Re: Crypto?
I thought it meant "hidden value". So well hidden as to be undiscoverable.
40557 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
Those weren't really pets anyway. They were reliable long-lived work horses, reliably running businesses day in, day out, week in week out.
But the real problem with your comment is that the bulk of tit is the inversion the actuality. The virtue of Sysv init is its transparency. What it's doing is written down. It's written down where it matters. It's writen down unambiguously. It's written down in the init scripts. There can be no conflict between what might be written down in some ambiguous or out-dated document and what's running. If there's any perceived weirdness it's in the mind of the perceiver who can't grok shell scripts.
It doesn't serve the needs of this laptop. The arguments I seem to hear are that it's to serve the interests of admins who want to bring up servers quickly (presumably so quickly they aren't going to spend time doing memchecks?). That seems to be where I hear the defences coming from.
"It also standardises the boot system, whereas if RH had gone for one and Debian for another it would have complicated things."
There was a widely accepted boot system, sufficiently widely accepted to be looked on as a de facto standard. It was RH that changed that with the introduction of systemd. Preference for a standardised boot system is an argument against Red Hat and systemd.
"I have a news flash: Linux went corporate 15 years ago and the image of the talented lone programmer contributing to the init system after putting their kids to bed just for the fun of it are long, long past."
Yes we know that. Some of us fought the battles to get Linux into corporate use.
And it wasn't just Solaris & HP-UX in the 1990s. There were a few others about as well; I used some of them back then. They also were corporate and they didn't have this mess.
The difference, I think, is an influx of admins who expect systems to be black boxes with a few things to click on, who don't have the skills to write a shell script if they need one, don't recognise they need one because they don't expect the system to handle anything that hasn't been pre-cooked and don't expect long uptimes (and hence the prattling about cattle not pets).
If I were to meet him (assuming I could find someone to pay for me to go on "the conference circuit") would that somehow undo the damage? The primary issue is not actually him, it's the utter mess that he's produced, or at least that's generally attributed to him and which, AFAIK, he hasn't denied responsibility for. There are others to share the blame of foisting this stuff on us in the way Jake has outlined above. Nevertheless the responsibility stops with him.
It matters not whether he's approachable or not. For all i know "he" could have been a group of people hiding behind a nom de plume and it wouldn't have made any difference. It is the technical differences that matter.
You have missed my more general point which, I think, raises a serious and significant issue.
You would like to see honest people with technical nous in government, as would most if not all of us here. But if the default attitude to anyone in politics is unthinkingly hostile how do you think that's going to happen. Who, as an honets techie, would take that step? The hostility is going to select for the thick-skinned, venal or power-hungry and block just the sort of candidates we'd prefer.
This is something that needs to be addressed and it's going to take a good deal more thought than simply picking a group and dismissing them as corrupt. It's also going to take more thought than simply dismissing the Tories as a party of corruption especially if that involves ignoring what seems to me to be an inherently corrupt association between the unions* and Labour and a number of well documented examples of corruption in local government.
* Who,in my limited dealings with them as a former member, regard their rank and file as no more than sources of income and cannon fodder.
"It wasn't reasonable to pay Deloittes £1K/day for outsourced and mostly clueless call centre droids who had nothing to do. It wasn't reasonable to pay £6K+/day for senior Deloittes staff who have no medical expertise and knew fuck all about pandemics or public health."
Nor to be apparently unaware that the experise already existed at local level.
Looking at some of the contenders who've been listed there do seem to be a few with real-world experience there. Whether they survive the Westminster back-stabbing is a differen matter.
But it's going to be difficult to recruit anyone of competence when the reaction of so many is to simply brand them as corrupt without even looking at all closely. Would you or any of the other commentards here step up to that? I wouldn't although I'm a bit long in the tooth for that anyway.
I also have taken part in such projects. I've also seen at least one institutionally incompetent department (and it was incompentent over 50 years ago when I encountered it a s a member of the public). But the critical phrase in what you point out is "well-defined requirements".
"For all the armchair experts who will loudly tell you they knew it would all go wrong"
Slight problem with the tenses here. All along there have been plenty of people saying it will go wrong. Foresight, not hindsight. If the bystanders could see that why couldn't the participants? Wilful ignorance seems likely.
Every week I hear of users who _demand_ to open any email and attachment they receive.
Sign this:
"I request permission to open any email attachment I choose. I acknowledge that I have been warned about the risks this brings to the business which pays my salary and confirm that I understand that warning and those risks. If this request is granted this document becomes my unconditional resignation effective immediately an attachment I open causes damege.
Signed ........................"