Posts by Quetzalcoatlus

That's really pretty impressive considering I don't think I've ever seen a program belonging to systemd itself crash. I can tell they must have very strict testing standards. I may never figure out how to get systemd-networkd to play along with the other network autoconfig utilities that invariably come with every distro, but it sure beats editing init scripts and cron jobs and dealing with every daemon's logs and pidfiles in each ones own special way.

journalctl is a godsend particularly if you don't care about any log messages older than 10 seconds and/or are running everything off flash storage where if you're actually writing all those log messages out to disk, it will wreck both the performance and lifespan of your disk

And, if you do happen to find a particular enjoyment in editing init scripts, it has some pretty good backward compatibility with those too; I still have plenty of init scripts just I use systemctl to start stop enable and disable them now instead of that 'service' contraption.

The world needed a Python 3 as much as it needed a Perl 6. Basically breaking backward compatibility as a matter of principle rather than any logical technical reasons. Oh, but backward compatibility isn't ALWAYS broken, you'll just have to run it in both versions and see which crashes less. And wither now the world of still perfectly good but unmaintained Python 2 code? I especially love trying to run that stuff when it was written under the assumption that it could always be run by /usr/bin/python. What a waste.

Yeah they published the spec, and it's one of the most unreadable specs I've ever seen in my life, not because ExFAT is that complicated, but because almost every subparagraph is a reference to another subparagraph, which may or may not include another reference to another subparagraph recursively. It's worse reading than legal codes. It's rather like trying to read files off an ExFAT filesystem with xxd and less, if you can do that, you can read the spec and vice versa I guess it's fitting.

Word needs macros like Excel. It might have them, buried in a ribbon somewhere, seen by none for decades. Classic MS design. What's worse, no start menu, or the ribbon? MS will find an answer, by experimenting on all their customers.