and one more dependency on systemd that did not previously exist.
Devuan has non-defaulted the big desktops because they have dependencies on systemd thataren'teasilly resolved. Why in the hell should kde have deps on the init?
And I'm sure the fact that systemd rolled a couple of very important daemons (such as udev) into its monolith, forcing dependency on it where none previously existed, has absolutely nothing to do with its forced adoption.
Yes, lets get back to calling it yellow.
The EU and the ECHR are separate entities. Quitting the EU would not mean that we are no longer bound by the ECHR.
Not that it matters much. Per Russia's behaviour, if a country is determined to ignore the ECHR then there isn't much that can be done about it.
Nah, it wasn't build to relieve the A1.
However, I will cop to it not being called M1 because it was the first, which was a silly claim now I think about it. It's called M1 because of where it originates.
Motorways and roads out of London are numbered clockwise from 1 in the north, dividing the areas around London (and including some other parts of the country) into 4 zones. The M1 was the northernmost motorway out of London, so it gets a 1. The M2 and A2 are named for where they poke out in zone 2. Roads in zone 1 and get the scheme 1n, so between the M1 and M2 you get the A11 and the M11, which go in completely different directions; the A10 which goes in roughly the same direction as the M11; and no M10, because it's now part of the A414 (originates in zone 4), but was originally an eastbound motorway spur from the bottom of the M1.
The rest of the country is also divided up into numbering zones. The crucial bit of information is that the zones are different for A roads and motorways.
So really it's just a coincidence. An apparent correlation that falls apart once you consider more evidence.
You have to get very technical to claim the m6 was built first. It was a bypass around preston which only later was incorporated into the m6. The first dedicated motorway to be built was the m1.
First among them: poettering, to declare his ignorance.
You very poorly characterise what actually happened.
Immediately after the issue was fixed by someone else, he declares the issue wasn't a problem and demonstrates a profound ignorance of the basic utilities systemd is replacing. Several people then corrected his woefully poor understanding of how rm functions.
If these are "haters" then I'm the fucking pope.
Which is why the post specified operating systems and not ecosystems. What an external application developer chooses to do is irrelevant. The closer you are to pid0, the closer you should stick to the Unix philosophy.
As I pointed out below, this was exactly what udev was built to handle. It had issues, but it was far superior to the prior solutions. It worked. it just needed to be made more robust.
Instead, Poettering and Sievers decided that udev should be rolled into systemd and made some argument about the init having to know about hardware changes to justify the change. The init doesn't need to know this. Not this intimately. udev, formerly a "do one thing" project, became locked into the "do lots of things" project and has been steadily locked down and crippled to fit the vision of systemd - and of course, in the process, it has forced a dependency on systemd in a wide number of subsystems that formerly only had a dependency on udev.
Udev handled that just fine... which is why they rolled it into systemd I guess.
Not every change is for the better. systemd changes a whole bunch of things for absolutely no purpose, to the detriment of users and developers. It isn't any form of progress. This idea that new is always better is a fallacy.
systemd is a regression - a reduction in quality and maintainability. Rejecting regression is a good thing.
Given that's pretty much what poettering wants...
It wasn't difficult before systemd came along. Other inits aren't tied to disparate elements of the OS and don't pile so much functionality into a single package. They just run and manage daemons.
If systemd just ran and managed daemons, there wouldn't be any arguments.
It should be vi.
By that he means running another init as PID1.
IAT tests don't show implicit racism, but cognitive delay when dealing with the unfamiliar. Tests in hol l and, using all "white" imagery and names, showed that participants demonstrated the same apparent bias when presented with names in finnish.
And a comedy is always a tragedy for the antagonist.
That's not a birthright, it's an obligation.
Depends on the supplier. Taking the boots example, I have (or had) two pairs for a comparable price of around £80: one from Clarks, one from some clothes store that I can't recall the name of.
The generic boots wore out in a year. The leather went in holes despite treatment, the soles split and revealed they were made of nothing but laminated cardboard dressed up to look like leather. The laces frayed and shredded after no time at all and had to be replaced twice.
The clarks boots are nearly ten years old and still going fine. I had to replace the soles because the tread had worn out, and one of the zip sliders had to be replaced because it had also worn out and wouldn't close properly, but the leather is still in decent nick and I don't see it breaking any time soon. I fully expect I'll still be using these shoes in another ten years.
It may seem that it's getting harder to find quality goods, but they're still out there.
Incidentally I also got a coat from the same clothes store. It's lasted me a very long time as well. The real problem is that there's no single, consistently good supplier.
I'm not sure you understand what a post-scarcity society is. Our current economy is based on the notion of scarcity of resources by necessity, because resources are scarce - at least partly because there is still the requirement for direct human intervention in the gathering and processing of resources.
More than anything, the single limit on economic activity is energy supply. The greater the supply of energy a society has, the more it will automate, because automation is more efficient than using humans to do equivalent work.
If machines are capable of doing "all the work" - running an entire economy from primary to secondary to even tertiary industries, then those machines would by their very nature be capable of gathering resources in ways that are either impossible or very difficult for humans.
The more energy a society has, and consequently the more automation it engages in, the more resources it can gather. If a society has reached the point where it can automate everything, then it follows that such a society will have enough energy and automation to gather effectively unlimited resources. It will have enough energy to make routine journeys beyond earth in order to gather those resources, as that, too, is only a question of the application of sufficient quantities of energy.
A society with effectively unlimited energy, complete automation and the ability to gather effectively unlimited resources will inevitably transition to an entirely different economic model as a result of these things. Post-scarcity means simply that: there is no effective scarcity of resources, and with absolute automation it becomes nigh on impossible to artificially enforce scarcity. Without scarcity, traditional economic models break down.
Notice that I did not say it would become some sort of socialist paradise, just that the economics of a society that can completely automate its industries will be radically different from those we currently understand or abide by.
If all jobs can be done by machines, then we'll be entering a post-scarcity society and economics will already have begun to change in a fundamental way.
They should have built the pane with devops somehow.
I don't see why I got downvoted. The Euro parliament has no legislative authority. It's in the same position as the House of Lords. It can reject or accept legislation and suggest modifications, but it has no power to enforce them. It can't legislate. That means it has no legislative authority.
Legislative authority rests with the Commission and the Council. If the Parliament rejects the Commission's legislative proposal or proposes amendments that the Commission or the Council aren't interested in, the two bodies can turn around and say "we're passing it anyway."
EU parliament has no legislative authority.
That's because tables were evil. Entirely inflexible and semantically retarded, and they made screenreaders throw a fit. They also couldn't be reshaped for differing screen resolutions and broke up the flow of content in arbitrary ways.
Some of the replacement techniques have been nearly as verbose, but they at least separated content from presentation and are easier on screen readers.
With this, all you need as a set of divs and a few css rules. The flow becomes entirely natural and there is no overlap between content and presentation at all. They're nothing like tables except in the final appearance.
Ahhh, that old west-country charm...
In their defence, they did get around to offering ssl by default after a few years complaining about everyone else not offering it.
They'll get there.
Yeah, old enough to mix up Rogue One with TFA, obviously.
Nazi symbols aren't illegal in Germany. What's illegal is their use in glorifying the nazi regime, and only that use.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018