The thing you keep missing is that the artist (or record company, or estate or whatever) DOES NOT deserve to get paid for every single copy of their song,
Society disagrees. Wanting to live by your own ethic is great and all, but eventually you need to square with the fact that society has a say.
The fact that some professors dont give a crap and hand out "A"s like candy doesnt mean that theres not value in a formal education.
How many of those self-taught people are familiar with the control structure theory that any program can be written using only selection, repetition, and concatenation? How many think that its not relevant, despite the fact that it actually gives rise to readable programs (as opposed to ones that are a mess of GOTOs and multiple entry / exit points)?
You think it doesnt matter as long as the code does the job, and then you need version 1.1 All of a sudden you realize that the self-taught programmer doesnt really understand documentation, or how to craft readable code.
Granted there are a lot of generalizations here-- but I've done the self-taught thing, and I've done the formal education thing, and I find myself wishing I had done far more formal education prior to writing large scripts; as I continue with an education, I realize how much code that I've written over my career was just bad because I did not follow some of the practices I would have learned in a CS class-- and how much better it was because of the little education I did have.
Because the arguments being made are dumb, and its absurd for lone admins to say "THEY need to fork it" when the they happen to be the biggest linux distro makers in the market.
Id much prefer to see good arguments about the merits or lack thereof of SystemD, so that I can be better informed when deciding whether to roll out a CentOS 6.5 or CentOS 7 image. Half of the reason I come to slashdot is to see good discussion, and thats been pretty lacking in the SystemD threads.
ASCII is only 1-to-1 when you have a mapping that you can use. You could argue the same thing about CDP frames captured in wireshark, if you have the right disector to parse the bit field.
What do you think will happen if I want journald to parse, say, "ap#@1e2: p@#$ission denied"?
I think you would probably use a tool that had a disector to display that in human readable text, such that the output resembled a heavily marked up "cat" output. If the tool you're using to display your "binary" logs is giving you crap like that, its probably the wrong tool. Sort of like how if you tried to open a mySql database in vim, its gonna look like nonsense, but when you use the correct tools it becomes superior to plaintext.
I appreciate that you got what I was getting at, and it was to some degree intended to be absurd.
The criticism of his argument is that, as you point out, theres no difference of "kind" here. The encoding changes, but thats just an abstraction of a universal data representation which is binary.
Saying "they use logfiles that are encoded differently" sounds more closely like the bad argument that it is. WHY is ASCII better? WHY is the systemD encoding bad? Thats not answered, its simply implied to absurd effect, much like people who claim that a particular food is bad because it has "chemicals"
It never ceases to amaze me how black and white people tend to make things: If I say anything thats not lockstep with the standard "hate systemD" rhetoric, clearly Im defending its technical merits!
No, Im actually simply pointing out that "its binary" is a terrible argument against something. Our filesystems are binary. Our best and most reliable methods for storing data (atomic databases) are "binary". But for some reason, otherwise intelligent geeks latch onto a particular breed of 7-bit encoding scheme from the 60s as some sort of holy grail of data representation. The ONLY thing ASCII has going for it is its universality; its not terribly efficient, has no built in parity / redundancy, no metadata, nothing. Theres a reason we dont use ASCII for database backends.
So while I can accept that perhaps there are reasons why systemD is bad, or technical arguments against it, I do not buy that "it uses a different sort of encoding for its database" is a valid argument.
Works just fine for me, I'm not sure what you are trying to claim with "my" logs being binary.
cat is a binary executable that knows how to interpret ASCII encoded binary data. Every single file on your computer is stored as a sequence of binary digits; its just the encoding that changes.
Are you trying to claim that *nix has a built in log aggregation program like Splunk that's turned on by default?
Im claiming that all data stored on a digital computer is binary, and that we deal with this using abstractions like encodings.
"Binary log" generally means "logfile that is not ASCII", but theres no categorical difference between the type of data stored except that its bits are represented differently. Binary data can still be interpreted to a human readable format; see wireshark, where I can view ethernet frames and understand them pretty easily despite their binary nature.
Every time this systemD logfile issue comes up, it seems that the real complaint is a worry that there will not exist good universal tools for parsing the logs, because "binary" doesnt generally bother us as long as we can manipulate it. I would assume, for instance, that if someone sent you gzipped logs you would not complain that they were "binary", because you have good tools for reading them. The thing is, with systemD becoming a default everywhere, it seems utterly absurd to think that binary log parsers will somehow be a mythical thing that noone has access to.
Not sure if you're aware of this, but your log files are already stored in a binary format.
