Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
BlankSystemDaemon
Mar 13, 2009

System Access Node
Not Found:ins:


mycophobia posted:

gently caress it i installed gnome. whats the worst that could happen
pretty sure that's how you catch windows, op

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

BlankSystemDaemon
Mar 13, 2009

System Access Node
Not Found:ins:


i don't remember that happening, but it sounds bonkers

BlankSystemDaemon
Mar 13, 2009

System Access Node
Not Found:ins:


The_Franz posted:

iirc it happened in a release candidate or beta, so it wasn't rolled out into production, but it was intentional, should have never happened, and had crazy people arguing that it was a good thing
i'm confused, because there was no root certificate store until the CAROOT build option option and certctl got added, which is a fairly recent development

BlankSystemDaemon
Mar 13, 2009

System Access Node
Not Found:ins:


spankmeister posted:

don't care 2 shits about the systemd thing but that board is beautiful. Just look at those sick 1970's vector graphics fonts

BlankSystemDaemon
Mar 13, 2009

System Access Node
Not Found:ins:


Let's not kid ourselves, the commodification of compute and storage, both main and auxiliary, has absolutely caused developers to become less concerned with being memory efficient - browsers (and a lot of other things) use a lot of memory because systems have a lot of memory, and because they need to isolate everything.

If there's one thing I wish people would learn from the past, it's the lessons of the UNIX wars - namely that there shouldn't be a very small number of people that gets to dictate how everyone should do it.
Unfortunately, that's exactly how it is now.

BlankSystemDaemon
Mar 13, 2009

System Access Node
Not Found:ins:


mystes posted:

Interesting take on the situation. I'm not convinced systemd really changes that much or is that significant philosophically though. However perhaps the people who are against it feel that it does/is.
Nope, we're not allowed to have any opinions.

BlankSystemDaemon
Mar 13, 2009

System Access Node
Not Found:ins:


Kazinsal posted:

gently caress code size, asset size, whatever. memory is expendable but time isn't, so gently caress optimizing for size. optimize for speed.
The irony of the optimisation for speed that you're claiming has happened, though, is that that every single developer treating storage like a commodity has meant that, for example the average pageload on the top-10000 most visited websites is now many times slower than it was a decade ago, despite the fact that the average internet speed has similarly risen during that time.
And the same goes for video games, they take longer and longer to load, than they ever have, and all they manage is to get closer to the uncanny valley.

As for ARM, I think the instruction to optimise javascript means it might not be a RISC architecture anymore, no matter what it says on the tin.

BlankSystemDaemon fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Oct 30, 2021

BlankSystemDaemon
Mar 13, 2009

System Access Node
Not Found:ins:


Poopernickel posted:

The thing is, systemd isn't -one- thing.

systemd-init is good, and is miles above every other init system on Linux. It's just better, especially for it's sandboxing capabilities.

Systemd-journald is a good system with a few missing features.

Journalctl is a terrible CLI tool. It's almost as lovely as the git CLI.

systemd-networkd is good on embedded systems, or other applications with a well-defined configuration. It's bad on desktops/laptops.

systemd-resolved can eat a bag of dicks.

systemd-homed is a bunch of bullshit that nobody wants.

systemd-nspawn replaces stuff that was fine before, and does it for *~ReAsOnZ*~.

The systemd project is a badly governed monolithic codebase that ignores the will of the community. IBM also owns it now.

Systemd only works on Linux, and the systemd project is sprouting dependencies in a ton of Redhat-maintained software like GNOME. That effectively cuts the BSD family off from a lot of software that used to work fine.

Everybody points to the bad parts and says "systemd bad" or the good parts and says "systemd good" while ignoring that's it's actually both at the same time.
But the trouble is that you can't distinguish between systemd the init system and all the scopecreep that's happened since - if they'd wanted to make them separately, even I have no doubt that they could have. Lennart chose not to.

