So what if you buy a regular device at a regular retail store that costs about the same as similar devices but somewhere in China, someone wanted to double their money?
FTDI may have a right to address the issue with that shady vendor 6 steps away from the consumer, but that's it. It's unfortunate that they likely have no legal way to do that, but that doesn't give them the right to maliciously destroy the property of a 3rd party. That would be like me leaving a bag of flaming dog poop on your front porch because your brother's neighbor didn't clean up after his dog.
The thing is, without some sort of revolution, I just can't see the U.S. ever taking all of Smith's advice. For example, can you imagine a United States where a corporate charter requires a review and approval process where you must show necessity?
As for Friedman, he has some really good ideas, but I can't imagine a GOP that wouldn't filibuster a basic income bill to death even if they had to send the country down in flames to do it.
In this particular case, that appears to be true. The statementys that were made appear to be no more optomistic than would normally be expected from a naturally biased management.
Puffery is often seriously abused as a concept and that makes people question it reflexively, but in this case it seems correct.
The end user who gets harmed DOES have clean hands. He has no way to know if the parts are or are not legit but also has no reason to suspect they are not.
The unclean hands happen several transactions back in the chain and belong to someone who doesn't suffer in the slightest for this.
The problem was that knowing event happened 6 hands ago and probably in China. You buy device at Frys and it gets bricked. You didn't know the chip was fake. Fry's didn't know the chip was fake. The wholesaler Fry's bought from didn't know. The American company the wholesaler bought it from didn't know. The Chinese outsource factory didn't know. The wholesaler they bought the chip from didn't know. The people the wholesaler bought the chip from knew because they paid someone to fab it.
In what way does the end user deserve to have his device bricked?
If FTDI wants to just not work, that's at least understandable. If they want to pop up a warning and ask you to return the device and report the problem, that's perfectly fine.
I think you misunderstood "brick" here. By that, TFA does not mean that the driver returns an error and doesn't init the device. It means the driver detects the counterfeit and then takes a positive action to maliciously re-program the chip so that it no longer works at all even for the old driver or a third party driver.
The initial report was plug device into Linux box, works fine. Plug into windows box with latest FTDI driver, no work. Plug back into the linux box, no work.
For example, the whole civil forfeiture thing relies on the courts determining that when the form is like State of Police vs. $100,000 in cash, the owner of the cash is a 3rd party and so has no cause of action and the cash isn't a person so it has no rights to due process at all.
The correct ruling is that the papers are yours, not the house's and you have a right to not have your papers and effects searched without a warrant.
It has nothing to do with genitalia. It has to do with naming an actual problem that people actually have that requires systemd as a solution. Claiming that systemd can't give you cold sores isn't much of a supporting statement when no software can give you cold sores.
I still haven't seen a single problem that requires a hairball of dependencies staked down into PID 1 to solve. I genuinely want to understand why the systemd camp doesn't solve the problems in a more flexible and reasonable manner which would, incidentally, put to rest all of the controversy. Why can't systemd be started from the old init instead of (or along with) rc.S for example (at lest as an optional configuration)?
Evidently, logind was modified such that it doesn't need systemd to operate so it could go into Ubuntu to support Gnome. So then, why did it ever need systemd and why can't it stay in modified form upstream? For that matter, why isn't it a standalone project or a part of Gnome (the only thing that cares about it)?
But more specifically here, the discussion turned to why can't a Debian fork stick with sysvinit for another release cycle. You arguie it is way too buggy for that because of a situation you admit you already solved but apparently didn't send along with a bug report.
In the end, I'm not the one trying to jam my fingers into your pie. Half the systemd camp claims they are absolutely positively not trying to cram systemd down my throat but as soon as I discuss not going to systemd the other half wants to tell me how impossible that is. Some even gleefully prattle on about how they will get more and more software to depend on systemd so I won't be able to patch it out fast enough to keep going. Really nice, huh?
