Indeed. It however does work when you manually tell LastPass to fill a password. But nothing in the UI prompts you to do so, so I consider this safe behavior.
Over here in Europe we've got a crazy law requiring websites to ask visitor consent before placing tracking cookies. Now all websites have popups. You can't refuse the cookies like envisioned by the privacy lobbyists when drafting the bill. You can either accept or leave the site. The law is a useless disaster doing absolutely nothing for privacy. It just annoys everybody.
Needless to say, lots of people now just use a browser plugin to just accept the cookies blindly.
Also please note this isn't a browser window popping up of course. It's an overlay over the web page.
Agreed. Apps need the attention of the user in order to serve them ads. If you can make sure the user pays more attention, then they see more ads and you make more money.
That's why apps like Facebook and Twitter are specifically engineered to be addictive. There is no urgency at all in the fact that your grandma has posted photo's on Facebook. Yet the apps generates a notification for it *ding*. You open the app and you see the notification tab has a little '8' badge above it. You've got 8 messages. You like it neat. Read it! Clean out those messages and remove the badge! Scroll through the timeline. First message: not that interesting. Second message: ad. Third message: bingo! Nice content. Endorphin. Nr 4 is not that interesting. Maybe 5? No, an ad. 6 is a little interesting, let's keep on scrolling past those ads. See where I'm going here?
Twitter: same. Trump tweets are *not*, I repeat *not* interesting. There is no need at all to read them. Unfollow the dude.
I repeat: apps are engineered to keep you addicted. Keep that in mind. Act upon it.
As you can read in TFA, just booting up an installer back in the day could be a struggle. The author tried to tweak his X settings for an entire weekend and just gave up.
Linux was a far cry from the mature OS it is today. Systemd just works for a very large portion of the user base. Remember that systemd is an old piece of software: distro's started running on systemd by default as early as 2012, in 2014 it was mainstream. Systemd protests only seemed to start when Debian (not the most progressive bunch of people) choose systemd as their default system.
Systemd is a mere footnote in the history of Linux. Linux distro's always have been full of bugs and problems, and systemd is not (significantly) different. Systemd reception is quite good in the overall community it seems. Only a very vocal conservative part of the community doesn't like it (to say the least).
I'm managing over 200 Linux servers in a mix of CentOS 6 and 7 and (mostly) Ubuntu 14.04 and 16.04. I have run Opensuse in different versions (with or without systemd) and have been running Ubunut 10.04 and 12.04. My experience with systemd? It works. Upstart really really sucks. SysV works, but is hard to maintain. In a modern devops environment (we use Puppet for everything we do), systemd is the way to go.
Correct. Over here in Europe the Democrats would be a right wing party. The US leans very much to the right. Which is not a bad thing, but just an observation.
The thing you may have noticed is that FTP sends your password over the line unencrypted. This is due to the problems with NAT. An encrypted variant of FTP exists, but it doesn't work over NAT at all. Therefore almost no servers support it.
Unencrypted FTP works fine over nat. It does require a specific ALG (application layer gateway) on the firewall, but that's been mainstrain for decades now.
I remember compiling KDE 2.0 on a Sparcstation 5 when I was an intern. Solaris came with CDE, which is a POS. Took several days to compile and resulted in a poorly performing DE, but no longer suffering from the ugly unfriendly CDE:)
Been using KDE since before 1.0 came out on x86 though. Man, what an upgrade over things like fvwm it was.
Now the developers seem to have lost their way a bit. Currently I'm on some frankenstein mixup of kde4 and kde5 with bits and pieces missing or inaccessible. And still barely different from KDE3.x. Sure, they created a lot of stuff like "activities". Still don't know what those are though...
Honest question: in what use case does systemd bother you? Or do you even so much as notice what system is running?
I mean, passion for a desktop environment, that I get. Or text editors. That's where your interaction with the system is. But such a low level thing as an init system / device manager / login manager?
Yes you are. It's a well known fact that besides dissidents and abuse victims also criminals use Tor. So yes, running a Tor node means you're intentionally concealing activity, including illegal activity. Claiming you don't know that is just not believable. It just means you think the end justifies the means. And as with every opinion, everybody is entitled to their own, even if it conflicts with yours.