See, a long time ago we came up with this idea known as "encodings" and "standards" that allow us to deal with binary as humans... Its kind of amazing, I can use wireshark to read "binary formats" without ACTUALLY being a robot! The future is now.
You cant be hit by an antitrust suit before you are a monopoly, and as I understand it they had to establish that in the 2000 MS DoJ case. Im not aware of any DOS antitrust case, nor could I find one googling.
In practically all real-world situations, the CA generates your private key (stupid, yes, I know, but greed, a.k.a. "business", trumps reason in this world) with the one exception of a PGP web-of-trust.
This just isnt true. Having worked with StartSSL, GoDaddy, Network Solutions, and a number of others-- all of them have you generate a CSR and keypair, and ask you to paste the CSR into a web form.
They NEVER generate your private key that I have seen, and I've been in consulting for nearly a decade.
Previous to that, I suppose Bills education as a Lawyer was probably the fuel for later hijinx.
Bill dropped out of a computer science program to start a business building software for traffic statistics equipment. Going to Harvard is not the same as being educated as a lawyer-- they DO teach other things than law there.
Seriously, where are people getting all of their bogus info? Every thread its people spouting about crypto, history, politics, and 90% of it is wrong.
Even if you buy Cloudflare'ss "most secure" option, and have SSL to your own server using your own certificate, you have to give Clouldflare your SSL cert's private keys.
If you need the sort of service cloudflare provides, it wont matter who your actual provider is. ANYONE acting as a proxy for your HTTPS site will require your private key.
There was no misunderstanding of sarcasm. The original comment-- sarcasm and all-- indicated a fundamental lack of understanding of how digital signatures work.
Slashdot Mirror
Open source software disappears too. Ever hear of AmaroK?
Your stunning eloquence has me convinced. Sign me up!
Depends whether you're dealing with a protected class. Gun receivers are not, last time I checked, a protected class.
Pretty sure its spelled "S-w-e-d-e-n", not "Murica"-- unless Stockholm was recently relocated to the USA?
Osama wasnt crossing borders. We had to send in a special ops team to get him
Not sure if you're being intentionally dishonest, or are just ignorant.
Actually yes, they are.
Intent is pretty important in law, as is whether the crime was willful or not.
The thing you keep missing is that the artist (or record company, or estate or whatever) DOES NOT deserve to get paid for every single copy of their song,
Society disagrees. Wanting to live by your own ethic is great and all, but eventually you need to square with the fact that society has a say.
Tell that to Al Capone.
Theyre not. As I recall Mozilla doesnt have its act together on the codec front currently.
The fact that some professors dont give a crap and hand out "A"s like candy doesnt mean that theres not value in a formal education.
How many of those self-taught people are familiar with the control structure theory that any program can be written using only selection, repetition, and concatenation? How many think that its not relevant, despite the fact that it actually gives rise to readable programs (as opposed to ones that are a mess of GOTOs and multiple entry / exit points)?
You think it doesnt matter as long as the code does the job, and then you need version 1.1 All of a sudden you realize that the self-taught programmer doesnt really understand documentation, or how to craft readable code.
Granted there are a lot of generalizations here-- but I've done the self-taught thing, and I've done the formal education thing, and I find myself wishing I had done far more formal education prior to writing large scripts; as I continue with an education, I realize how much code that I've written over my career was just bad because I did not follow some of the practices I would have learned in a CS class-- and how much better it was because of the little education I did have.
Because the arguments being made are dumb, and its absurd for lone admins to say "THEY need to fork it" when the they happen to be the biggest linux distro makers in the market.
Id much prefer to see good arguments about the merits or lack thereof of SystemD, so that I can be better informed when deciding whether to roll out a CentOS 6.5 or CentOS 7 image. Half of the reason I come to slashdot is to see good discussion, and thats been pretty lacking in the SystemD threads.
ASCII is only 1-to-1 when you have a mapping that you can use. You could argue the same thing about CDP frames captured in wireshark, if you have the right disector to parse the bit field.
What do you think will happen if I want journald to parse, say, "ap#@1e2: p@#$ission denied"?
I think you would probably use a tool that had a disector to display that in human readable text, such that the output resembled a heavily marked up "cat" output. If the tool you're using to display your "binary" logs is giving you crap like that, its probably the wrong tool. Sort of like how if you tried to open a mySql database in vim, its gonna look like nonsense, but when you use the correct tools it becomes superior to plaintext.
I dont need to fork it because A) I dont have a horse in this race and B) I dont particularly care either way.
