Posts by Doctor Syntax 40485 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"Which would you rather have: a system that doesn't work or can't be trusted?"
It's a false dichotomy. The effort that goes into the break it now fix should go into the fix it properly fix. What I want, and which I expect Linus to provide, because of this approach, is a system that works and can be trusted.
"So why is it right when Linus says effectively the same thing?"
Linus isn't saying the same thing. What he's saying is fix the problem instead of hiding it.
AFAICS what's happening is that the security researchers are sending in patches which will throw an error if a dubious bit of code is hit even if it wouldn't cause a problem in that instance. They're then expecting him to incorporate that code in the kernel tree for the next release.
What he wants is that the code itself is fixed. That can then be backported into older kernel versions* (that, of course, could also be done with the just kill it fix). However the effort that goes into the just kill it patch could either be put into a proper fix by the researcher or, if that's too difficult, into a proper bug report so it can be fixed. Either fix is likely to go into the same kernel release cycle anyway and it's vastly preferable that it's a real fix. If he allowed just kill it fixes in the real fixes are likely to be delayed.
* Linux distributions don't always run the same kernel version. These appeal to different types of user.
Production systems tend to be very conservative with LTS vernel versions and only security fixes made available as kernel updates. Consistency of operation is highly valued.
More adventurous distros exist for those who must have the latest, greatest, coolest toys. These value novelty over consistency and can expect breakages from one release to the next. A release will have the latest kernel available at the time of packaging.
Users who want to test new stuff - equivalent to the Windows Insider Fast Ring can either go for a bleeding edge distro or install RC kernels in other distros.
"If there are other people in the car, they *should* be making/receiving the phone call instead of the driver."
If use of the hands-free distracts the driver then listening to one end of the call, telling the passenger what to say or even conversing with the passenger when not on a call is likely to be at least as distracting.
"It included a database application"
The company was bought by Informix for no good reason except that their (Informix's) then management suffered from a lack of BOFH and openable windows in their offices. They did some work to use Informix as a back end. But only as a back end to the spreadsheet.
"The real issue is not scripts but a lack of a proper life cycle including a rudimentary spec (why are you doing this), peer review, testing, version control, and documentation."
You say that as if they're good things - which they are, of course, as is repeatability. Because, as you say, scripts are small programs these can be applied and more easily than into manual operations; even if the latter are written down in your ops manual as an - errrm - script you still rely on the operator following them.
You should not be relying on them for everyday tasks, or even "every year" tasks, because you're just opening yourself up to problems.
This is just what you should be using them for. As you say, you can get them ratified, check into the source code revision system of your choice or whatever in order to have a repeatable set of operations on which you can rely. For rarely performed operations this is even more important than daily ones.
Effectively you are then doing software development, whether you're a tiny one-man operation or a huge multi-national, and the same standards as you'd expect a software developer to use should apply - testing, verification, dummy-runs, early bail-outs, stop on every error, etc.
Yes. Why would you fly by the seat of your pants doing operations manually when you have this option?
I would also suggest that the differences between scripting an operation and performing it manually is little different from performing it "manually" (on a computer) and actually doing the operations in person.
1. It can be reviewed by yourself and others. That way it can be checked for errors, including typos such as rm -rf ~fred /*
2. It's repeatable. If you have a saved script that was successfully yesterday you know it will perform exactly the same operations today and tomorrow which you might not do yourself if sitting there thinking "Now what did I do next?".
"That's no different to saying that thieves operate a better service than the original manufacturers."
The journals get their material written for free, edited for free and refereed for free. Then they sell it back to the sorts of people who wrote, edited and refereed it and, they hope, will write, edit and referee the next issue.
I'm finding it difficult to decide just where to place the idea of theft here, especially when I see JStor charging for access to stuff I wrote for a very cheaply produced and distributed publication.
"have shared storage"
Genuine question...what's that got to do with a router?
It's something a lot of routers offer these days - stick a USB socket on the side of the router and let the punters plug a thumb drive into it and it appears on the network. The good news is you don't have to use it.
man breaks automated tests at 00:30
"My Google Nexus 5X is pretty much everything. It''s my plane ticket, train ticket, bus ticket, tram ticket, taxi ride and method of paying for most transactions < £30 (and many other things)."
Looks on with sympathy - but not much.
"A voxel is a point on a 3D grid."
It's actually a small volume, not an actual point, just as a pixel is an area on your screen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voxel
Hence the description: "a group of points within each voxel" (my emphasis).
OTOH what's a "trainable deep architecture"? It sounds like a ventilation shaft above a railway tunnel.
"Yes, I know most people refer to VED as Road Tax, but that doesn't mean it is."
Shhh. HMG don't wish people to know that. They want them to go on thinking that VED is spent on roads and NI on health and social services. If people didn't believe that they'd have to start thinking about a transparent taxation system.
"not taxes for taxes' sake but specifically to fund road improvements and maintenance"
We've been here before. There used to be the Road Fund. Then it was morphed into the VED, sucked into the Treasury and the roads see less and less of it. In part new roads and bridges which the Road Fund should have financed have instead been built on a toll basis, taking us back to the late C17th.
Impose a new tax to fund road improvements and you'll see (a) even less Treasury funding for roads and (b) the Treasury getting its hands on the new tax.
"Your government is using you as lab rats. They want to find out how many fatal traffic accidents by autonomous cars you are willing to tolerate."
Either that or the AV industry is using the government as lab rats to find out how many fatal traffic accidents bring down a government.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