Poettering has said that he cares not one bit for portability or POSIX:

Lennart Poettering in a 2011 interview at FOSDEM posted:

In fact, the way I see things the Linux API has been taking the role of the POSIX API and Linux is the focal point of all Free Software development. Due to that I can only recommend developers to try to hack with only Linux in mind and experience the freedom and the opportunities this offers you. So, get yourself a copy of The Linux Programming Interface, ignore everything it says about POSIX compatibility and hack away your amazing Linux software. It's quite relieving!

SYSV Fanfic posted:

It's way more than that list now. Many of the LSB Daemons have systemd alternatives. That's essentially what systemd has become, a LSB init/daemon replacement.

I disagree that GNOME is maintained or owned by redhat. It has a foundation that helps steer development, and AFAIK the BSDs have not been members the past ten years. They may have never been members.

FreeBSD doesn't have the userbase to maintain their ports collection. That's not the fault of either GNOME or systemd.
LSB is long-since dead, to the point that not even the filesystem hierarchy that it set out could be agreed upon by anyone.

The ports collection is a hierarchy of Makefiles and (usually) a few patches that get applied at build-time, in order to fix Linuxisms. However, since it was introduced in 1994, the ports collection has not needed a whole lot of patches (with a few exceptions) because until fairly recently, most software developers don't exclusively develop software for Linux, they developed software against the POSIX standard or try for some level of portability.
The exception being Chromium, where upstream has consistently refused patchesfrom FreeBSD (or the others, but that one is the one I know the most about), for everything from proper higher-privilege enforced sandboxing (instead of the weak sandboxing shipped in Chromium by default) down to a lot of very minor files.

That last part is just plain wrong. FreeBSD is consistently in the top-5 for projects with the most up-to-date third-party software with a lower percentage of outdated third-party software then the rest of the top-10.
Even then, it's not entirely accurate as there's a lot more ports than it lists and secondly because its way of calculating what's potentially vulnerable isn't very accurate and freebsd at least has its own much more accurate system that's integrated into the packaging system itself via pkg-audit(8) - and unless it's changed, most Linux distributions don't provide an option for doing that out-of-the-box.

Meanwhile, there are still Linux developers who're interested in portability - NFS interoperability accounts for a pretty good chunk of fixes that's gone in to the head of the FreeBSD tree in the last few months, as a result of the maintainers of NFS on Linux and FreeBSD actually working on interoperability, which proves that it's still possible and there's still a will.

So the question becomes: Does software benefit from portability, or is it not worth it? There are pretty definitive reasons for portability; at a very minimum it ensures that should your security needs require it you can run your software on multiple kernels (VeriSign does this for their root servers, by running both Linux and FreeBSD to ensure that they can't get targeted as easily), but in addition to that it also forces developers to think more about the code more, and discourages lazy developer practices which lead to mistakes. Put another way, it makes things more secure and it makes programs objectively better.
If those reasons aren't enough for it to be "worth it", I don't know what is.

BlankSystemDaemon fucked around with this message at 12:39 on Nov 1, 2021

BlankSystemDaemon
Mar 13, 2009

System Access Node
Not Found:ins:


hobbesmaster posted:

oh also software float. this would be fine (ish) except for the entire “run JavaScript on everything” movement. did you know node.js supported software fp until like 2018?
knowing what kind of sins they get up to, i am entirely unsurprised

BlankSystemDaemon
Mar 13, 2009

System Access Node
Not Found:ins:


DoomTrainPhD posted:

And at what point does the design complexity get complex enough that Buildroot goes bad?
There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the design complexity of Buildroot is for and why it is here, it will instantly go bad and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.

There is another theory which states that this has already happened.

BlankSystemDaemon
Mar 13, 2009

System Access Node
Not Found:ins:


:negative:

Mind you, BSD Makefiles contain conditionals, built-ins, more variable types, extensive modifiers, looping, and special attributes not found in other versions of make - but they're all documented in make(1).

BlankSystemDaemon fucked around with this message at 19:31 on Nov 1, 2021

BlankSystemDaemon
Mar 13, 2009

System Access Node
Not Found:ins:


sb hermit posted:

I like makefiles and I still make and use them.
Have you seen all the fun that can be done with BSD make?