In fact, I don't feel systemd generates many complaints. Surely it does generate complaints. By many? I think we're dealing with a very vocal minoroty here. And of course bugs, like any orther package. Around me (I'm a professional Linux sysadmin) I hear everybody to be very happy with systemd in general. It solves so many problems in such a nice way.
I however do understand the complaints. Traditionally a sysadmin keeps his systems stable. Change is never good in the eyes of the sysadmin. Change always is the enemy of stability.
However in a modern world of ever faster change, such sysadmins are growing obsolete, fast. And they're getting increasingly frustrated with the world around them, which they understand less and less. I don't care how your systems worked a decade ago. I want to work how your systems will work next month. Please don't live in the past.
Wayland suffers from the same category of nay-sayers. Please, install Slackware and be content with your obsolesence. And don't come shouting at the people and software you don't understand any more.
You guys at that side of the pond still use magnetic strips?
Just use standard PKI. It's secure, it's easy and it's standard.
Create a key pair for each customer. The private key is protected by a pass phrase (also known as a PIN code). Distribute the key pairs along with the bank's public key on a chip which does the encryption/signing.
Now go the the ATM or POS. Enter the card with the chip. Unlock the private key with the PIN. Let the card encrypt a message to the bank using the bank's public key and signed by the customers private key.
It's not rocket science. And to the end user it works exactly the same as before. It's cheap too.
Doing more damage than strictly necessary defeats the purpose: opinions will turn against the hacker. Now the hacker is the bad person, in stead of the company with bad security.
Another commenter already brought up Snowden. Snowden did exactly the same thing wrong: Snowden exposed way too much classified information. In doing so, he compromised national security and turned public opinion against him. Now the message of Snowden is mostly lost to the general public, which is a shame. The general public now thinks to know stricter laws are necessary in order to protect information. Stricter laws are needed to ban encryption. Stricter laws are needed to penalize hackers. Thanks Snowden. Good job.
Systemd never was, and never will be, just an init system. The init system is just a small part of systemd. The init system isn't the part the desktops are depending on. It's the interfaces to other subsystems the desktops are depending on, such as the power management interface and the hotplug interface.
Then the first visit is always unsafe since no data is known. Now you can get valid data by checking the certificate, but since that's not what the OP wants, what's left?
Posting sensitive data to an unauthenticated server is very bad. For instance, when your online banking environment suddenly uses a self signed certificate, you should notice. This is a very bad situation, and should fall within the "dangerous" category and certainly not in the "weak" category.
I'm not entirely sure on how the chip works, but I imagine the chip contains a keypair for the customer and a certificate for the bank. The customer's key is protected with a password (AKA the pin) and used to encrypt messages to the bank. The customer's certificate is used to sign the messages. The bank's certificate is used to establish a secure channel between chip and bank. Am I anywhere close to reality?
Actually in europe we have 2FA for online banking and payment with online retailers. Everybody has got a little card reader which is required for signing transactions.
I second that. Whatsapp is the number one killer app for smartphones over here. Facebook messenger has little chance of gaining any meaningful market share because of whatsapp.
I like free websites. Websites like slashdot. If the ads on slashdot would lose effectiveness because advertisers can't target any more, slashdot will lose revenue. So maybe then they'll try to find an alternative revenue stream. Advertorials. Paywalls. Whatever.
It costs real money to operate a serious website. If you make advertisements ineffective by rejecting third party cookies, then the website owner will try to find another revenue stream. Maybe sell all account data to the highest bidder?
Believe me. Ads are annoying, but the alternatives are evil.
No, this is completely normal. For example, governments have a monopoly on violence (see wikipedia). Citizens don't have the freedom to shoot each other, for example. A police officer does have the right to shoot under certain circumstances.
This isn't something from the past few years. Governments have reserved certain rights to itself for many centuries, in order to maintain civil order and sovereignty.
So, it's also completely normal that the government reserves the right to hack into computers under certain circumstances. For example, permission from a judge is needed. You can compare this to a search warrent for a private home, also the exclusive right for the government.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed. It however does work when you manually tell LastPass to fill a password. But nothing in the UI prompts you to do so, so I consider this safe behavior.
Don't buy such a TV. Simple law of economics.
Yup, we get 5.1 surround on Netflix in .nl. Every monday a new ep.
