You didn't answer the man's question or refute his claim. You just called him "silly." Why did you do this?
Ooh, ooh, pick me, I know: It's because you don't have a leg to stand on and the only arrow in your quiver is to label everyone (and it really is everyone) who doesn't agree with you as wrong, or silly, too uptight, or childish, or old, or crotchety, or naive, or by some miracle all of them at the same time.
Here's another protip: Put up or shut up: slick PR and a parade of lies may fly in whatever Trumpistan you're from, it don't mean shit at the coalface.
Actually, it isn't. Standards bodies are part of tech and have been from the beginning. They exist to keep self-assured solipsists from inventing their own "standards" and selling them to unsuspecting customers.
"Aluminum is the next greatest thing, better than steel, so even though you ordered a steel plate, I'll send you an aluminum one instead. It's my new standard." Let's see how that works out.
But the new defaults really _is_ best practice. Denying that is like denying that ssh is better than telnet.
Protip: asserting something a dozen times is not the same thing as proving it. Especially when you're wrong: breaking other people's shit is not best practice.
You edit my scripts. My scripts were working fine before. You made the change that fucked them up, it's on you to fix the damage. Where shall I send the bill to?
Incidentally, any place I would used ssh in a script with cached credentials or keys, I can probably use rsh with no security drawback. Because...you know...layered security and all that.
Yes it does. It is an existence proof that refutes your claim.
What's scary is that you think that software "improvements" that end up making your users do *more* work to get the same functionality they had before are a good thing. Good engineering, you know things that customers are willing to pay for, has the property that it relieves the user of a tedious chore. A tractor that replaces two mules is a good example: who would pay for a tractor that took *two* mules to pull?
Similarly, software that breaks compatibility for no good reason is dead weight that takes two mules to pull. Who the fuck would pay for that?
Just get ready for the next round of complaints to be met with blythe assertions that you should implant a systemd chip in the back your head...so your brain won't make your fingers type out complaints about systemd.
You really don't get what people are trying their damnedest to explain to you. Invoking the command is part of running it. If you change the effective behaviour of the command when it is called with its standard invocation, then you have changed the behavior of the command.
And I guess I have to say this, even though I shouldn't have to say it to anyone older than ten: If you change the way a command is invoked, it is not the same thing; it is a different thing, that may or may not do the same thing, but even if it does, the fact that you call it with a different command means it is not the same thing. More to the point, the fact that it is not only NOT THE SAME THING but also BREAKS THE ORIGINAL THING by changing its functionality means that one idiot with a God complex thinks it's OK to make everyone else scramble to change their code so that it keeps working. And there is no good reason for it. That's bad engineering, bad customer relations, bad stewardship of OSS, and bad karma, for lack of a better term.
If you were working on a project for me and tried to pull something like that, I'd fire you. If you were working with me and not for me, I would have you fired. And at the very least, I'd punch you in the mouth. The last bit is for having the unique combination of chutzpah and stupidity to tell me that your change isn't really a change if I change what I'm doing to meet your newly-discovered aesthetic standards for command invocation.
All the more reason not to blindly run updates every time they come out "because security." In what reasonable world is some kid in underpants in his mother's basement have root on your box, just because they're "the dev team."
Ah, but the price for using 'systemd's extensive resource management options' is that it breaks your workflow, shell scripts, and everything else you might have had that relied on 'nohup' or 'screen' working as advertised. That's not improving anything. That's a Mafia protection racket.
"Nice shell script you've got there. It would be a shame if something happened to it. Use this command to run it, or else, who knows what might happen. Fucking pathetic.
*For a concrete example, all of your scripts that automatically ssh into a server, start a process with screen, and log out, now break. To name just one thing that I have done on numerous occasions.
You're an idiot. The name of the command is part of its functionality. If systemd were to insert itself in front of the bash interpreter and swap around 'rm -rf' and 'ls -lh', while preserving the 'functionlity' of one under the name of the other, who would need to be jerking you off under the table for you to claim that nothing has changed, and 'it's not a big deal, IMHO'?
http://www.amazon.com/Coders-W...
Read this one a while back. There's interviews with the (then) new kids on the block as well as some old unix greybeards, so there's a good amount of perspective in there.
