<whitequark>
wpwrak: (salt) I'd search pubmed to substantiate my claim but I'm too lazy right now :p
<DocScrutinizer05>
a very simple tip: use a wooden desk
<whitequark>
DocScrutinizer05: I already do
<DocScrutinizer05>
good
<whitequark>
well, it's some kind of wooden laminate
<whitequark>
but that should work just as well, wouldn't it?
wolfspraul has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
<DocScrutinizer05>
second tip: try to always first touch the desk's metal feet before you touch anything sitting on the desk
* whitequark
nods
<DocScrutinizer05>
even better would be a metal desk of course
<DocScrutinizer05>
3rd tip: always touch electronics at the ground plane or some metal frame first
<DocScrutinizer05>
it's usually not the electronic device that's electrically charged, it's usually you
<DocScrutinizer05>
ESD concerns in lab are massively exaggerated nowadays, since 99.9% of components already have quite decent ESD protection integrated
<whitequark>
DocScrutinizer05: I'm quite bothered when I stand up and hear a loud bang from the discharge
<whitequark>
like, it's the kind of bang you hear when you plug something with 10000uF cap into mains
<DocScrutinizer05>
that's bad! you need to do something, change the situation, eliminate the van der Graaf
<whitequark>
hehe
<DocScrutinizer05>
laminate may have a very high part of resin resp epoxy or plastic in general
<DocScrutinizer05>
your chair shouldn't be plastic either
<whitequark>
wpwrak: (exif) imgur strips exif data. likely because it's the default image host for reddit, and unknowingly posted exif is a huge source of personal data leaks
<DocScrutinizer05>
a desk lamp with PE-grounded metal case that you touch to switch it on, each time you sit down at your desk, may help wonders
<DocScrutinizer05>
but when you hear static noise when you stand up, then you got the van der Graaf locally at your desk, and then you *really* need to fix that
<DocScrutinizer05>
I's blame your chair
<whitequark>
I'm pretty sure it is the chair
<DocScrutinizer05>
and your desk surface together with the clothes on your forearms
<whitequark>
nah, no clothes on forearms--using a tshirt
<wpwrak>
that's a good crowd. once they get to the vodka, the celebration will be fun
<wpwrak>
(troll) or maybe he's poettering ? :)
<roh>
larsc: debian decided?
<roh>
nice
<roh>
whitequark: good designs can be reimplemented properly and become better. bad designs stay shit regardless of the number of implementations.
<whitequark>
roh: exactly, systemd can't be fixed.
<kyak>
whitequark: why is systemd bad design?
lekernel has joined #qi-hardware
<whitequark>
kyak: it's a monolithic thing which tries to do everything at once. from running services to managing networks to udev to tracking console sessions to displaying qr codes
<whitequark>
larsc: okay, after looking at 20 and 22 I'll maybe reconsider it.
<roh>
whitequark: upstart can't be fixed
<roh>
and sysv is through.
<roh>
systemd can be fixed. atleast its a sane concept cleaning up all the sins of the stone-age a bit better
<dos1>
the biggest pain of systemd for me is that it's Linux only
<roh>
its not perfect for sure. but its a change, which i think can help us out more than upstart and sysv together.
<dos1>
but I guess that could be fixed
<roh>
also note.. for embedded you usually use something different.. like openwrt
<whitequark>
dos1: actually that one probably could not. lennart said this explicitly, even
<larsc>
it's very hard to fix
<whitequark>
"too much linux-specific interfaces"
<roh>
openwrt uses its own replacement: procd and its companions netifd and some more.
<larsc>
you'd have to port stuff like cgroups to $TARGET_OS
<roh>
whitequark: i could not care less. yes its linux specific so what.
<dos1>
I don't mean systemd implementation, but the design
<whitequark>
roh: tat was to dos1
<roh>
solaris has another, own implementation of all that, osx too.. so why care?
<whitequark>
*that
<roh>
whitequark: sorry
<whitequark>
dos1: implementing it is a huge deal though... since it's so complex
<roh>
yes.. dos1. doesnt matter.
<dos1>
I believe that good design should be at least somehow portable
<roh>
dos1: no.
<dos1>
if POSIX lacks some features, extend it and provide well-defined standard, so anyone else can implement it if they want
<roh>
good designs solve proplems. defined problems. when you define all problems into one, your design will be bad and never be implemented properly.
<roh>
and posix is part of the problem, not the solution.
<whitequark>
dos1: you forget though that POSIX is defined after the fact
<roh>
see gnu hurd. posix to the death doesnt dolve anything.
<whitequark>
look at POSIX AIO. no one implements or uses it.
