mfukar

Ah, hidden files. That's files with "-hidden" in their name, right?

Because it's fun spawning a new process and watching the otherwise idle cores of your box reach 0.1% usage for a millisecond.

The better options are struggling for support while the rest of us pour our money on the problematic UNIX, hoping we can 'deal' with its warts. In one word, inertia.

By default, `ls` doesn't even list all files. So no, it does not do its job, let alone 'well'.

So now the business is Fate. Got it.

Why? Cyprus has nothing but to gain from joining Schengen. Where does Greece come in? EU citizens can already travel freely in Cyprus [1], so why would you say GR doesn't want Cyprus in Schengen?

[1] http://www.cyprusembassy.fi/main/index.php?p=Consular_Sectio...

I don't think I implied otherwise.

Just as an aside, Cyprus is in the process of joining Schengen "soon", along with Romania, Bulgaria, & Croatia.

> In fact, how people can debug large existing codebases without a debugger is beyond me.

Tracing and telemetry. Debuggers are very useful, but only when they're needed. In fact, in large distributed systems 'debugging' end-to-end bugs is usually hindered with a debugger.

As an aside, even when I have to use a debugger during runtime, the largest part of my interaction with it is heavily scripted, and the debugging process is not interactive.

> The Economist is not doing mathematics or controlled, replicated experiments. Any given reader can't meaningfully check the work of a news organization for its relationship to the truth, except to see whether it aligns with what you already think.

If that were true, it'd be one more reason not to try to give credence to unfalsifiable publications by linking them to experts of various fields, or even editors-who-once-took-a-course-on-T.

But I think it's not true at all. The thought process on most publications like Economist is one most people can follow for its validity, precisely because it's not state-of-the-art mathematics (or even economics). Even though the domain experts can immediately judge its correctness, I think it's important for anyone to be able to at least identify when they're reading something they can't verify as correct, and not take publication X's "word" for it.

> Editors are a thing.

Editors are there to make sure the news piece conforms to certain standards, but that's not the standards of the readers.

> If you already know whether or not the Economist is correct about something, what value are you getting from reading it?

That was nowhere near my point, and I don't see why you base your comment around it. My point is I am (or want to be) able to read a piece and judge it on its own, rather than who wrote it.

> I think that if you read the voice of the Economist, it puts on an air of long experience and an expert level understanding

I think it's the content of a text, not its label, that displays understanding and experience. Arguing only experts should be writing for X because it puts on an air of expertise is getting causality backwards: a publication gets its reputation from its work.

The premise being old and experienced authors can't make mistakes.

Not realtime as in real-time system, but as in representing wall-clock changes.

Does embarrassment really have to do anything with it? Whatever motivates somebody to lie is obviously stronger than shame.

> Grover Norquist, the well known promoter of the "Taxpayer Protection Pledge" took the counterintuitive view that just making the process easier equated to a new tax, since taxpayers might end up paying taxes already on the books that they might have previously unintentionally evaded.

I just fail to understand the logic exercised by some US residents. Norquist's argument is insane, and if you're not only trying to be kind to it and not call it as such, your stance towards it seems insane to me too.

You should probably share the fixes that made it compile (let alone work) for you. I'd like them, anyways.

With April Fools' coming up, keep in mind constants may change over time.

I don't see what point you're trying to make. UNIX does not guarantee portability, so of course software for Linux doesn't work out-of-the-box, or even build for that matter, in other UNIXoids.

Linux's NIH syndrome, however unfortunate it is, has not expanded into its unix roots. (yet?)

I don't see why - all the design decisions of the original unix are alive and kicking in linux. User and kernel space. Nothing fundamentally separates the two.

> I presume you are saying that since in Linux processes and threads are "the same" there is no need to distinguish whether the process being switched in shares the same address space.

That's right. Threads share everything but their stack.

> Does this mean that there is a missed optimization on Linux to preserve some virtually-addressed caches and tables when switching to thread/process that shares the same address space?

I'm not entirely sure I understand your question. What scenario do you have in mind?

What kind of workloads are you using it for?

Aristotle's contemporaries who claimed "nature has made nobody a slave" also held similar, if not the same, views on leisure. Of course, you could argue all Athenians really took others into slavery by virtue of war, or their unquestioned military superiority of the time. The question is, is hypocrisy actually contradictory to Aristotle's views?

I think not.

Context: Linux.

I'm not prepared for this hypothetical, who knows what I would do, I guess I might even launch a startup.

The bug is only there because the epoll interface necessitates you write the code to avoid it. That, to me, is the definition of a fundamentally broken interface.

Yes, both kqueue and IOCP are modelled the same: notify on operation completion, rather than when a file descriptor can perform an operation.

Professional therapy.

This is the same kind of "advice" depressed people get. "Have you tried getting better"? "You just need to be happy". "Try my coping mechanism". "See a standup comedian". "Just try".

I hope I don't have to go through all the reasons this is fundamentally disconnected from the problem described in the article now.

OK, now I know you're trolling.

And since we can follow that thought process, we are smart enough to infer the meaning of the advice given ("do not assume") in the proper context, can we not?

It's obvious to me we both can, so why the hell are you wasting our time with useless pedantry?