Another more historical book I can recommend is When Computers Were Human
http://www.amazon.com/When-Com...
1. Those who use real programming languages.
2. Those who are surprised when their shit breaks because someone on the other side of the internet sneezed.
Looks like you've installed your crazy sensor upside down again. If you don't correct your error, you'll fail to deploy your parachute and crash into the desert, breaking into a million little pieces.
It must be a cruel world out there for you...and I'm OK with that, though for the record, you can fuck who and what you like while being high as a kite, just don't talk don't confuse your hallucinations for divine revelations.
Because while Tubman may have been a war hero, she was never in government the way every other person on US currency has been for the past century or so. It's a break with tradition that goes a little too far. If you want a woman on the 20, why not one who's served in the federal government? Francis Perkins and Eleanor Roosevelt are two names that immediately come to the mind of this far-right Republican.
We've got 'Centers of Excellence' all over the place in my little corner of the Military Industrial Complex. Sometimes I think America's number one export is our bullshit. But at the same time I'm not sure whether to hang my head in shame for us or in embarrassment for the rest of the world that seems to eager to buy what we're selling.
You do know that it's the Democrats that want to take your stuff, dictate your pay, tell you what kind of car you're allowed to drive and when, while dictating what temperature you're allowed to set on your thermostat and what kinds of light bulbs you're allowed to buy, right? Difference is they do it For Your Own Good, of course.
This is the kind of BS you have to worry about when you have government doing things it shouldn't be doing, like running a national TV network. We have several forms of 'public' TV in the States, but none of them are run with the sort of dictatorial mandate that the BBC operates under (license fees, content regulation, you name it).
Do you have a 401k or equivalent retirement plan from your employer? Is your savings account really a money market account? Do all of these corporations have exactly zero employees? Does no one build, maintain, or live in any of that real estate? Are roads, bridges, sewer pipes, and medical supplies built by government employees? You really have no clue, you're just echoing back socialist dogma that someone pumped into your head because neither he nor you knew any better.
You're missing my point. Even if all of that money keeps sloshing around in derivatives trading, it still flows back into the real economy because the middlemen pocketing a handsome commission on every slosh are themselves buying houses and Porches and overpriced wines. It is a false statement to say that the rich can lock up money. It is only possible to lock up money by converting it into currency and stashing it in a vault. Your point that we'd all be wealthier if the derivatives markets had less energy locked up in transients and more in real investments is well-taken, and some form of small per-transaction tax to dampen out the amplitudes of that activity is probably sound policy, but it is categorically false to claim that anyone or any whole group of people are willfully stealing anything from anyone.
Have you ever been on a factory floor? I'm pretty sure from the way you talk about it, the answer is no. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
W.T.F. Who brainwashed you into thinking that somewhere out there, Scrooge McDuck is swimming in a pile of currency that it's your God-given right to have a piece of?
You know where all that money rich people supposedly control is? It's circulating around the rest of the economy in the form of investments that pay for businesses to run their operations, construction of McMansions and Cadillacs that employ people to build them, and as direct payments to employees to keep said luxury items in working order.
Unless Trump eats a bowl full of gold-plated cereal for breakfast every morning and shits into a black hole every day, even his money is circulating around without his direct control after one or two transactions.
People aren't poor because someone made them poor; they're poor because they are deficient in education, work-ethic or culture. Usually several at once, and only rarely through no fault of their own.
Socialism is the business of brushing such inconvenient facts under the rug and promising people that a small number of government officials can undo millions of individual bad decisions by making the productive class pay to subsidize idiots who can't manage their own affairs and have the chutzpah to tell their betters how to spend their money. It is morally repugnant and has resulted in economic ruin in every single instance where it has been tried on a national scale, regardless of the size, culture, climate, or any other objective property of said nation. It is the height of arrogance, and no doubt ignorance, to believe that you can somehow do better with the same idea and no solution to its demonstrated deficiencies beyond an appeal to the same old ideological puruty, except with Roddenberry's name slapped on it instead of Marx's.
Slashdot Mirror
That is just silly.
You didn't answer the man's question or refute his claim. You just called him "silly." Why did you do this?