I do wonder though if the seatbelt is in good working order and buckled, perhaps the airbag shouldn't deploy or at least it should have a much higher threshold before it deploys. Most airbag injuries are in low speed 'crashes' (some might be called bumps) where the seatbelt would be more than adequate. Cars already detect unbuckled seatbelts, so it's more logic but not more hardware.
Actually, if the government ignores the Constitution, it ceases to be the government. It's just another pack of thugs. Thus everything they do is illegal, it's just that there's nobody to arrest and prosecute them at this time.
That doesn't sound like a very good reason. It also sounds like they have no idea what requirements users have for ntpd (many applications WILL not use a new ntpd at all until it has been exhaustively tested). And they wonder why so many object so strenuously.
If they were at all cleaver, they would have systemd issue the needed SIGUSR/SIGHUP. After all, the old init scripts manage to do that.
REALLY?!? So they cannot do any of the things necessary to actually have a sample of embryonic stem cells but it's perfectly legal to do the research should such a sample magically come into being because someone wished real hard?!?
You ARE confused. Please do apt-get source sysvinit and point me to a patch that addresses a bug in the upstream code (hint, there isn't one).
An RFE is in no sense a bug.
What the patches DO show is startpar being added in. That is, the ability for the init to happen in parallel.
But note, I don't advocate staying with the old unimproved sysvinit forever, just until a truly superior solution that doesn't try to own the world is ready to go.
Slashdot Mirror
So what if you buy a regular device at a regular retail store that costs about the same as similar devices but somewhere in China, someone wanted to double their money?
FTDI may have a right to address the issue with that shady vendor 6 steps away from the consumer, but that's it. It's unfortunate that they likely have no legal way to do that, but that doesn't give them the right to maliciously destroy the property of a 3rd party. That would be like me leaving a bag of flaming dog poop on your front porch because your brother's neighbor didn't clean up after his dog.
The thing is, without some sort of revolution, I just can't see the U.S. ever taking all of Smith's advice. For example, can you imagine a United States where a corporate charter requires a review and approval process where you must show necessity?
As for Friedman, he has some really good ideas, but I can't imagine a GOP that wouldn't filibuster a basic income bill to death even if they had to send the country down in flames to do it.
In this particular case, that appears to be true. The statementys that were made appear to be no more optomistic than would normally be expected from a naturally biased management.
Puffery is often seriously abused as a concept and that makes people question it reflexively, but in this case it seems correct.
Because it does work just fine with non FTDI drivers. It may have already been in use on another PC.
As I said, the truly proper action is to simply inform the user and continue working.
The end user who gets harmed DOES have clean hands. He has no way to know if the parts are or are not legit but also has no reason to suspect they are not.
The unclean hands happen several transactions back in the chain and belong to someone who doesn't suffer in the slightest for this.
The problem was that knowing event happened 6 hands ago and probably in China. You buy device at Frys and it gets bricked. You didn't know the chip was fake. Fry's didn't know the chip was fake. The wholesaler Fry's bought from didn't know. The American company the wholesaler bought it from didn't know. The Chinese outsource factory didn't know. The wholesaler they bought the chip from didn't know. The people the wholesaler bought the chip from knew because they paid someone to fab it.
In what way does the end user deserve to have his device bricked?
If FTDI wants to just not work, that's at least understandable. If they want to pop up a warning and ask you to return the device and report the problem, that's perfectly fine.
I think you misunderstood "brick" here. By that, TFA does not mean that the driver returns an error and doesn't init the device. It means the driver detects the counterfeit and then takes a positive action to maliciously re-program the chip so that it no longer works at all even for the old driver or a third party driver.
The initial report was plug device into Linux box, works fine. Plug into windows box with latest FTDI driver, no work. Plug back into the linux box, no work.
More likely it goes the other way.
For example, the whole civil forfeiture thing relies on the courts determining that when the form is like State of Police vs. $100,000 in cash, the owner of the cash is a 3rd party and so has no cause of action and the cash isn't a person so it has no rights to due process at all.
The correct ruling is that the papers are yours, not the house's and you have a right to not have your papers and effects searched without a warrant.
