You plug in the USB stick, a file manager pops open. So dreadfully hard! Stick in a data cd and a file manager pops open. Plug in an audio disk and a player pops up. No systemd in sight. Next excuse please.
But note he indicates that he solved those needs with just a bit of customization. He then explained his objections to systemd. The rebuttal below reveals itself for what it is by claiming a laundry list of things the Swiss Army knife approach allows. All of those features already exist in systems using the old init.
Note the many many existing and well understood tools for processing and manipulating text. Wouldn't it make sense to have the 'language' they speak (text) be the standard? Every suggestion for processing those logs seems to start with use X to convert them to text...So how about just make them text?
The binary log files make as much sense as writing all English language web pages in Russian so the browser can translate them back to English for display.
Here's your car analogy, You get a new car with all the bells and whistles. It's perfect except the cup holder won't accommodate your jumbo coffee cup, so you decide to replace it with one that holds one big cup instead of a small cup and spare change. But alas, you learn that the car won't start if you swap out any of the accessories. That is systemd.
Some days, I question if the FBI knows how to turn a computer on.
They certainly don't know how to process forensic evidence.
Meanwhile, we do know that the NSA has illegally hacked a great many routers and tapped many fiber connections. I find it more likely that they used their illegal resources to locate the server through traffic analysis. No need to invoke any superpowers.
I find it at least plausible enough to require proof from the FBI in a criminal investigation (not that it will likely be forthcoming or that the lack of it will derail the railroad).
I don't really care to seek the needle in the rather large haystack you pointed at. I have proof of human caused global warming. I stuck it in a bottle and tossed it in the ocean. Feel free to look it up.
And yet the measurements all show an increase in temperature. Alas, the graph doesn't show what those climate models were. I could easily make climate modeling look bad if I throw in a couple nutty models to skew the results.
We have discovered so many lies from various LEAs and NSA about parallel construction (they even lie to judges and prosecutors) that it is impossible to believe them without iron-clad evidence at this point.
Perhaps they'd care to show us the code? Show us the log of the exploit? Bare assertions won't do.
It has everything to do with colluding to keep salaries down. Clearly, they are at least somewhat interested in keeping salaries down (more interested than is legal in fact).
Let's see, that would be about 10K/year/worker, so 10K * 5 * 60000 = $3billion. Treble damages makes it $9 billion.
Arguably, another year should be added since even if the practice stops (really stops, not just pretend) right now, salaries won't jump to where they should have been overnight.
While GP's statement was over the top, it isn't ENTIRELY off base. Lets consider, you connect to a site via. https and look at the cert.
According to the cert, ajaxco says the site is example.com (as expected). But wait, who the hell is ajaxco? Ever heard of them? Any idea how quality oriented they are? How do they KNOW example.com is the one and only example.com? Did they send an investigator? Did they do a corporate records search (for a personal web site, yeah sure)? Or did they make the person who requested the cert pinkie swear?
For all you know, ajaxco, a division of fly-by-night industries gave the cert to the owner's brother-in-law with no concern for correctness whatsoever.
Or perhaps the CA means to be legit but failed to secure their signing key (it HAS happened) and the cert was actually signed by none other than the Russian Mafia.
Perhaps a government somewhere ordered a CA in their jurisdiction to sign the bogus cert. That government may or may not be corrupt.
But you have the ILLUSION that you know who you are talking to.
As for the costs, the market has had 20 years to work that out and it has failed.
There is the matter of access. The police may (with a warrant) remove a notebook from your desk or your pocket, but a device residing inside your skull presents more than a few new issues. Of for that matter, in at least one case, a device bolted to your skull.
It's an important shade of meaning here. The people *DO* have those rights. The government is actively disregarding those rights but they do exist.
That is an important distinction because it leads citizens to DEMAND those rights be honored rather than meekly shuffling forward and asking for them.
It also means that the government de-legitimizes itself by failing to honor those existent rights. t some point, determined by the people as a whole, it becomes a domestic enemy rather than a government and it is then within the rights of the people to drive it out.
No, NAT is not simpler. There's likely a click and drool option on most new AP/routers. It may even be the default by now. I know on mine it's just clicking the enable radio button for "IPv6 firewall protection". That doesn't seem very hard.
Filtering rather than NATing does put a lot less load on the router since it only has to pass/not pass packets rather than rewriting them in both directions.
filtering rather than NAT does make it a lot easier if you want to allow connections on a particular port to more than one or your computers.
Nonsense. All NAT could do is make a complicated switchover more complicated and failure prone. What is so bright and shiny about NAT? It's an ugly hack in the first place.
Carriers are already providing routable IPv4 addresses, what's so damned hard about providing a routable/64?
BTW, Comcast is already transitioned. I'm getting a v6 prefix to go with my v4 address now.
ISO9000 is a really sad joke. If you have a shitty process that produces poor quality, you can pass ISO9000 just fine. From that point on, it will make sure you never accidentally produce a mediocre or (god forbid) a good product.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure they can. They can either be in the right group or use a simple helper daemon that is not PID 1.
You plug in the USB stick, a file manager pops open. So dreadfully hard! Stick in a data cd and a file manager pops open. Plug in an audio disk and a player pops up. No systemd in sight. Next excuse please.
Actually, it is. Pid 1 shouldn't have anything for the GUI to depend on.