<roh>
forget classic unix. thats whats holding us back. yeah there are some good parts on that concepts. those we keep. but the legacy mindfuck can go and stay away
<whitequark>
I'm not even sure how POSIX is useful for anything except extorting money for certifications
<roh>
in the future one will have linux with systemd and ipc via kdbus.
<whitequark>
because there's as much subtly incompatible implementations as there are kernels
<dos1>
from my point of view, if there's some well documented standard (call it even "the Linux standard") I can conform to when writing my own kernel and that will be enough to make systemd working on my kernel, then it's "portable enough"
<whitequark>
as many*
<whitequark>
dos1: you'd be basically rewriting implementation details of Linux. that's the problem.
<dos1>
I don't care if this standard is in fact POSIX, Win32 or anything else
<whitequark>
what is the point of implementing your own kernel just to badly emulate Linux with it?
<dos1>
whitequark: yes. that's why I want well defined and documented standard, not "Linux emulation"
<whitequark>
it's a chicken-and-egg problem. you need competing implementations for a sensible standard to emerge
<dos1>
you might be right
<whitequark>
and I honestly don't think that any kernel is going to compete with Linux in... a decade or something? at least. that's how long it takes to set things up
<roh>
dos1: there is nox _fixed_ standard
<roh>
you are always dependant on behaviour and features of the state of versions you code against.
<dos1>
but I fear that it will stop on "custom implementation" stage, exactly for that (I honestly don't think that any kernel is going to compete with Linux in... a decade or something?) reason
<roh>
so YES, compiling something against a glibc2.something makes one depending on that or later compat.
<roh>
but hey... you COULD just do opensource or recompile your crud from time to time. and be fine.
<whitequark>
you don't get standards by thinking "oh we need to make a standard for it"
<roh>
compatibility is something one can have cheap and easy.. on the source level.
<whitequark>
that's how you get "standards" like that shit microsoft creates. it solves only the use case of the person writing it
<dos1>
source level is enough for me
<whitequark>
you need actual competing implementations people would use
<roh>
the kernel will never be complete
<whitequark>
and collaboration
<whitequark>
a lot of it
<whitequark>
see: browsers
<roh>
linux is an iterative, evolving process of an os. nothing which will ever be done, complete or finished, i think
<whitequark>
is software ever complete? :)
<dos1>
whitequark: I understand, but I don't want Linux to became new Internet Explorer :P
<dos1>
s/became/become/
<qi-bot>
dos1 meant: "whitequark: I understand, but I don't want Linux to become new Internet Explorer :P"
<dos1>
I'm not against custom extentions, new features outside of standard etc.
<dos1>
I'm against IE mentality when doing so
<whitequark>
well, IE was deliberately made incompatible
<dos1>
and systemd story somehow triggers some warning light in my head
<dos1>
hopefully it's false alarm :P
<larsc>
well you can't run the BSD init system or the solaris init system or the MacOSX init system on Linux either, but I get your point
<dos1>
I don't know much about non-Linux init systems - so maybe if I did, then the same light would blink as crazy when thinking about them ;)
<whitequark>
sstemd looks quite a bit like launchd
<whitequark>
(osx init)
<larsc>
some features were inspired by launchd
<dos1>
maybe except OS X, as I simply don't care
<dos1>
I don't expect anything from Apple, as they can't expect me to be their customer ;]
<CYB3R>
Anyone knows if Jolla is using systemd or not?
<whitequark>
it makes no sense to be ignorant about design, even if you don't use the system just because of licensing terms
<dos1>
whitequark: maybe, but if I won't use it because of licensing terms, then I don't care about it being portable and for sure never will
<larsc>
it's a bit sad that the Unices and Unix-like OSs are drifting apart API wise. But systemd is not the problem
<larsc>
merly a symptom of the problem if you will so
<whitequark>
dos1: portability != design. I may never run OSX but I sure will look into how its kernel is done
<whitequark>
(well, except its kernel is a decade behind Linux so I actually won't. but I could.)
<dos1>
whitequark: :nod:
<larsc>
"good artists copy, great artists steal" ;)
FDCX_ has joined #qi-hardware
FDCX has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
arielenter has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
arielenter has joined #qi-hardware
rz2k has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
arielenter has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
arielenter has joined #qi-hardware
lekernel has quit [Quit: Leaving]
arielenter has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
jekhor_ has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
<wpwrak>
(posix) that discussion is bizarre. posix was one of the biggest steps forward in the whole history of unix. before, there was a gazillion of diverging unices. that's was the situation that got us things like autocrap.
<nicksydney>
wpwrak: was reading the mailing list about nano....when the project was started the ingenic chip was sourced from ingenic directly ?