Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Nice troll (Score 1) 316

by roman_mir (#48678719) Attached to: Paul Graham: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In

You are either a full or a liar, Henry Ford's model was not to pay workers so that they would 'buy' anything, his model was to pay more to his employees to reduce turn over of highly specialised professionals, who were becoming very efficient but leaving the company once they achieved proficiency to go work somewhere with less stress. So he doubled people's salary and reduced turnover, keeping the trained employees and doubling his productive output in a very short time after that.

He was NOT paying his people to buy anything, he was paying his people so that they would have hard time quitting the jobs.

The reality is that globalisation requires a real free market environment and that is something people really hate - competing and allowing the best competitors to become much wealthier while raising the overall standard of living in the economy.

You are growing statism, fascism and nazism and you are destroying individual freedoms with every new regulation, law, tax, barrier to entry, license, newly printed paper dollar and you think you can create a prosperous economy based on any of that, well you cannot and the time is proving that you cannot. No amount of natzism (national socialism) will help you because you are asking the wrong question, the answer doesn't matter.

The real question is what is virtue and not how to divide a shrinking pie. The virtue is in non-initiation of force and in allowing true free market economy based on capitalist principles to destroy the old guard, the fascism, the nazism, the socialism, those are self-destructing, corrupt principles that arise from position of desire to dictate to others. What is virtue is the only real question. Virtue is non-initiation of force and it leads to voluntary exchange and freedom, which is the only way to have a cooperative environment, where each works for himself, for his own profits, but the result is a robust wealthy economy.

Comment: Re:Supply / Demand curve (Score 1) 186

by roman_mir (#48678669) Attached to: Uber Pushing For Patent On Surge Pricing

Your example is false because it does not address real situations that a bakery can face that are caused by changing market conditions, you are looking at stable market environment and deduce that because bakeries in stable market environments can operate without changing prices that it means that those very bakeries would not change prices quickly if market environments changed quickly.

Comment: Re:Supply / Demand curve (Score 1) 186

by roman_mir (#48673505) Attached to: Uber Pushing For Patent On Surge Pricing

First of all there is no 'hyper inflation' in Russia. Hyper inflation is not just 50% or 100% inflation, hyperinflation is thousands percent and more. This is just kids play, compared to hyperinflation.

Secondly there are markets in Russia, people buy and sell products and commodities and labour and while there are regulations, actually they are much lower than regulations in countries like the USA. So store owners who paid their money for their stock respond to the market conditions by raising prices, that's market dictated behaviour and not government regulated behaviour (though this behaviour is a response to a government created problem).

The point is your example with a bakery is absolutely false, a bakery will change prices if the market forces dictate it so.

Comment: Can it be enabled? (Score 2) 73

by ThePhilips (#48664077) Attached to: Docker Image Insecurity

Docker's report that a downloaded image is 'verified' is based solely on the presence of a signed manifest, and Docker never verifies the image checksum from the manifest.

Can it be enabled? If yes, then I do not see a problem.

Otherwise, the signing crap is just that: crap.

It takes needlessly long time to verify the signature. (Because they are not slow! - they are so secure, so very much OMG secure.)

It is a huge risk to reconfigure a production system to use unsigned data if emergency arises. (Think recovery from a local backup.)

Developers forget to renew their certificates and suddenly, in the middle of a production, whole system goes down, because OMG the certificate has expired and data may be not secure!!!

And then, in the end, the signing keys get leaked or stolen...

Comment: Re:Supply / Demand curve (Score 1) 186

by roman_mir (#48664053) Attached to: Uber Pushing For Patent On Surge Pricing

First of all baker can absolutely change prices at any moment in time. If currency fluctuates during the day, if any kind of an unusual event happens that lowers supply or hikes demand any store will change prices quickly. As a matter of fact I build and sell software and services for retail, shipping, handling, logistics that lets chain operators change prices on groups of products, on individual products, on all products by a fixed amount or by percentages and the centralized control allows immediate change across the entire chain to take effect in 15 minutes, which is used all the time. I didn't sell to a bakery yet, but it is the same idea. Not only an individual baker but a chain can implement price changes during the day any number of times they want.

When currency fluctuates, for example, it presents a real opportunity for arbitrage and can kill profitability of a store or a chain in a blink of an eye. Currency fluctuation corresponds to demand very easily. Case in point: Russia last week.

Stores were changing prices many times in one day. 10 and even more times a day in some cases! And what happened to those who were not paying attention? They paid with their wallets. Falling currency created huge extra demand, people were spending all of their money, buying anything they could get their hands on before currency fell further in price.

So you have 0 understanding not only of theory but actually of the reality that happens even as we speak.

Comment: Re: More job loss (Score 1) 248

by roman_mir (#48660869) Attached to: The Magic of Pallets

Modern "labor saving" inventions do no such things. They eliminate jobs and replace them with nothing.

- precisely.

Labour saving means exactly that: eliminate as much work as possible, that's why it's called 'labour saving' and not 'labour creating'.

That was my point and you are not even aware that you are making my point while you are making it, are you? Labour saving device means labour reducing device.

As an employer, if I can buy/build a machine that will reduce necessity for a job or fully eliminate a job I just acquired/built a machine that does what I am talking about: saving labour.

Saving labour is exactly what our civilisation does, the very first thing we did (fire, wheel, spear...) was already labour saving and everything we do today (computers, robots, cars, planes, tall buildings, factories, food processing...) it's all also labour saving.

