What on earth are you talking about? Im simply stating that groups often use names that hide their true intentions (a reality if you look at what sort of names dicatorships tend to use) and youre claiming that thats a McCarthyite notion?
How do you feel about the free, democratic country of The Republic of Zimbabwe? How about the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, or the Peoples Republic of China? Any thoughts on Inspire magazine? Or the American Third Way?
Apparently its "McCarthyite" to call these groups on their BS....
Yea, you really really cannot go based on organization names. Otherwise the Khmer Rouge were a democratic movement (Democratic Kampuchea), as is North Korea.
Turns out people lie in their organizational name all the time. Noone names their group "Committee for the Overthrow of the Peaceful and Sovereign Government".
The preferred solution is to solve problems, not worry about whose fault it is. If you have a system (computing or otherwise) that is technically correct but makes errors likely, would it be wrong to change that system?
What if you tell your team used no newlines in if-then constructs as a convention? It would be technically correct, but at some point you might analyze whether continually fixing the broken code is the correct choice, or if its smarter to change the programming paradigm you've chosen that is making errors likely and common.
Right, its really cool and Im sure in 10 years it might turn out to be a great thing, but right now an objective analysis of it says its a really poor place to stick money.
The math and crypto can be good, that doesnt mean the system as a whole is secure. If you are using strong-crypto-based currencies, but have to trust unreliable partners to perform transactions, or if the system suffers from potential issues like the majority issue, none of the crypto strength ends up mattering.
You're experiencing the exact blindness I was talking about: you see the strong bits (based on SHA hashes), and are missing the relevant bits (practical security issues experienced in actual use).
It's not so much about problems with Bitcoin, but with Bitcoin "banks" that turned out to be incredibly insecure.
Sort of like how quantum cryptography is unhackable -- until you hook it up to a live system and try to use it in the real world, and then using it turns out to have a number of potential exploitable factors.
Every indication is that you want to stay away from bitcoin for a number of years until the dust settles, unless youre the sort of person who has a lot of fun at the roulette wheel in Vegas.
You can buy stuff with it fine, and the USD/BTC exchange rate is stable enough.
Until it crashes or bubbles or both in short succession, which it has a nasty habit/history of doing.
Im gonna keep my money in more stable financial vehicles for now; I agree with most of the things you said and they all scream "dont touch it unless you like troubles."
If the battery in your car dies, do you also launch an engineering team to redesign an entirely new car powered by a suitcase sized nuclear reactor
No, but if the battery in my car keeps dying I as a car manufacturer may want to reexamine whether theres something we can do on our end, whether or not part of the issue is that everyone makes crappy batteries.
See, the goal isnt to pin blame. Its to solve problems and provide a working product.
So you're using a mighty strange definition of fault that doesn't include illegal or wrong.
Im using the definition of "fault" that means "contributed to the result of", or more simply "responsibility". Your bad decision contributes to the result that you got mugged; had you not made that decision, the mugging would likely not have happened.
You seem to be confusing "was immoral" and "at fault". You can share some degree of fault by provoking-- intentionally or not-- a crime. You share a very small part of that fault (as you werent the one committing the crime), but you do share some degree of responsibility.
No, I live in a world where if you don't do something illegal or immoral, then you are not at fault
Then you live in a fantasy world. Entrapment is illegal for a reason; the provocation of a crime does not put 100% of the fault with the one committing the crime.
That reliability stems directly from the lack of bugs, lack of change, lack of dependencies, and lack of large attack surface in the traditionally tiny init process that lives in process 1.
I will be clear that I am not a seasoned linux sysadmin; I know bits of Linux, I can manage a small installation, but Im definately not an expert. Im also not a seasoned programmer; I understand programming.
However I have had experience with a lot of badly written services on Linux where I've had to decipher the init scripts, or figure out why "service XX stop" doesnt actually stop the service, whatever stdout might claim.
It seems to me that the approach you are advocating works really well in a world where badly written services simply die out due to people rejecting them; in reality you have badly written services all over the place that get screwed up all the time. Your philosophy could be extended to say "we'll also have the kernel just manage cpu, disk, and memory, and leave handling the filesystem up to individual programs." Which works, as an engineering principle, but in the real world you will end up with filesystem corruption on a daily basis because you are causing the entire system to have a net increase in complexity.