Systemd is a toddler with a tube of superglue and a house full of things that aren't bound together....YET
But note he indicates that he solved those needs with just a bit of customization. He then explained his objections to systemd. The rebuttal below reveals itself for what it is by claiming a laundry list of things the Swiss Army knife approach allows. All of those features already exist in systems using the old init.
Note the many many existing and well understood tools for processing and manipulating text. Wouldn't it make sense to have the 'language' they speak (text) be the standard? Every suggestion for processing those logs seems to start with use X to convert them to text...So how about just make them text?
The binary log files make as much sense as writing all English language web pages in Russian so the browser can translate them back to English for display.
Here's your car analogy, You get a new car with all the bells and whistles. It's perfect except the cup holder won't accommodate your jumbo coffee cup, so you decide to replace it with one that holds one big cup instead of a small cup and spare change. But alas, you learn that the car won't start if you swap out any of the accessories. That is systemd.
That was my first thought. Port it back to Linux so we can go back to regular old init.
Some days, I question if the FBI knows how to turn a computer on.
They certainly don't know how to process forensic evidence.
Meanwhile, we do know that the NSA has illegally hacked a great many routers and tapped many fiber connections. I find it more likely that they used their illegal resources to locate the server through traffic analysis. No need to invoke any superpowers.
I find it at least plausible enough to require proof from the FBI in a criminal investigation (not that it will likely be forthcoming or that the lack of it will derail the railroad).
Yes, and it too shows that the warming is real.
I don't really care to seek the needle in the rather large haystack you pointed at. I have proof of human caused global warming. I stuck it in a bottle and tossed it in the ocean. Feel free to look it up.
And yet the measurements all show an increase in temperature. Alas, the graph doesn't show what those climate models were. I could easily make climate modeling look bad if I throw in a couple nutty models to skew the results.
We have discovered so many lies from various LEAs and NSA about parallel construction (they even lie to judges and prosecutors) that it is impossible to believe them without iron-clad evidence at this point.
Perhaps they'd care to show us the code? Show us the log of the exploit? Bare assertions won't do.
It has everything to do with colluding to keep salaries down. Clearly, they are at least somewhat interested in keeping salaries down (more interested than is legal in fact).
Were that true, they wouldn't be involved in this class action.
Kinda like if a dog is beaten since puppyhood, it won't understand that it is free to object later in life.
Until it snaps and rips the abuser's throat out, of course.
Let's see, that would be about 10K/year/worker, so 10K * 5 * 60000 = $3billion. Treble damages makes it $9 billion.
Arguably, another year should be added since even if the practice stops (really stops, not just pretend) right now, salaries won't jump to where they should have been overnight.
While GP's statement was over the top, it isn't ENTIRELY off base. Lets consider, you connect to a site via. https and look at the cert.
According to the cert, ajaxco says the site is example.com (as expected). But wait, who the hell is ajaxco? Ever heard of them? Any idea how quality oriented they are? How do they KNOW example.com is the one and only example.com? Did they send an investigator? Did they do a corporate records search (for a personal web site, yeah sure)? Or did they make the person who requested the cert pinkie swear?
For all you know, ajaxco, a division of fly-by-night industries gave the cert to the owner's brother-in-law with no concern for correctness whatsoever.
Or perhaps the CA means to be legit but failed to secure their signing key (it HAS happened) and the cert was actually signed by none other than the Russian Mafia.
Perhaps a government somewhere ordered a CA in their jurisdiction to sign the bogus cert. That government may or may not be corrupt.
But you have the ILLUSION that you know who you are talking to.
As for the costs, the market has had 20 years to work that out and it has failed.
Are you sure?
There is the matter of access. The police may (with a warrant) remove a notebook from your desk or your pocket, but a device residing inside your skull presents more than a few new issues. Of for that matter, in at least one case, a device bolted to your skull.
It's an important shade of meaning here. The people *DO* have those rights. The government is actively disregarding those rights but they do exist.
That is an important distinction because it leads citizens to DEMAND those rights be honored rather than meekly shuffling forward and asking for them.
It also means that the government de-legitimizes itself by failing to honor those existent rights. t some point, determined by the people as a whole, it becomes a domestic enemy rather than a government and it is then within the rights of the people to drive it out.
No, NAT is not simpler. There's likely a click and drool option on most new AP/routers. It may even be the default by now. I know on mine it's just clicking the enable radio button for "IPv6 firewall protection". That doesn't seem very hard.
Filtering rather than NATing does put a lot less load on the router since it only has to pass/not pass packets rather than rewriting them in both directions.
filtering rather than NAT does make it a lot easier if you want to allow connections on a particular port to more than one or your computers.
Nonsense. All NAT could do is make a complicated switchover more complicated and failure prone. What is so bright and shiny about NAT? It's an ugly hack in the first place.
Carriers are already providing routable IPv4 addresses, what's so damned hard about providing a routable /64?
BTW, Comcast is already transitioned. I'm getting a v6 prefix to go with my v4 address now.
Bits and pieces are sneaking in. For example in KVM, if you mount a host directory in the guest, it's done with 9p.
Plan9 was never intended to be an every day user OS. It's mostly a place to try out new ideas.
I believe he's suggesting that sitting on a chair and talking on the phone is more effective than the other way around.
It never uses the wrong fork or puts it's elbows on the table.
ISO9000 is a really sad joke. If you have a shitty process that produces poor quality, you can pass ISO9000 just fine. From that point on, it will make sure you never accidentally produce a mediocre or (god forbid) a good product.
Surely for the sake of realism, the latter should be: journalctl -fu sendmail