BlankSystemDaemon
Mar 13, 2009

System Access Node
Not Found:ins:


eschaton posted:

it’s really something to use, say, V7 and see just how spare it is compared to a modern BSD, even moreso to skim the code
I went to take a look because I had to keep myself harmlessly entertained, and it is indeed very spare - but that's not necessarily a good thing.

You know that little thing called stack sizes? Yeah, it didn't even have that.
Stack sizes were introduced with 4BSD.

BlankSystemDaemon
Mar 13, 2009

System Access Node
Not Found:ins:


sb hermit posted:

No, and I'm not going to read an entire man page to find out.

My 20 year old self might be curious but now I'm twice as old and I only have time for sleep and shitposting after working too much. and anime too, of course
I'm curious about this attitude, it's not exactly uncommon among Linux users.
What makes you say that "reading an entire man page" makes it not worth it?

As far as I'm concerned, they're a concise way of looking up something - ie. treating it as a reference work.
And what's the alternative - GNU info? :v:

BlankSystemDaemon
Mar 13, 2009

System Access Node
Not Found:ins:


Wait, since when is any reference work "something you read from top to bottom" instead of quickly look through to find what you need?
I wanted to demonstrate the things things that set BSD make apart, and the manual page lists all of them, that's all.

Instead I'm apparently now Posting Enemy #1. :confused:

BlankSystemDaemon
Mar 13, 2009

System Access Node
Not Found:ins:


infernal machines posted:

i think the idea is that if you present something as comparatively unique you should itemize the things you feel are unique rather than say posting a link to the entire reference document for the tool and telling the people you're conversing with to figure it out themselves.

otoh, the way you did it is true to the *nix experience
I thought I already did that with an earlier post:

BlankSystemDaemon posted:

Mind you, BSD Makefiles contain conditionals, built-ins, more variable types, extensive modifiers, looping, and special attributes not found in other versions of make - but they're all documented in make(1).

I can see why people might not link the two though, so I apologize for coming off as an asshat.

mystes posted:

do all posters with bsd-related names live in the 90s or something?
Nah - besides, the 80s had better music.
The issue is, the code is influenced by bits dating that far back.

Poopernickel posted:

protip: you can search manpages by pressing / in man

I'm kind of amazed that GNU info is so lovely though considering how much documentation is in that format. How is that in tyool 2021 we don't have an info replacement that uses the mouse?

don't say emacs
Is that a difference between Linux and the BSDs I didn't know about until just now?
In the BSDs, (compressed) mdoc files are stored on-disk and are rendered by mandoc then displayed by the less(1) pager (by default, unless you set PAGER to something else or define LESS_IS_MORE to a non-zero value.

Also, I just found out that less has --mouse, which is kinda cool.

Besides, we all know emacs is a perfectly fine OS - it's just a shame about the lack of good editor.

BlankSystemDaemon
Mar 13, 2009

System Access Node
Not Found:ins:


Shaggar posted:

wierd that the linux tech tips guy cant run linux

BlankSystemDaemon
Mar 13, 2009

System Access Node
Not Found:ins:


i feel pretty vindicated in believing that despite having used freebsd for over two decades, i still can't recommend either freebsd or linux to someone who isn't a power-user with a lot of time on their hands

also, i'm pretty sure i'm not the only one who equates linus not reading the warnings with the people who just press ok to every error that pops up on windows - which is not to blame linus or anyone who does it, but more to acknowledge that errors like that don't help if people just conclude that it's okay to accept them

BlankSystemDaemon
Mar 13, 2009

System Access Node
Not Found:ins:


Truga posted:

good, keep the normies out of my system

BlankSystemDaemon
Mar 13, 2009

System Access Node
Not Found:ins:


SYSV Fanfic posted:

The price of freedom, thank you very much.
The price of Freedom is a lack of freedom.

