Re: So all you businesses running Redmond software ...
"and they didn't plant private backdoors on anything,"
Then put a pass-through system between your exchange server and the outside world, and audit its network traffic.
223 posts • joined 12 Aug 2009
"while reducing the amount of expertise needed to deal with situations like running out of disk space"
BTRFS uses large amounts of disk space without telling 'du' or 'df' about it. In my experience, exactly the opposite of this claim is true. When you get an unexplainable 'out of disk space' error, you can't see anyplace it's gotten to, and it turns out you quickly need to learn about a bunch of infrastructure you never knew was there, expertise is at a premium.
And that's why I'll never use btrfs again.
"Why are so many in the comments "indignant" about women being told what to wear, but nary a peep about men being told what to wear?"
Because men are such stupid sheep they think being told to dress in stupid clothes (and neck accessories) is actually a compliment on their abilities to select stupid clothes.
"Good for whoever is in charge of the programming, not so good for the company in the long run."
Citation needed. How many problems are avoided, how much spending is never even planned when you have a more-or-less fixed cost inhouse pool of expertise to draw on?
"Modern KDE can indeed be far too resource-heavy, but at least you can configure it to be light."
Can you easily get rid of crap like akonadi being a prerequisite of every thing I'd like to install but don't want a goddamn desktop indexer for?
I used to like KDE a lot. Used to.
> "coke, meth, heroin"
> When you're that loaded you need to get loaded more?
" There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. And I knew we'd get into that rotten stuff pretty soon. Probably at the next gas station.” -- Hunter S. Thompson
"So basically... Stick all your configuration in source control and you can check out old versions when you screw it up?"
It's actually more than that. The point (I think) is that you can automate that process almost completely, so you can commit a change, press a button, and the change works its way through your machine farm, paying attention to which machine does exactly what thing, and therefore needs exactly which change, and so on.
Of course, if you can automate it, you can give the button to someone who doesn't understand the inner workings, doesn't have a good model of those machines and their relationships, and is all too willing to push the button because, hey i'ts automated - the button knows all that stuff.
What can go wrong?
As I understand it, there's a reason U.S. Navy submarines have so many people on board. They think it's better to have humans who know stuff in the loop than to have a fully automated system with catastrophic failure modes.
"If OS developers - highly intelligent people with excellent knowledge and understanding of their domain"
Try to work with memory overcommit in a shared HPC environment, then try to repeat that with a straight face.
A kernel house of cards designed for no other real purpose than to make bad code run (for a while).
"f laptop makers were really serious about security, then hard swtiches for the camera and mic, just for starters."
Yes, it's not the camera that worries me nearly as much as the microphone. I'd really like a laptop without one, or failing that the confidence to open it up and cut the correct leads.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021