Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

Microsoft Azure Outage Across the Globe

segedunum Re:Yawn ... (161 comments)

Check out he prices for EC2 reserved instances, if you know you'll need that server for 3 years.

If I was committing myself to a server for three years then I'd buy one where all the resources were guaranteed to be mine...... The whole point of the 'cloud' is to get yourself away from long-term commitments, move around your infrastructure and upgrade as necessary. The fact that Amazon, and others, have started doing this to look better against dedicated hardware tells me that things are not sustainable in that castle up in the sky.

Prices are similar per core to buying entry-level Dell rackmount servers with 3-year support contracts. Of course, the physical Dell has more memory and disk than the VM with the same core count, so you come out ahead there if you needs lots of memory, or local disk, but not by a lot.

I don't think comparing and equating dedicated hardware to a transient Amazon instance in a data centre you will never see is a terribly good idea. The whole point of the cloud is to remove yourself from such long-term commitments. I also have a chuckle at any salesperson who starts using doublespeak like telling me how less expensive something is 'per core' or 'per watt'. It's usually a whole load of nonsensical corner cases they've dreamed up.

11 minutes ago
top

Ukraine's IT Brigade Supports the Troops

segedunum Re:Still they are underpowered (53 comments)

As opposed to a western sympathetic president who is also a Nazi?

Ahhhh, a westerner's view of knowledge of world politics and history...........

23 minutes ago
top

Microsoft Azure Outage Across the Globe

segedunum Re:Yawn ... (161 comments)

Once again, missing the point. In my (small) shop, by using azure (which has worked well for us), we avoid having to use money to hire admins to maintain any sort of in house servers we might have.

Who maintains your Azure infrastructure (I hope you built in all that lovely redundancy for these problems) and how often do you really need to maintain internal servers? If these are on 24x7 you're going to be paying through the nose and if you miss a monthly fee, off you go. Not to mention that cloud servers are horrifically under resourced compared to hardware you can buy, so you generally need many more of them, and none of the bandwidth, I/O or CPU resources are guaranteed to be yours no matter what your meaningless agreement says.

We can then put that money towards more developers (or better salaries for us current devs), as well as paying for training, nicer dev machines, etc.

Ahhh, yes. Developers who believe deployment can be bypassed as a cost and running applications in production (which is kind of important to any company running web applications and who relies on them for income) simply doesn't matter.

At the same time, if we do have a problem with any sort of hosted service through azure, support is literally a phone call away, and I can't remember the last time a resolution didn't happen within a couple hours.

You've been exceptionally lucky, or you're being economical with the truth ;-).

Sure, cloud computing has its short-comings. But it has also allowed a litany of small companies who simply can't afford to own their own infrastructure to do business.

I've also seen a litany of small companies go out of business with cashflow issues who thought like that. Funny that. Yes, the infrastructure is cheaper if you don't run it all the time. I think I once calculated that if you have a server on for more than eight hours a day then you're simply being milked for a monthly fee.

3 days ago
top

Alleged Satellite Photo Says Ukraine Shootdown of MH17

segedunum Re:Yet Another Fake Picture (338 comments)

Explosive machine gun rounds from the cannon would cause larger holes, not smaller ones.

No they wouldn't, because it depends on where they explode, if at all and there were entry and exits. Keep digging though. This simple shrapnel assumption is rather curious given what has been found: http://www.anderweltonline.com.... The cockpit area was certainly hit by something very, very different than shrapnel.

about a week ago
top

Alleged Satellite Photo Says Ukraine Shootdown of MH17

segedunum Re:Yet Another Fake Picture (338 comments)

The pictures of wreckage we've seen show the latter, not the former.

Nope, they don't. However, good luck getting pictures of evidence of cannon fire: http://www.anderweltonline.com...

Just as important, we know the rebels were operating air-to-air batteries in the area...

No, we don't. Hearsay from CNN etc. doesn't count here.

about a week ago
top

Alleged Satellite Photo Says Ukraine Shootdown of MH17

segedunum Re:Yet Another Fake Picture (338 comments)

Yes, it's called "shrapnel".

Nope. These were clearly defined as clean holes, in one end out the other. Shrapnel is much more haphazard.

Because cannon fire has a minimum size of the puncture it can make, the size of the shell. The resulting marks on the aircraft will be a circle of that size, given a nice face-on strike, or elongations if the angle was more glancing. It can get much larger if the metal tears.

Now look at the image. There are many, many holes in the aircraft that are much smaller than a cannon shell. In fact, there are quite a few that are exactly the size of a piece of shrapnel.

Look at what image? I didn't quote one and you certainly haven't either even though you refer to one, although there are suspiciously not as many to look at thes edays. Claptrap.

http://www.anderweltonline.com...