Cybernetic Vermin posted:

there is very little on offer ever since like xp sp2 got windows to a state of decent security and stability.
lol, lmao even

BlankSystemDaemon
Mar 13, 2009

System Access Node
Not Found:ins:


sb hermit posted:

to be honest, if it isn't in my os repositories, then I'm much less likely to suggest it to others because janitoring is a pain and quality assurance isn't free.

If the guy wanted to run steam, then why didn't he install SteamOS? An entire OS for gaming? Gaming on Linux has a long and fraught history, full of spent time. Open source games like uqm or Beneath a Steel Sky can be installed from the repos and just work. Otherwise, it's a crapshoot. Sure, he's attacking this from the perspective of an average person. An average person would not want to game on Linux. They already have a windows computer for that.
it does seem like there's some sort of obsession with being able to game on linux, and quite frankly i don't get it

even if somehow magically you can avoid all the issues with proprietary nonsense, there's still a fundamental issue in that only a portion of any collection of games is gonna work, and there's a shitload of games that won't ever work on linux unless you use syscall emulation like wine or someone like the folks at GOG pick them up and do a lot of extra work on them - which doesn't seem to be the case at present, and even then they only have a small (but good) selection of older games, not every game ever made

also, there's something more worrying going on, which i'm not sure i have a word for, but essentially comes down to me worrying that appealing to the masses is going to result in everything being made for the masses, with no attempt to make things for powerusers
on the other hand, i get how elitist that sounds, and it's not something that keeps me awake - it's just a niggle

BlankSystemDaemon
Mar 13, 2009

System Access Node
Not Found:ins:


maybe all software just sucks :shrug:

BlankSystemDaemon
Mar 13, 2009

System Access Node
Not Found:ins:


Share Bear posted:

music/creative production? guess it depends on what you're trying to do, i imagine modular synth guys would love linux but no one else, or blender
an audio person i know is using freebsd over linux

Tankakern posted:

a torrent of bad linux takes day in and out
the only solution is to SHA1 collide their posts

BlankSystemDaemon
Mar 13, 2009

System Access Node
Not Found:ins:


I feel ambivalent towards POSIX - it's one of the better examples of interoperability standards we have, but I cannot for the life of me imagine working on an OS that's strictly POSIX (ie. only implements what POSIX defines, and nothing else).
That just sounds like a loving nightmare.

SYSV Fanfic posted:

Little known fact. Early on in the unix workstation game most offices had a bunch of dumb terminals that connected to a minicomputer. One of the selling points was that when you bought this $50k workstation, you could point all those text terminals at the workstation and give everyone in the office a big upgrade.

The multiuser features of unix that made it such a poo poo single user experience were carried into desktop unix as a selling/marketing point. Not a technical one.
It's such a bad feature that every version of Windows since the Chicago kernel in 1992 has had it.

BlankSystemDaemon
Mar 13, 2009

System Access Node
Not Found:ins:


SYSV Fanfic posted:

Windows would suck pretty bad too if it started up as windows terminal server and you connected to an rdp session via loopback. On your single user desktop.
If there was only one user, it would be the equivalent of the SA account in modern Windows or root on Unix-likes, much like the single-user system that DOS and Windows 3.x had.

BlankSystemDaemon
Mar 13, 2009

System Access Node
Not Found:ins:


SYSV Fanfic posted:

I wasn't talking about the entire concept of multi user. I'm talking about configuring the machine by default for multiple users. There was a reason why NeXT got so much acclaim.

Like imagine desktop windows being configured so that multiple people could rdesktop in alongside the person sitting at the terminal by default. You'd have silliness like needing to give yourself permission to access the com ports.
Have you read Steve Jobs & the NeXT Big Thing? Because you really should.
Suffice it to say, there's a lot of rose-tinted glasses going around when it comes to NeXT and Steve Jobs.

I know how teletypes communicated with minis - but I don't see how that affects the reality that multi-user environment still benefits Unix-likes to this day; if it wasn't a multi-user environment, there wouldn't be such a thing as dropping privileges and anything you might want to run on the machine (such as a web server) would run under the same user you're using.