From what Im gathering, systemd increases the base system complexity, but will (over time) ensure that those complex bits are stable (much like building FS support into the kernel). On the upside, it allows all of that complexity to be removed from all of the million other packages where 'building a stable init script" may have been priority 99 out of 100, and now they simply dont have to worry about that.
The idea that systemd is only relevent on the desktop could not be further from the truth. I would say it's even more relevant on servers, where I expect services to be managed reliably. SysV init cannot do that. (E.g., there is no guarantee that after "/etc/init.d/httpd stop" all httpd processes are really gone
Anyone who has ever tried running BackupExec Linux agents is well familiar with stopping the service 32 times while the process merrily continues running in a borked state, only fixed with a "killall' command.
Again: I dont really have a horse in this race, but if systemd truly can guarantee that a service stops when it says it does, thats where Im placing my bets. Its absurd that the service system in Linux fails so badly in that regard.
You mean Debian (the upstream from Ubuntu, which doesnt have a lot of the crap Ubuntu does), Red Hat (which drives Fedora), and Suse.
Plus others like Arch, Slackware, and Gentoo-- Im not sure what qualifies as "mattering", but Im not clear why it should matter to an Arch user what the Ubuntu world is doing.
the majority of people that use Linux in the enterprise world must use Red Hat or SuSE.
You mean Red Hat (or CentOS! which can always fork!) or Debian.
Complaining about Fedora is dumb. It's show is run by a company who has specific goals, and if you dont like them there's CentOS. If things get bad, fork CentOS-- from all the flak about systemd, surely there are enough folks onboard to do that.
I have a desire to walk through the bronx wearing the Matthew Lasko suit, wearing a rolex, and flashing hundred dollar bills. Its not MY fault if I get mugged!
Well, I guess it depends how you define fault, but it IS really dumb...
If your goal is to prevent someone you love from getting into that situation, recommending that they not wear a short skirt and walk through a bad part of the city at night wouldnt be "blaming the victim". It would be pointing out that there are unwise things you can do that are liable to get you into trouble.
Blame isnt this binary thing where only one person can have done something wrong. If I walk through the Bronx in expensive close flashing a wallet full of money, I havent done anything illegal or wrong, but Im going to get mugged and a small part of the fault lies with me for making bad choices. That doesnt mean the mugger isnt at fault, just that I bear a little responsibility for making poor choices.
So, you can live in a fantasy world and pretend that anything you do thats legal, you should be able to do. Or, you can engage with reality and realize that some things that you do will create problems for you.
Linux is FOSS. Im not 100% up on the issue, but if distros are adopting something you have a philosophical objection to, use the ones that dont use Systemd. If everyone is using it, then clearly it solves their problem, and you can work with others like you to maintain an alternate solution.
Im not totally up on the systemd debate, but most of the objections I've seen are philosophical, and not actually addressing whether it is necessary. For example, this discussion; the 2nd poster acknowledges that the current init doesnt meet his current needs, and everyone seems to agree that systemd is faster, but the objection seems to be that its different and therefore bad.
Its much like arguments I've seen against binary log files, which is absurd because at the end of the day all log files are binary, you're just arguing about the encoding. As long as you have widely supported, stable, widely available tools for reading them-- who cares? If systemd does everything init did and more, faster, and becomes the new stable default, who cares if its not "classic linux"?
When I said "I hadnt seen......" I was thinking about review trading; certainly her relationship with guys at Kotaku was mentioned and corroborated, but I didnt connect them when I made the post. In retrospect, its clear what was being discussed (and is being discussed) is the fact that guys at gaming publications who are charged with reviewing her work have had intimate relationships with Zoe, some of them going on over lengthy periods of time.
That WAS established in the account I read, and HAS been confirmed by numerous sources.
For example, you could enforce at the TCP level that you're only allowed to receive packets on port 80 if your IP appears on the list of licensed webservers.
What you just described is ACLing: You have an access control list that says what IP is allowed in at what port. Thats not DRM, its a standard thing that routers already do.
If you're doing it at a webserver level, its not layer 4, its layer 7.
You could even forbid receiving packets that contain "GET" followed by a URL without a permit of some kind.
Thats layer 7.
It really sounds like you dont understand the distinction between layer 4 and layer 7. Once you are dealing with URLs, the application no longer cares about "TCP", it cares about generic "connections". Layer 4 does transport; it does not deal with URLs or anything else.