It all saves labour, as in it reduces the labour needed or even eliminates labour altogether and it is all a good thing, that's what we want and need, otherwise we wouldn't be able to make more money by doing it, we would be making less money by doing it if it wasn't what we wanted and needed.

Comment: Re:Forked the Debian? or the Debian? (Score 1) 183

by ThePhilips (#48659841) Attached to: Devuan Progress Report Published

GNOME demands the systemd, not just any systemd.

No. Gnome demands libpam-systemd or consolekit. libpam-systemd demands either systemd or systemd-shim.

So either work on consolekit/consolekit2 or work on systemd-shim.

I was basically quoting Debian's GNOME maintainer, from the times of the Debian's CTTE debate.

At least at the time, Debian's GNOME package had a hardcoded dependency on the systemd package, not a feature/virtual package which provides the services. And GNOME DDs were refusing to change that, because they didn't like the systemd-shim.

Comment: Re:Forked the Debian? or the Debian? (Score 2) 183

by ThePhilips (#48659819) Attached to: Devuan Progress Report Published

If it isn't a bug, why patch it?

And this is a clear systemd bias (and GNOME attitude).

If systemd says it is not a bug, then it is not. And if something doesn't work - well, somebody opened a ticket about something NOT working - then something does NOT work. And if the systemd refused to fix it - who's going to?

The whole position of systemd implementors in Debian was and probably still is: we change how the whole system works, but we are totally not responsible if something breaks, because it is, duh, mainline systemd.

The whole problem of the hairy rcS scripts was ability to workaround pretty much any software or hardware problem on spot. Here, systemd insists that they are always in right - it is the rest of the world who are wrong. The problem is that a blank statement about wrongness of the world (it never was right to begin with) doesn't solve the immediate problem users are having.

I have actually read most of them at the time, and I still think you are misrepresenting the systemd maintainers.

Frankly I do not remember. It could have been one of the adjacent tickets about the systemd breaking the systems on autoupdate.

Tollef Fog Heen was pretty clear that he is not going to do anything special for Debian. (He is (or was at the time) a Fedora user already anyway.)


If you can't tell what the hell the trivial commit does, then you are obviously not a software developer.

That was a great PR move on part of the systemd developers: to flood the mail lists with the buzz words. Users have no idea what they mean - but they sure sound cool - so systemd must be cool too.


by ThePhilips (#48659273) Attached to: Devuan Progress Report Published

Sure, the main branch of systemd wants to have as few distro specific patches as possible, but they do accept them if there is no other solution.

I was just quoting the (ex-)maintainer of the systemd, from his e-mails from the CTTE discussion.

Debian feedback would be submitted to mainline - but if it is rejected, he wouldn't even carry a custom Debian patch for it, because he doesn't want to deviate from the mainline. And he, as the maintainer of the systemd, would not consider it a bug. As such somebody else would have to fix somewhere else.

If you are willing to grep through the 1K emails - you would definitely find that being repeated several time.

Here is a Debian specific patch that predates Debians adoption of systemd as default init-system:

It's obviously not Debian specific.

It is very obviously a distro specific part of systemd: Debian was added to the list where Fedora and Arch were already present.


by ThePhilips (#48659235) Attached to: Devuan Progress Report Published

You're talking about Debian and Devuan like it's two monolithic organizations. It's not. It's people. And and if you want "Debian" to do something then real human Debian developers will have to do the job. It doesn't matter what any committee decides if no one is interested in actually doing the work.


This very topic was laundered during the init system selection on the debian-ctte for very long time: it makes no sense to invest time into developing systemd if upstart is picked, and vice versa.

There might be people willing to do the work - but there is little more demotivational than a project declaring that they are taking a different path.

But the most demotivational is when people are told that they can't even have an alternative systemd implementation/fork - of which there are already couple - because GNOME demands the systemd, not just any systemd.

For motivation to spend your free time on something, this is as good as hitting a brick wall at full speed.

The Devuan developers are obviously up for the task. That's great. They do what they want to do. It's just too bad that they for whatever reason couldn't do it in Debian. I don't blame them. It takes an arm and a leg to get into Debian nowdays, so if it's easier for them to create a fork then maybe that says something about the Debian project too.

To me the most interesting part whether the whole fork would even take off.

Technical aspects of init system replacement are very easy - compared to the establishment of an organizational structure of the Debian.


by ThePhilips (#48658869) Attached to: Devuan Progress Report Published

I do not know the answer for the Debian, but if you did RTFA, you would notice that it is precisely what the Devuan is doing: creating and packaging software which provide the interface of systemd services without the systemd itself.

The (retorical) question which I have already asked on difference occasions here is whether the Debian is a good place to do such development.

One strong undertone from the CTTE's init system selection debate was that Debian doesn't want to do the development and wants to maximize the reuse of the code from the other distros. This turned into a weird attitude when systemd vs. upstart was evaluated. The upstart devs and maintainers have committed themselves to implement whatever Debian needs. The systemd devs and maintainers committed to literally to nothing, basically saying "if it is good for Fedora is should do the job for Debian too; no Debian specific patches are going to be accepted even into the Debian systemd package". And that was later respun by a couple of CTTE members as "upstart still needs development while systemd doesn't".

That is also why I raise the question about changes to the Debian organization in Devuan: How could Devuan be more software developer friendlier? At the moment the barrier to entry is very high, leaving developers at mercy of the respective Debian packager. Or leaving the developer basically out if it has something to do with the low-level stuff like init system.