So that's why "west no one seems to want to even entertain" the idea, it's clearly false.

No, our western governments are not immune to propaganda themselves, as much as that may shock you. But feel free to stop questioning, your government has your best interests at heart and keep sucking in whatever you watch on Fox, or CNN or whatever. Keep hold of the comfort blanket.

about a week ago
top

Alleged Satellite Photo Says Ukraine Shootdown of MH17

segedunum Re:Yet Another Fake Picture (338 comments)

What we do know is that the plane was downed with multiple, small, high velocity projectiles. The wreckage was found with them. In the west no one seems to want to even entertain the possibility that this was cannon fire. On the other hand, if it was downed by Ukraine then this hardly helps Russia's case.

Too many smoke and mirrors on this, and sadly, I don't think we will ever get the truth.

about a week ago
top

Joey Hess Resigns From Debian

segedunum Re:Gnome3, systemd etc. (447 comments)

No. Systemd supporters give plenty of technical reasons for their support. In my case (for one thing) it is wanting event based processing of service management. Systemd offers that, sysV rc doesn't. Like it or not, that's a technical reason.

I don't. I'm a sys admin and I don't believe that adding that required a completely new init system that has now morphed into something altogether very, very different that I will have to pick up the pieces on. Sorry, not a valid technical argument but then these things get very tricky for people because they can't actually pin down what systemd is supposed to do.

On the other hand, you anti guys keep bringing up things like this shit, or 'not Unix philosophy'...

I don't know if you brain cells have noticed, but Linux was built by Linus from the kernel on up with a Unix philosophy in mind that has served it very, very well in the server world and the functions it performs. After many decades of that philosophy and the lessons learned from it you would think people would have learned what does and doesn't work, but apparently not.

'monolithic hairball'. Those are not technical arguments.

Given that it's an extremely core piece of software then I'm afraid people are justifiably concerned about a monolithic piece of software with poorly defined goals and requirements that they'll have to end up supporting when its maintainers tell us all a security issue isn't their problem to fix. Sorry, but that very much is a technical argument, as well as one of maintainership. systemd fails on both counts.

Do me a favour, and refrain from answering until you can actually muster a technical argument against systemd.

I find that extremely funny coming from some moron who puts 'Unix philosophy' in quotes and nonchalantly dismisses decades worth of hard, hard lessons learned and quite obviously hasn't the faintest idea about working with a Linux system. But then, that's what we've come to expect isn't it?

about two weeks ago
top

Joey Hess Resigns From Debian

segedunum Re:Gnome3, systemd etc. (447 comments)

I agree. Systemd is now about a "2nd kernel" or "userspace plumbing". Essentially a redesign of Linux.

The problem is I don't know what there is for Debian to debate. They don't have the upsteam influence.

The problem is that they have to support it, because the evidence tells us that when the inevitable security problems come calling the 'upstream maintainers' won't be terribly responsive.

about two weeks ago
top

Joey Hess Resigns From Debian

segedunum Re:Gnome3, systemd etc. (447 comments)

Cue some example of seeing a half flushed log line in a file, as though someone actually got any information from that line.

When a binary logging system fails you lose a hell of a lot more than a line's worth of logs. Or are you just going to keep making yourself look like the idiot you are?

It's becoming rapidly apparent to me that the people who complain no one listens to their complaints about systemd haven't realized they don't listen or attempt to learn about what they're complaining about.

Blah, blah, blah, I will spout crap and try and muddy the waters.

about two weeks ago
top

Joey Hess Resigns From Debian

segedunum Re:Gnome3, systemd etc. (447 comments)

many administrators of Linux installations do not want any of Poettering's libs installed at all.

Insane.

Not if you understood what that software does or his past history.

about two weeks ago
top

Joey Hess Resigns From Debian

segedunum Re:Gnome3, systemd etc. (447 comments)

You mean a developer who finally brought seemless audio switching to Linux bringing it in line with other operating systems from the late 90s?

No, we mean a developer who took an audio system that just about ended up working through the days of OSS and ALSA, broke large parts of it, shrugged his shoulders and said that a lot of kernel drivers that used to work and were now largely unmaintained needed to be 'fixed' rather than maintaining a completely sensible approach of maintaining backwards compatibility. PulseAudio has now only improved since he started turning his attentions elsewhere.

about two weeks ago
top

Joey Hess Resigns From Debian

segedunum Re:Gnome3, systemd etc. (447 comments)

That's called progress. I liked MySpace and didn't like the switch to Facebook. So what?

People switched to Facebook largely because MySpace was crap, nor was it an enforced change. People voted with their feet. How and why are we moving core and very important pieces of software in Linux distributions to systemd again?

There is no catch-22. Gnome is led by RedHat. RedHat is moving in the direction of OpenShift. PaaS vendors want process management i.e. systemd. That's a clear cut chain of dependency.