Congress does not legislate OSI. OSI is simply the model for what parts of the internet communication fall into what functional category. Layer 1 handles physical signalling, and simply doesnt do DRM no matter how congress legislates; its a model, not an implementation.
Its like arguing that Congress will legislate that your pseudocode has to implement DRM; it simply makes no sense.
In the case of networking, DRM will almost always fall into layer 6 or 7, because it does NOT specify the physical electrical signalling, nor how frames travel within broadcast domains, nor addressing, nor the transport mechanism (though some encryption does appear here), and generally not session (though it could). Usually DRM will be presentation, or most likely application: the end application makes the decision of how to restrict customer access.
I dont think DRM COULD even work at layer 4 or below; certainly not below layer 3.
She should care because they threatened her life, and attempted to bankrupt her through a paypal exploit.
The threat is not news, at all. This literally happens every day. If she is getting threats from someone, she should take it up with the police. But why is this slashdot worthy? Would it be slashdot worthy if I came on here and said "some dude on 4chan threatened to find me and kill me?"
I mean we do see stories of pro streamers getting SWAT'd, and it does make the news, but noone alleges sexism or accuses masses of slashdotters of being misogynistic or misandrist because of it. Why is her case special in that regard? Why isnt it just a case of a death threat, why does it have to be a story of "a death threat to A WOMAN?"
The hacking I hadnt heard of, which is suprising to me if true because an honest to goodness paypal exploit should be pretty big news. Even if you're right: Millions upon millions get hacked every year (SOE hack 3 years ago: 78 million CC records exposed; this year, Target, UPS, Home Depot, Apple Celeb hacks.....) Again: Not a gender clash issue.
None of these issues are tied to gender, and its frankly getting old when people try to turn it into a gender issue. I have some degree of sympathy for her being threatened / hacked, but such threats should not be taken seriously even though they may be upsetting. The internet is a crappy place with crappy people, and posting about it will not make it better.
Slashdot Mirror
What on earth are you talking about? Im simply stating that groups often use names that hide their true intentions (a reality if you look at what sort of names dicatorships tend to use) and youre claiming that thats a McCarthyite notion?
How do you feel about the free, democratic country of The Republic of Zimbabwe? How about the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, or the Peoples Republic of China? Any thoughts on Inspire magazine? Or the American Third Way?
Apparently its "McCarthyite" to call these groups on their BS....
Yea, you really really cannot go based on organization names. Otherwise the Khmer Rouge were a democratic movement (Democratic Kampuchea), as is North Korea.
Turns out people lie in their organizational name all the time. Noone names their group "Committee for the Overthrow of the Peaceful and Sovereign Government".
If it takes 4 times as long at 2.25 watts, it doesnt matter: It will use more battery.
The preferred solution is to solve problems, not worry about whose fault it is. If you have a system (computing or otherwise) that is technically correct but makes errors likely, would it be wrong to change that system?
What if you tell your team used no newlines in if-then constructs as a convention? It would be technically correct, but at some point you might analyze whether continually fixing the broken code is the correct choice, or if its smarter to change the programming paradigm you've chosen that is making errors likely and common.
Right, its really cool and Im sure in 10 years it might turn out to be a great thing, but right now an objective analysis of it says its a really poor place to stick money.
You completely and utterly missed my point.
The math and crypto can be good, that doesnt mean the system as a whole is secure. If you are using strong-crypto-based currencies, but have to trust unreliable partners to perform transactions, or if the system suffers from potential issues like the majority issue, none of the crypto strength ends up mattering.
You're experiencing the exact blindness I was talking about: you see the strong bits (based on SHA hashes), and are missing the relevant bits (practical security issues experienced in actual use).
It's not so much about problems with Bitcoin, but with Bitcoin "banks" that turned out to be incredibly insecure.
Sort of like how quantum cryptography is unhackable -- until you hook it up to a live system and try to use it in the real world, and then using it turns out to have a number of potential exploitable factors.
Every indication is that you want to stay away from bitcoin for a number of years until the dust settles, unless youre the sort of person who has a lot of fun at the roulette wheel in Vegas.
You can buy stuff with it fine, and the USD/BTC exchange rate is stable enough.
Until it crashes or bubbles or both in short succession, which it has a nasty habit/history of doing.
Im gonna keep my money in more stable financial vehicles for now; I agree with most of the things you said and they all scream "dont touch it unless you like troubles."