But as the big folks at Red Hat and Debian are doing SystemD, that seems to put the onus on you.
I appreciate that you got what I was getting at, and it was to some degree intended to be absurd.
The criticism of his argument is that, as you point out, theres no difference of "kind" here. The encoding changes, but thats just an abstraction of a universal data representation which is binary.
Saying "they use logfiles that are encoded differently" sounds more closely like the bad argument that it is. WHY is ASCII better? WHY is the systemD encoding bad? Thats not answered, its simply implied to absurd effect, much like people who claim that a particular food is bad because it has "chemicals"
It never ceases to amaze me how black and white people tend to make things: If I say anything thats not lockstep with the standard "hate systemD" rhetoric, clearly Im defending its technical merits!
No, Im actually simply pointing out that "its binary" is a terrible argument against something. Our filesystems are binary. Our best and most reliable methods for storing data (atomic databases) are "binary". But for some reason, otherwise intelligent geeks latch onto a particular breed of 7-bit encoding scheme from the 60s as some sort of holy grail of data representation. The ONLY thing ASCII has going for it is its universality; its not terribly efficient, has no built in parity / redundancy, no metadata, nothing. Theres a reason we dont use ASCII for database backends.
So while I can accept that perhaps there are reasons why systemD is bad, or technical arguments against it, I do not buy that "it uses a different sort of encoding for its database" is a valid argument.
Works just fine for me, I'm not sure what you are trying to claim with "my" logs being binary.
cat is a binary executable that knows how to interpret ASCII encoded binary data. Every single file on your computer is stored as a sequence of binary digits; its just the encoding that changes.
Are you trying to claim that *nix has a built in log aggregation program like Splunk that's turned on by default?
Im claiming that all data stored on a digital computer is binary, and that we deal with this using abstractions like encodings.
"Binary log" generally means "logfile that is not ASCII", but theres no categorical difference between the type of data stored except that its bits are represented differently. Binary data can still be interpreted to a human readable format; see wireshark, where I can view ethernet frames and understand them pretty easily despite their binary nature.
Every time this systemD logfile issue comes up, it seems that the real complaint is a worry that there will not exist good universal tools for parsing the logs, because "binary" doesnt generally bother us as long as we can manipulate it. I would assume, for instance, that if someone sent you gzipped logs you would not complain that they were "binary", because you have good tools for reading them. The thing is, with systemD becoming a default everywhere, it seems utterly absurd to think that binary log parsers will somehow be a mythical thing that noone has access to.
I haven't seen an overwhelming support anywhere.
Right, because who the heck is this Red Hat guy or this Debian person? Nobodies, I tells ya!
Then hack out your own code and fork Linux.
The big principle of linux culture that Im aware of is that if you dont like it you can fix it.
Not sure if you're aware of this, but your log files are already stored in a binary format.
See, a long time ago we came up with this idea known as "encodings" and "standards" that allow us to deal with binary as humans... Its kind of amazing, I can use wireshark to read "binary formats" without ACTUALLY being a robot! The future is now.
Can you source that?
You cant be hit by an antitrust suit before you are a monopoly, and as I understand it they had to establish that in the 2000 MS DoJ case. Im not aware of any DOS antitrust case, nor could I find one googling.
In practically all real-world situations, the CA generates your private key (stupid, yes, I know, but greed, a.k.a. "business", trumps reason in this world) with the one exception of a PGP web-of-trust.
This just isnt true. Having worked with StartSSL, GoDaddy, Network Solutions, and a number of others-- all of them have you generate a CSR and keypair, and ask you to paste the CSR into a web form.
They NEVER generate your private key that I have seen, and I've been in consulting for nearly a decade.
Previous to that, I suppose Bills education as a Lawyer was probably the fuel for later hijinx.
Bill dropped out of a computer science program to start a business building software for traffic statistics equipment. Going to Harvard is not the same as being educated as a lawyer-- they DO teach other things than law there.
Seriously, where are people getting all of their bogus info? Every thread its people spouting about crypto, history, politics, and 90% of it is wrong.
SSL is also broken, hence the recent warnings about SSLv3 and the recommendations to use TLS 1.2.
Even if you buy Cloudflare'ss "most secure" option, and have SSL to your own server using your own certificate, you have to give Clouldflare your SSL cert's private keys.
If you need the sort of service cloudflare provides, it wont matter who your actual provider is. ANYONE acting as a proxy for your HTTPS site will require your private key.
There was no misunderstanding of sarcasm. The original comment-- sarcasm and all-- indicated a fundamental lack of understanding of how digital signatures work.