Over here in Europe we've got a crazy law requiring websites to ask visitor consent before placing tracking cookies. Now all websites have popups. You can't refuse the cookies like envisioned by the privacy lobbyists when drafting the bill. You can either accept or leave the site. The law is a useless disaster doing absolutely nothing for privacy. It just annoys everybody.
Needless to say, lots of people now just use a browser plugin to just accept the cookies blindly.
Also please note this isn't a browser window popping up of course. It's an overlay over the web page.
Agreed. Apps need the attention of the user in order to serve them ads. If you can make sure the user pays more attention, then they see more ads and you make more money.
That's why apps like Facebook and Twitter are specifically engineered to be addictive. There is no urgency at all in the fact that your grandma has posted photo's on Facebook. Yet the apps generates a notification for it *ding*. You open the app and you see the notification tab has a little '8' badge above it. You've got 8 messages. You like it neat. Read it! Clean out those messages and remove the badge!
Scroll through the timeline. First message: not that interesting. Second message: ad. Third message: bingo! Nice content. Endorphin. Nr 4 is not that interesting. Maybe 5? No, an ad. 6 is a little interesting, let's keep on scrolling past those ads. See where I'm going here?
Twitter: same. Trump tweets are *not*, I repeat *not* interesting. There is no need at all to read them. Unfollow the dude.
I repeat: apps are engineered to keep you addicted. Keep that in mind. Act upon it.
I think there will be no impact at all.
As you can read in TFA, just booting up an installer back in the day could be a struggle. The author tried to tweak his X settings for an entire weekend and just gave up.
Linux was a far cry from the mature OS it is today. Systemd just works for a very large portion of the user base. Remember that systemd is an old piece of software: distro's started running on systemd by default as early as 2012, in 2014 it was mainstream. Systemd protests only seemed to start when Debian (not the most progressive bunch of people) choose systemd as their default system.
Systemd is a mere footnote in the history of Linux. Linux distro's always have been full of bugs and problems, and systemd is not (significantly) different. Systemd reception is quite good in the overall community it seems. Only a very vocal conservative part of the community doesn't like it (to say the least).
I'm managing over 200 Linux servers in a mix of CentOS 6 and 7 and (mostly) Ubuntu 14.04 and 16.04. I have run Opensuse in different versions (with or without systemd) and have been running Ubunut 10.04 and 12.04. My experience with systemd? It works. Upstart really really sucks. SysV works, but is hard to maintain. In a modern devops environment (we use Puppet for everything we do), systemd is the way to go.
Correct. Over here in Europe the Democrats would be a right wing party. The US leans very much to the right. Which is not a bad thing, but just an observation.
The thing you may have noticed is that FTP sends your password over the line unencrypted. This is due to the problems with NAT. An encrypted variant of FTP exists, but it doesn't work over NAT at all. Therefore almost no servers support it.
Unencrypted FTP works fine over nat. It does require a specific ALG (application layer gateway) on the firewall, but that's been mainstrain for decades now.
We've already got that. It's called Java.
I remember compiling KDE 2.0 on a Sparcstation 5 when I was an intern. Solaris came with CDE, which is a POS. Took several days to compile and resulted in a poorly performing DE, but no longer suffering from the ugly unfriendly CDE :)
Been using KDE since before 1.0 came out on x86 though. Man, what an upgrade over things like fvwm it was.
Now the developers seem to have lost their way a bit. Currently I'm on some frankenstein mixup of kde4 and kde5 with bits and pieces missing or inaccessible. And still barely different from KDE3.x. Sure, they created a lot of stuff like "activities". Still don't know what those are though...
Honest question: in what use case does systemd bother you? Or do you even so much as notice what system is running?
I mean, passion for a desktop environment, that I get. Or text editors. That's where your interaction with the system is. But such a low level thing as an init system / device manager / login manager?
Yes you are. It's a well known fact that besides dissidents and abuse victims also criminals use Tor. So yes, running a Tor node means you're intentionally concealing activity, including illegal activity. Claiming you don't know that is just not believable. It just means you think the end justifies the means. And as with every opinion, everybody is entitled to their own, even if it conflicts with yours.
The efficiency is very low. Read TFA: "[...] the system is consistently performing with a thrust to power ratio of 1.2 +/- 0.1 mN/Kw ()".