If the battery in your car dies, do you also launch an engineering team to redesign an entirely new car powered by a suitcase sized nuclear reactor
No, but if the battery in my car keeps dying I as a car manufacturer may want to reexamine whether theres something we can do on our end, whether or not part of the issue is that everyone makes crappy batteries.
See, the goal isnt to pin blame. Its to solve problems and provide a working product.
So you're using a mighty strange definition of fault that doesn't include illegal or wrong.
Im using the definition of "fault" that means "contributed to the result of", or more simply "responsibility". Your bad decision contributes to the result that you got mugged; had you not made that decision, the mugging would likely not have happened.
You seem to be confusing "was immoral" and "at fault". You can share some degree of fault by provoking-- intentionally or not-- a crime. You share a very small part of that fault (as you werent the one committing the crime), but you do share some degree of responsibility.
No, I live in a world where if you don't do something illegal or immoral, then you are not at fault
Then you live in a fantasy world. Entrapment is illegal for a reason; the provocation of a crime does not put 100% of the fault with the one committing the crime.
A car that is doing 80mph and accelerating you cant get away from if you are in it.
Thats not really accurate, you can shift to neutral and hit the brakes.
I mean its bad but lets keep the BS in check.
That reliability stems directly from the lack of bugs, lack of change, lack of dependencies, and lack of large attack surface in the traditionally tiny init process that lives in process 1.
I will be clear that I am not a seasoned linux sysadmin; I know bits of Linux, I can manage a small installation, but Im definately not an expert. Im also not a seasoned programmer; I understand programming.
However I have had experience with a lot of badly written services on Linux where I've had to decipher the init scripts, or figure out why "service XX stop" doesnt actually stop the service, whatever stdout might claim.
It seems to me that the approach you are advocating works really well in a world where badly written services simply die out due to people rejecting them; in reality you have badly written services all over the place that get screwed up all the time. Your philosophy could be extended to say "we'll also have the kernel just manage cpu, disk, and memory, and leave handling the filesystem up to individual programs." Which works, as an engineering principle, but in the real world you will end up with filesystem corruption on a daily basis because you are causing the entire system to have a net increase in complexity.
From what Im gathering, systemd increases the base system complexity, but will (over time) ensure that those complex bits are stable (much like building FS support into the kernel). On the upside, it allows all of that complexity to be removed from all of the million other packages where 'building a stable init script" may have been priority 99 out of 100, and now they simply dont have to worry about that.
The idea that systemd is only relevent on the desktop could not be further from the truth. I would say it's even more relevant on servers, where I expect services to be managed reliably. SysV init cannot do that. (E.g., there is no guarantee that after "/etc/init.d/httpd stop" all httpd processes are really gone
Anyone who has ever tried running BackupExec Linux agents is well familiar with stopping the service 32 times while the process merrily continues running in a borked state, only fixed with a "killall' command.
Again: I dont really have a horse in this race, but if systemd truly can guarantee that a service stops when it says it does, thats where Im placing my bets. Its absurd that the service system in Linux fails so badly in that regard.
c) get rid of GNOME for any of the million other DEs
d) provide a compatibility layer
e) fork GNOME
: Ubuntu, Fedora, and SuSE
You mean Debian (the upstream from Ubuntu, which doesnt have a lot of the crap Ubuntu does), Red Hat (which drives Fedora), and Suse.
Plus others like Arch, Slackware, and Gentoo-- Im not sure what qualifies as "mattering", but Im not clear why it should matter to an Arch user what the Ubuntu world is doing.
the majority of people that use Linux in the enterprise world must use Red Hat or SuSE.
You mean Red Hat (or CentOS! which can always fork!) or Debian.
Complaining about Fedora is dumb. It's show is run by a company who has specific goals, and if you dont like them there's CentOS. If things get bad, fork CentOS-- from all the flak about systemd, surely there are enough folks onboard to do that.
I think between Reddit and Slashdot Im developing a severe allergy to political correctness.
I have a desire to walk through the bronx wearing the Matthew Lasko suit, wearing a rolex, and flashing hundred dollar bills. Its not MY fault if I get mugged!
Well, I guess it depends how you define fault, but it IS really dumb...
If your goal is to prevent someone you love from getting into that situation, recommending that they not wear a short skirt and walk through a bad part of the city at night wouldnt be "blaming the victim". It would be pointing out that there are unwise things you can do that are liable to get you into trouble.