Ooh, ooh, pick me, I know: It's because you don't have a leg to stand on and the only arrow in your quiver is to label everyone (and it really is everyone) who doesn't agree with you as wrong, or silly, too uptight, or childish, or old, or crotchety, or naive, or by some miracle all of them at the same time.
Here's another protip: Put up or shut up: slick PR and a parade of lies may fly in whatever Trumpistan you're from, it don't mean shit at the coalface.
Change is just part of tech. Get used to it.
Actually, it isn't. Standards bodies are part of tech and have been from the beginning. They exist to keep self-assured solipsists from inventing their own "standards" and selling them to unsuspecting customers.
"Aluminum is the next greatest thing, better than steel, so even though you ordered a steel plate, I'll send you an aluminum one instead. It's my new standard." Let's see how that works out.
But the new defaults really _is_ best practice. Denying that is like denying that ssh is better than telnet.
Protip: asserting something a dozen times is not the same thing as proving it. Especially when you're wrong: breaking other people's shit is not best practice.
You edit my scripts. My scripts were working fine before. You made the change that fucked them up, it's on you to fix the damage. Where shall I send the bill to?
Incidentally, any place I would used ssh in a script with cached credentials or keys, I can probably use rsh with no security drawback. Because...you know...layered security and all that.
Yes it does. It is an existence proof that refutes your claim.
What's scary is that you think that software "improvements" that end up making your users do *more* work to get the same functionality they had before are a good thing. Good engineering, you know things that customers are willing to pay for, has the property that it relieves the user of a tedious chore. A tractor that replaces two mules is a good example: who would pay for a tractor that took *two* mules to pull? Similarly, software that breaks compatibility for no good reason is dead weight that takes two mules to pull. Who the fuck would pay for that?
Just get ready for the next round of complaints to be met with blythe assertions that you should implant a systemd chip in the back your head...so your brain won't make your fingers type out complaints about systemd.
All glory to the systemd...clap...clap...clap
You really don't get what people are trying their damnedest to explain to you. Invoking the command is part of running it. If you change the effective behaviour of the command when it is called with its standard invocation, then you have changed the behavior of the command.
And I guess I have to say this, even though I shouldn't have to say it to anyone older than ten: If you change the way a command is invoked, it is not the same thing; it is a different thing, that may or may not do the same thing, but even if it does, the fact that you call it with a different command means it is not the same thing. More to the point, the fact that it is not only NOT THE SAME THING but also BREAKS THE ORIGINAL THING by changing its functionality means that one idiot with a God complex thinks it's OK to make everyone else scramble to change their code so that it keeps working. And there is no good reason for it. That's bad engineering, bad customer relations, bad stewardship of OSS, and bad karma, for lack of a better term.
If you were working on a project for me and tried to pull something like that, I'd fire you. If you were working with me and not for me, I would have you fired. And at the very least, I'd punch you in the mouth. The last bit is for having the unique combination of chutzpah and stupidity to tell me that your change isn't really a change if I change what I'm doing to meet your newly-discovered aesthetic standards for command invocation.
All the more reason not to blindly run updates every time they come out "because security." In what reasonable world is some kid in underpants in his mother's basement have root on your box, just because they're "the dev team."
Ah, but the price for using 'systemd's extensive resource management options' is that it breaks your workflow, shell scripts, and everything else you might have had that relied on 'nohup' or 'screen' working as advertised. That's not improving anything. That's a Mafia protection racket.
"Nice shell script you've got there. It would be a shame if something happened to it. Use this command to run it, or else, who knows what might happen. Fucking pathetic.
*For a concrete example, all of your scripts that automatically ssh into a server, start a process with screen, and log out, now break. To name just one thing that I have done on numerous occasions.
You're an idiot. The name of the command is part of its functionality. If systemd were to insert itself in front of the bash interpreter and swap around 'rm -rf' and 'ls -lh', while preserving the 'functionlity' of one under the name of the other, who would need to be jerking you off under the table for you to claim that nothing has changed, and 'it's not a big deal, IMHO'?
http://www.amazon.com/Coders-W... Read this one a while back. There's interviews with the (then) new kids on the block as well as some old unix greybeards, so there's a good amount of perspective in there. Another more historical book I can recommend is When Computers Were Human http://www.amazon.com/When-Com...