BlankSystemDaemon
Mar 13, 2009

System Access Node
Not Found:ins:


mystes posted:

Actually nobody has to care about btrfs.
least of all facebook, given how they use it

BlankSystemDaemon
Mar 13, 2009

System Access Node
Not Found:ins:


Sapozhnik posted:

this is what i've never understood about brtfs and zfs etc, why not use an actual cluster filesystem like idk ceph or something at that point, a single massive multi-block-device filesystem managed by a single os instance seems rather fragile and bottleneck-y.

if you have a 50tb collection of tentacle hentai on your home nas then i suppose btrfs might be a good fit for that particular use case
Clustered filesystems don't mean you don't have to have some amount of data availability (which is what all forms of RAID is about) on the individual parts of the cluster; look at what LLNL is doing with ZFS and Lustre on top, which provides storage for their HPC workloads using Sierra (a supercomputer currently #3 on TOP500).

BTRFS may look a lot like ZFS (including having lots of Oracle copyrights all over the codebase, lol), but I wouldn't trust it with my data - and neither does Facebook.

BlankSystemDaemon
Mar 13, 2009

System Access Node
Not Found:ins:


eschaton posted:

it’d be hilarious to watch the Linux crowd try to actually pass the conformance suite without the ability to “well, ackshually…” anything
But conformance suites don't test strict compliance, in that they don't care about what's outside of POSIX. I'm talking about only using these.

eschaton posted:

none of the people I know who were there have anything good to say about that book

there absolutely would because the actual privilege mechanisms used in the modern era are almost entirely decoupled from the UNIX user and group mechanisms because it turns out they’re the wrong level of granularity for end-user software and modern threat models

turns out, VMS got it right after all

“anything that runs as your user can modify anything owned by your user” is a bad model that leads to real users’ personal data being stolen by malicious software
I guess it depends on who're you're talking to; people I know from that era and my own vague recollections tell me that at least most of the accounts of Steve Jobs assholery are entirely correct, that the reports of NeXTs secrecy matches up with how Apple worked under Steve Jobs (and still does), as well as other things. :shrug:

I think I phrased myself poorly, my entire point was that not everything a modern user runs runs as their own user; before Firefox on FreeBSD got OSSv4 compatibility re-added (because Mozilla quietly broke and removed it), pulseaudio would run as the pulse user by default, and on the off-chance that I ever install a httpd on my laptop, it's configured to use the www user by default (and there's an entire list which maps processes to UIDs).

On top of that, with ACLs you get just about as much granularity as you could possibly want.

matti posted:

i am reading uh

UNIX, POSIX, and Open Systems (Addison-Wesley, 1992)

right now and its both the most boring but also most enthralling thing
I don't remember reading that, so I'm gonna pretend this is a bookclub and add it to my list of books to read, because a then-current account of ways to counteract the UNIX wars might be interesting.

BlankSystemDaemon
Mar 13, 2009

System Access Node
Not Found:ins:


Kazinsal posted:

it occurs to me that the POSIX utilities specification has a standard ISO C compiler frontend specified but no assembler or linker
Who needs assemblers or linkers anyway? What've they ever done for us!

BlankSystemDaemon
Mar 13, 2009

System Access Node
Not Found:ins:


fresh_cheese posted:

POSIX was such a lowest common denominator spec of what a UNIX implementation had to provide that IBM was able to build a POSIX compliant ( and UNIX branded maybe??? ) abi into MVS - os/390 - z/OS

that should tell you all you need to know about the value of something being POSIX compliant.
I mean, sure - but on the other hand, IBM also did AOS which was a 4.3BSD based OS for the IBM RISC Technology PC and was an alternative to AIX.

So clearly POSIX wasn't everything to everyone, even then.

BlankSystemDaemon
Mar 13, 2009

System Access Node
Not Found:ins:


SYSV Fanfic posted:

Probed via linus's tip. Makes that guy close to laport I guess.