Blame isnt this binary thing where only one person can have done something wrong. If I walk through the Bronx in expensive close flashing a wallet full of money, I havent done anything illegal or wrong, but Im going to get mugged and a small part of the fault lies with me for making bad choices. That doesnt mean the mugger isnt at fault, just that I bear a little responsibility for making poor choices.
So, you can live in a fantasy world and pretend that anything you do thats legal, you should be able to do. Or, you can engage with reality and realize that some things that you do will create problems for you.
Posts like this make the all of the other crap on slashdot worth it.
I honestly dont get the issue here.
Linux is FOSS. Im not 100% up on the issue, but if distros are adopting something you have a philosophical objection to, use the ones that dont use Systemd. If everyone is using it, then clearly it solves their problem, and you can work with others like you to maintain an alternate solution.
Im not totally up on the systemd debate, but most of the objections I've seen are philosophical, and not actually addressing whether it is necessary. For example, this discussion; the 2nd poster acknowledges that the current init doesnt meet his current needs, and everyone seems to agree that systemd is faster, but the objection seems to be that its different and therefore bad.
Its much like arguments I've seen against binary log files, which is absurd because at the end of the day all log files are binary, you're just arguing about the encoding. As long as you have widely supported, stable, widely available tools for reading them-- who cares? If systemd does everything init did and more, faster, and becomes the new stable default, who cares if its not "classic linux"?
This is all pretty misleading.
When I said "I hadnt seen......" I was thinking about review trading; certainly her relationship with guys at Kotaku was mentioned and corroborated, but I didnt connect them when I made the post. In retrospect, its clear what was being discussed (and is being discussed) is the fact that guys at gaming publications who are charged with reviewing her work have had intimate relationships with Zoe, some of them going on over lengthy periods of time.
That WAS established in the account I read, and HAS been confirmed by numerous sources.
For example, you could enforce at the TCP level that you're only allowed to receive packets on port 80 if your IP appears on the list of licensed webservers.
What you just described is ACLing: You have an access control list that says what IP is allowed in at what port. Thats not DRM, its a standard thing that routers already do.
If you're doing it at a webserver level, its not layer 4, its layer 7.
You could even forbid receiving packets that contain "GET" followed by a URL without a permit of some kind.
Thats layer 7.
It really sounds like you dont understand the distinction between layer 4 and layer 7. Once you are dealing with URLs, the application no longer cares about "TCP", it cares about generic "connections". Layer 4 does transport; it does not deal with URLs or anything else.
Congress does not legislate OSI. OSI is simply the model for what parts of the internet communication fall into what functional category. Layer 1 handles physical signalling, and simply doesnt do DRM no matter how congress legislates; its a model, not an implementation.
Its like arguing that Congress will legislate that your pseudocode has to implement DRM; it simply makes no sense.
In the case of networking, DRM will almost always fall into layer 6 or 7, because it does NOT specify the physical electrical signalling, nor how frames travel within broadcast domains, nor addressing, nor the transport mechanism (though some encryption does appear here), and generally not session (though it could). Usually DRM will be presentation, or most likely application: the end application makes the decision of how to restrict customer access.
I dont think DRM COULD even work at layer 4 or below; certainly not below layer 3.
She should care because they threatened her life, and attempted to bankrupt her through a paypal exploit.
The threat is not news, at all. This literally happens every day. If she is getting threats from someone, she should take it up with the police. But why is this slashdot worthy? Would it be slashdot worthy if I came on here and said "some dude on 4chan threatened to find me and kill me?"
I mean we do see stories of pro streamers getting SWAT'd, and it does make the news, but noone alleges sexism or accuses masses of slashdotters of being misogynistic or misandrist because of it. Why is her case special in that regard? Why isnt it just a case of a death threat, why does it have to be a story of "a death threat to A WOMAN?"
The hacking I hadnt heard of, which is suprising to me if true because an honest to goodness paypal exploit should be pretty big news. Even if you're right: Millions upon millions get hacked every year (SOE hack 3 years ago: 78 million CC records exposed; this year, Target, UPS, Home Depot, Apple Celeb hacks.....) Again: Not a gender clash issue.
None of these issues are tied to gender, and its frankly getting old when people try to turn it into a gender issue. I have some degree of sympathy for her being threatened / hacked, but such threats should not be taken seriously even though they may be upsetting. The internet is a crappy place with crappy people, and posting about it will not make it better.