It has nothing to do with genitalia. It has to do with naming an actual problem that people actually have that requires systemd as a solution. Claiming that systemd can't give you cold sores isn't much of a supporting statement when no software can give you cold sores.
I still haven't seen a single problem that requires a hairball of dependencies staked down into PID 1 to solve. I genuinely want to understand why the systemd camp doesn't solve the problems in a more flexible and reasonable manner which would, incidentally, put to rest all of the controversy. Why can't systemd be started from the old init instead of (or along with) rc.S for example (at lest as an optional configuration)?
Evidently, logind was modified such that it doesn't need systemd to operate so it could go into Ubuntu to support Gnome. So then, why did it ever need systemd and why can't it stay in modified form upstream? For that matter, why isn't it a standalone project or a part of Gnome (the only thing that cares about it)?
But more specifically here, the discussion turned to why can't a Debian fork stick with sysvinit for another release cycle. You arguie it is way too buggy for that because of a situation you admit you already solved but apparently didn't send along with a bug report.
In the end, I'm not the one trying to jam my fingers into your pie. Half the systemd camp claims they are absolutely positively not trying to cram systemd down my throat but as soon as I discuss not going to systemd the other half wants to tell me how impossible that is. Some even gleefully prattle on about how they will get more and more software to depend on systemd so I won't be able to patch it out fast enough to keep going. Really nice, huh?
Look in the mirror.
People who want to pw0n yer boxen! :-)
Whenever I see that, I think of the Illuminates of Thanateros though the device one probably doesn't have nearly as much magick in the chaos.
Funny how I'be never had a modified init script overwritten by an update. Did you consider sending a bug report and patch to the package maintainer?
Because the bugs are in the distro customizations, nothing for upstream to maintain.
No, they must have revenue to cover costs. That should include creating a cash reserve for bad years and unexpected expenses. They don't need profit.
People are getting explosive ebola! From their airbags!!!
I do wonder though if the seatbelt is in good working order and buckled, perhaps the airbag shouldn't deploy or at least it should have a much higher threshold before it deploys. Most airbag injuries are in low speed 'crashes' (some might be called bumps) where the seatbelt would be more than adequate. Cars already detect unbuckled seatbelts, so it's more logic but not more hardware.
DEA would be singing a hell of a different tune.
We're above the law and you can't sue. Doo-Da, Doo-Da!"
Actually, if the government ignores the Constitution, it ceases to be the government. It's just another pack of thugs. Thus everything they do is illegal, it's just that there's nobody to arrest and prosecute them at this time.
Or using regular sales techniques on someone who is clearly trying to kick the habit?
Perhaps hoping to trigger an impulse buy?
Cop dresses like dealer, someone asks to buy drugs: not entrapment. Cop dresses like dealer and offers you drugs: entrapment
But it doesn't. The patches are named like 11_man_halt8.patch
So no, I don't care to search your haystack for a needle. If you know so much about it, show me the needle you claim is there.
That doesn't sound like a very good reason. It also sounds like they have no idea what requirements users have for ntpd (many applications WILL not use a new ntpd at all until it has been exhaustively tested). And they wonder why so many object so strenuously.
If they were at all cleaver, they would have systemd issue the needed SIGUSR/SIGHUP. After all, the old init scripts manage to do that.
So it should be a piece of cake to show me the patch, but you failed. Perhaps you have no idea what is what.
REALLY?!? So they cannot do any of the things necessary to actually have a sample of embryonic stem cells but it's perfectly legal to do the research should such a sample magically come into being because someone wished real hard?!?
You ARE confused. Please do apt-get source sysvinit and point me to a patch that addresses a bug in the upstream code (hint, there isn't one).
An RFE is in no sense a bug.
What the patches DO show is startpar being added in. That is, the ability for the init to happen in parallel.
But note, I don't advocate staying with the old unimproved sysvinit forever, just until a truly superior solution that doesn't try to own the world is ready to go.
That is no surprise. The systemd project has repeatedly demonstrated that they have no discipline at all when dealing with dependencies.