1. Those who use real programming languages.
2. Those who are surprised when their shit breaks because someone on the other side of the internet sneezed.
Looks like you've installed your crazy sensor upside down again. If you don't correct your error, you'll fail to deploy your parachute and crash into the desert, breaking into a million little pieces.
It must be a cruel world out there for you...and I'm OK with that, though for the record, you can fuck who and what you like while being high as a kite, just don't talk don't confuse your hallucinations for divine revelations.
Because while Tubman may have been a war hero, she was never in government the way every other person on US currency has been for the past century or so. It's a break with tradition that goes a little too far. If you want a woman on the 20, why not one who's served in the federal government? Francis Perkins and Eleanor Roosevelt are two names that immediately come to the mind of this far-right Republican.
WTF are you talking about?
Cite your sources or go back to mommy's basement, light up, and feel the bern!
We've got 'Centers of Excellence' all over the place in my little corner of the Military Industrial Complex. Sometimes I think America's number one export is our bullshit. But at the same time I'm not sure whether to hang my head in shame for us or in embarrassment for the rest of the world that seems to eager to buy what we're selling.
You do know that it's the Democrats that want to take your stuff, dictate your pay, tell you what kind of car you're allowed to drive and when, while dictating what temperature you're allowed to set on your thermostat and what kinds of light bulbs you're allowed to buy, right? Difference is they do it For Your Own Good, of course.
This is the kind of BS you have to worry about when you have government doing things it shouldn't be doing, like running a national TV network. We have several forms of 'public' TV in the States, but none of them are run with the sort of dictatorial mandate that the BBC operates under (license fees, content regulation, you name it).
Do you have a 401k or equivalent retirement plan from your employer? Is your savings account really a money market account? Do all of these corporations have exactly zero employees? Does no one build, maintain, or live in any of that real estate? Are roads, bridges, sewer pipes, and medical supplies built by government employees? You really have no clue, you're just echoing back socialist dogma that someone pumped into your head because neither he nor you knew any better.
I don't think you understand how money or bank accounts work.
You're missing my point. Even if all of that money keeps sloshing around in derivatives trading, it still flows back into the real economy because the middlemen pocketing a handsome commission on every slosh are themselves buying houses and Porches and overpriced wines. It is a false statement to say that the rich can lock up money. It is only possible to lock up money by converting it into currency and stashing it in a vault. Your point that we'd all be wealthier if the derivatives markets had less energy locked up in transients and more in real investments is well-taken, and some form of small per-transaction tax to dampen out the amplitudes of that activity is probably sound policy, but it is categorically false to claim that anyone or any whole group of people are willfully stealing anything from anyone.
News at 11. Duh.
Have you ever been on a factory floor? I'm pretty sure from the way you talk about it, the answer is no. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
W.T.F. Who brainwashed you into thinking that somewhere out there, Scrooge McDuck is swimming in a pile of currency that it's your God-given right to have a piece of?
You know where all that money rich people supposedly control is? It's circulating around the rest of the economy in the form of investments that pay for businesses to run their operations, construction of McMansions and Cadillacs that employ people to build them, and as direct payments to employees to keep said luxury items in working order.
Unless Trump eats a bowl full of gold-plated cereal for breakfast every morning and shits into a black hole every day, even his money is circulating around without his direct control after one or two transactions.
People aren't poor because someone made them poor; they're poor because they are deficient in education, work-ethic or culture. Usually several at once, and only rarely through no fault of their own.
Socialism is the business of brushing such inconvenient facts under the rug and promising people that a small number of government officials can undo millions of individual bad decisions by making the productive class pay to subsidize idiots who can't manage their own affairs and have the chutzpah to tell their betters how to spend their money. It is morally repugnant and has resulted in economic ruin in every single instance where it has been tried on a national scale, regardless of the size, culture, climate, or any other objective property of said nation. It is the height of arrogance, and no doubt ignorance, to believe that you can somehow do better with the same idea and no solution to its demonstrated deficiencies beyond an appeal to the same old ideological puruty, except with Roddenberry's name slapped on it instead of Marx's.