According to TFA, however, they are working on a far more efficient design.
In fact, I don't feel systemd generates many complaints. Surely it does generate complaints. By many? I think we're dealing with a very vocal minoroty here. And of course bugs, like any orther package. Around me (I'm a professional Linux sysadmin) I hear everybody to be very happy with systemd in general. It solves so many problems in such a nice way.
I however do understand the complaints. Traditionally a sysadmin keeps his systems stable. Change is never good in the eyes of the sysadmin. Change always is the enemy of stability.
However in a modern world of ever faster change, such sysadmins are growing obsolete, fast. And they're getting increasingly frustrated with the world around them, which they understand less and less. I don't care how your systems worked a decade ago. I want to work how your systems will work next month. Please don't live in the past.
Wayland suffers from the same category of nay-sayers. Please, install Slackware and be content with your obsolesence. And don't come shouting at the people and software you don't understand any more.
You guys at that side of the pond still use magnetic strips?
Just use standard PKI. It's secure, it's easy and it's standard.
Create a key pair for each customer. The private key is protected by a pass phrase (also known as a PIN code). Distribute the key pairs along with the bank's public key on a chip which does the encryption/signing.
Now go the the ATM or POS. Enter the card with the chip. Unlock the private key with the PIN. Let the card encrypt a message to the bank using the bank's public key and signed by the customers private key.
It's not rocket science. And to the end user it works exactly the same as before. It's cheap too.
Doing more damage than strictly necessary defeats the purpose: opinions will turn against the hacker. Now the hacker is the bad person, in stead of the company with bad security.
Another commenter already brought up Snowden. Snowden did exactly the same thing wrong: Snowden exposed way too much classified information. In doing so, he compromised national security and turned public opinion against him. Now the message of Snowden is mostly lost to the general public, which is a shame. The general public now thinks to know stricter laws are necessary in order to protect information. Stricter laws are needed to ban encryption. Stricter laws are needed to penalize hackers. Thanks Snowden. Good job.
Systemd never was, and never will be, just an init system. The init system is just a small part of systemd. The init system isn't the part the desktops are depending on. It's the interfaces to other subsystems the desktops are depending on, such as the power management interface and the hotplug interface.
Then the first visit is always unsafe since no data is known. Now you can get valid data by checking the certificate, but since that's not what the OP wants, what's left?
Posting sensitive data to an unauthenticated server is very bad. For instance, when your online banking environment suddenly uses a self signed certificate, you should notice. This is a very bad situation, and should fall within the "dangerous" category and certainly not in the "weak" category.
I'm not entirely sure on how the chip works, but I imagine the chip contains a keypair for the customer and a certificate for the bank. The customer's key is protected with a password (AKA the pin) and used to encrypt messages to the bank. The customer's certificate is used to sign the messages. The bank's certificate is used to establish a secure channel between chip and bank. Am I anywhere close to reality?
Actually in europe we have 2FA for online banking and payment with online retailers. Everybody has got a little card reader which is required for signing transactions.
Skype has been broken since 09:00 UTC. That's about 5 hours now. I think we can safely say that the quick fix didn't happen.
I second that. Whatsapp is the number one killer app for smartphones over here. Facebook messenger has little chance of gaining any meaningful market share because of whatsapp.
Speak for your self.
I like free websites. Websites like slashdot. If the ads on slashdot would lose effectiveness because advertisers can't target any more, slashdot will lose revenue. So maybe then they'll try to find an alternative revenue stream. Advertorials. Paywalls. Whatever.
It costs real money to operate a serious website. If you make advertisements ineffective by rejecting third party cookies, then the website owner will try to find another revenue stream. Maybe sell all account data to the highest bidder?
Believe me. Ads are annoying, but the alternatives are evil.
No, this is completely normal. For example, governments have a monopoly on violence (see wikipedia). Citizens don't have the freedom to shoot each other, for example. A police officer does have the right to shoot under certain circumstances.
This isn't something from the past few years. Governments have reserved certain rights to itself for many centuries, in order to maintain civil order and sovereignty.
So, it's also completely normal that the government reserves the right to hack into computers under certain circumstances. For example, permission from a judge is needed. You can compare this to a search warrent for a private home, also the exclusive right for the government.