Good luck to them, but that has no relevance to other Linux distributions or those administering them. Again, this argument of "Red Hat is doing this therefore you have to" holds no water and whenever all else had been exhausted that's what we get. I also wish them luck with the inevitable security problems because they are going to be humdingers even if you had a bunch of maintainers who were extremely responsive to bugs and had a clue what they were doing.

about two weeks ago
top

Joey Hess Resigns From Debian

segedunum Re:Gnome3, systemd etc. (447 comments)

Because you just went on to prove the entire point I was making by talking all about extra network protocols and daemons all created to make networked syslog reliable while you're in the middle of complaining about using a separate daemon to make journald network exportable.

You have no point at all apart from making a whole load of noise to make it look like you have one.

At this point, I have no idea what you think the problem is other then "oh my god journald is new and scary".

Not an argument I'm afraid, but this is the kind of non sequiturs that systemd critiques usually boil down to once its proponents have exhausted all the nonesense.

Sys admins demand logs they can read under as many circumstances as possible and the ability to take logs off a machine promptly in the event it is compromised. systemd fails conclusively on both counts. The point, and the end.

about two weeks ago
top

Joey Hess Resigns From Debian

segedunum Re:Gnome3, systemd etc. (447 comments)

23.23.142.124

Did a digit go missing? Get flipped? Maybe it meant to say 231.23.142.124

It's redundant in the sense that it's useless. Not redundant in the sense that it's robust.

Did systemd corrupt my logs or not? No idea. Can I get a portion of my logs back, or are they all lost? Nope, they're all lost.

I'm afraid you're really pissing in the wind with the your arguments now.

about two weeks ago
top

Joey Hess Resigns From Debian

segedunum Re:Gnome3, systemd etc. (447 comments)

You mean a disconnect like the fact that you can pretty trivially 100% a couple of servers running feature extracting daemons processing text based logs at the moment for a small cluster of machines?

I have no idea what that load of claptrap means (par for the course with this trail of systemd brain damage), but you obviously don't understand the importance of a push based system. You want to make sure stuff gets pushed as soon as reducing any possibility that logs get altered inbetween. The fact that anyone suggests pulling as a solution means that have no clue at all about system administration.

Where has this absurd notion that text logs are efficient come from?

Fucking hell. The issue here is lowest common denominator. Under as many disastrous circumstances as possible there are those of us who, you know, do fucking administration for a living who have to be able to read log files - and I mean have to. To put a binary logger in the middle of there means there are those of us who can use half a brain cell and work out why that would be a problem. That's the real elephant in the room, but I notice you throw the strawman of efficiency in there.

Of course rsyslog also reads systemd journals natively.

Doesn't help.

about two weeks ago
top

Joey Hess Resigns From Debian

segedunum Re:Gnome3, systemd etc. (447 comments)

In the past to get network logging you needed to install a syslog daemon. And with systemd you still need to install a syslog daemon. What's the big deal?

Have you stopped to think how utterly stupid that statement is? In the past I had syslog running as default. No work necessary. Now I have to run it as a separate daemon from the 'default' logging system just so I can get plain text logs, hoping systemd doesn't corrupt anything inbetween.

about two weeks ago
top

Joey Hess Resigns From Debian

segedunum Re:Gnome3, systemd etc. (447 comments)

If you can't support systemd on technical grounds without getting threats, something is very toxic indeed.

Under no circumstances has systemd been supported on technical grounds (those proposing it keep repeating this ad nauseam in the hope it will just be accepted as fact), nor has there been any extensive discussion in the manner he describes. systemd has been imposed as a de facto default almost overnight and the general consensus has been that it would be accepted with nary a whisper. Now that there is some pushback various characters are getting upset.

Given that this is an extremely core piece of software that a distribution is going to have to support come hell or high water it deserves a huge amount of scrutiny it hasn't got. You've also got to look beyond the code and ask yourself whether it is backed by a group of developers who are very, very, very responsive to security issues and bugs. The answer to that is a big fat NO.

"But desktop environments like Gnome were already requiring systemd before Debian switched to it; Debian cannot hold back the tide."

In every supposedly technical discussion that I have seen about systemd this is the default end argument. That is NOT a technical argument.

about two weeks ago
top

Joey Hess Resigns From Debian

segedunum Re:What does he mean? (447 comments)

Wow, another long post on systemd spouting ideology and rhetoric without nary a valid technical complain....but the project also aims to provide lightweight implementations of what it considers "core" functionality.

What a load of ideological and and rehtorical claptrap.

None of my systemd systems use systemd cron or DHCP for example, even though those daemons exist.

Why do they exist?

about two weeks ago

Submissions

segedunum hasn't submitted any stories.

Journals

segedunum has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?