When I said multi user, I definitely meant multiple simultaneous human users. Desktop linux was built on a bunch of technology revolving around and configured for multiple simultaneous users by default. When the super computer lab I worked in (college) got rid of their x-terminals, the Linux club was able to hook them up to their dual pentium pro system. It was a pretty stock install of debian and all it took was changing some xdm configuration and a line in the default shell profile. They complemented the vt220s nicely.

I spent about an hour playing with the windows terminal services hack on old windows (xp). The big thing I noticed was file handle leak when you closed the rdp session w/o logging out. The only thing I see it being useful for is allowing multiple people to use software that has a hardware DRM dongle. It's very much a hack, and you're going to run into problems without the rest of the application server toolkit.

edit: Human, flesh and blood users.
Speaking of multiple people working on the same machine and things LTT gets wrong, one of the things people talk about being impressive that LTT does is the N people 1 machine nonsense, but that's just regular virtualization-based multi-tenancy which has been possible ever since x86 got hardware-accelerated virtualization.

Contrast this with the IRIX seating functionality, whereby multiple people can work on the same program from multiple different sets of monitor+keyboard+mouse connected to the same session - I recall seeing a demo video of 4 people working on different parts of the same 3D object at one point.
A similar thing got added to XFree86 and is still in Xorg to this day, called multiseating - but outside of a demo I did of it using FreeBSD at a LAN more than a decade ago, I've never actually seen it in use.

BlankSystemDaemon
Mar 13, 2009

System Access Node
Not Found:ins:


sb hermit posted:

That actually sounds kinda cool and would be a kickass way to collaborate. But I can see how complicated the programming can get.
Are you talking about collaborative programming/remote pair programming? Because that's a fairly new thing, as traditionally merges are done with a VCS.

pseudorandom name posted:

why would you put that in the display system instead making the individual programs client-server, since you're going to have to do that for all of them anyway
I don't remember if the multiseating in Xorg permits multiple to work on the same program, but the IRIX demo definitely had four independent mouse pointers working on different parts of the 3D object - so I don't understand what you mean by client-server programming, since the Xserver and clients are doing that part.

BlankSystemDaemon
Mar 13, 2009

System Access Node
Not Found:ins:


Tangentially related to that, the reason X got its name is because it was one better than the W windowing system on an operating system called V.

Someone made a port of X for the i386, and called it X386.

Then someone else made a free implementation called XFree86.

BlankSystemDaemon
Mar 13, 2009

System Access Node
Not Found:ins:


pseudorandom name posted:

oh you're talking about MDI with multiple pointers and cursors

this is significantly lamer than I was assuming
that's true of most things in life tho

BlankSystemDaemon
Mar 13, 2009

System Access Node
Not Found:ins:


Soricidus posted:

y2k caught us by surprise, y2k38 is a pain to fix, but by god we will be prepared for y292g
Who is "us"?
I have a vague memory of talking with people in around 1997 or 1998 who were preparing for it, and they weren't the only ones.

As far as I remember, the reason there weren't bigger problems back then is that so many companies had prepared for it.

BlankSystemDaemon
Mar 13, 2009

System Access Node
Not Found:ins:


simh is cool as heck, but even if i know how impossible an expectation it is, i wish it was it was cycle-accurate

BlankSystemDaemon
Mar 13, 2009

System Access Node
Not Found:ins:


software: possibly subject to change.

BlankSystemDaemon
Mar 13, 2009

System Access Node
Not Found:ins:


lol at using magic numbers in the year 2021 when they've been an anti-pattern since when fortran was new

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

BlankSystemDaemon
Mar 13, 2009

System Access Node
Not Found:ins:


Nomnom Cookie posted:

who needs magic numbers when we've already discovered the ultimate data format: json.
who needs to be able to understand error messages, anyway? surely they're completely pointless and should just be discarded by pressing ok as fast as humanly possible

Nomnom Cookie posted:

endian? why would i want to do that, i've never even met ian
Ian Lepore, a FreeBSD committer and someone I talked with quite a bit over the years, passed away recently - so this cuts a bit too close. :(

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply