And if you'd read the link he pointed you to, you'd understand that your statement is completely false. Somehow I trust the FSF's interpretation of the GPL over yours.
So... multiple judges and juries have decided that it's nothing wrong with it but and they want to change that ?
The judges have determined that it's not against the law, not that there's "nothing wrong with it." The proposal is to change the law.
Not that I necessarily agree with this proposal, but it's not really correct to conclude that something is "right" or "wrong" based simply on court decisions. I'm sure we can all come up with cases where we think that the law should be written differently than how it now stands.
The number of times that another employee has distracted me in that entire time is zero.
Seventeen years, and you have never had another employee distract you from your work?
While that may be true for you, if it is, you should probably realize that your experience is way, way outside the norm. People with other experiences are likely to feel very different about the subject.
Let's see -- systemd's incorrect username validation caused a privilege escalation here. Yeah, real safe and sane, guys.
The actual correct implementation -- permit any username that the system allows to be created -- suffers from no such problems. As such, it is the safe and sane thing.
Most of those who oppose systemd are pining for the Good Old Days of loading the boot target using bat-handle toggle switches on the front of their IMSAI.
We're mostly pining for the Good Old Days when you could trust your init system to do what it was supposed to do.
That is, at best, an argument for not allowing all-numeric usernames. It's not a valid argument against usernames like "0day", which can't be misinterpreted as a user id.
Except of course that this very bug has been fixed for weeks now, as havevall tje other bugs listed.
Yes and no. They did fix the security problem by having the unit file error out if the username starts with a digit. So at least they're no longer randomly running things as root.
But they still haven't fixed the problem that systemd won't accept valid usernames. As far as I can tell, that is 100% an ego thing -- they won't admit that having systemd have its own username validation rules is a mistake.
Sadly nobody can write clean code anymore. I come across plenty of stuff that gives tons of errors when compiled on *BSD or even AIX (with GNU tools in both cases) that compiles without issue in Linux.
"Write once, run everywhere" is not as easy as you might think to accomplish in C for complicated software. If the developer is targeting Linux systems, and it works without problems on Linux, then you can't really fault the developer if it doesn't work without changes on another OS.
Linux is not POSIX compliant; and never will be. So, more than half of your rant is irrelevant.
Where Linux distributions (sans systemd) are not POSIX compliant, there's generally a stronger reason than "Poettering can't get his head around the standards."
The differences between the LSB and POSIX are pretty minor compared to the things that Poettering is ignoring.
Don't forget that we're talking about a situation where the emergency services person specifically told the caller that they didn't believe that it was a real call. This changes a LOT about your scenario.
No. It doesn't. How the hell does hanging up on the person rather than saying, "no, I really am in trouble" make the least bit of sense?
The person you're postulating is far too stupid to be worth saving.
90% of what emergency services respond to is "saving people from themselves"
Not to the extent that this is. Not even close.
We're talking about someone, in a real emergency, who decides to hang up on the person who can help them. Some people are too stupid to be worth bothering with.
If we truly believed that we'd disband the fire department, the police force, the coast guard, and any health care that still remained in your country.
As a society we've decided to move beyond that.
There's a difference between "saving people" and "saving people from themselves."
If somebody, in a real emergency, decides to hang up during their emergency call -- well, I can't muster a whole lot of sympathy if things don't turn out well for them.
Whilst a really cool technology, I hope it never makes a mistake and says a real-life situation is really a prank.
The obvious thing to do is that if the computer says that it's a prank, to follow up further to try to determine if it's real or not.
Most of these are presumably coming from kids or really immature adults. Simply telling them that you're on to them and there are serious punishments for falsely claiming that there is an emergency will probably be enough to get most of them to hang up.
The average dollar investment in businesses with a woman on the management team was slightly higher for all three years during 2011Ã"2013, $12 million for those with women, $8 million for those with no women.
That's kind of an odd statement. Since when is a 50% difference "slightly" higher?
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently based on the headline, the answer is no.
The followup question, "should anyone keep using Plex?", should also be answered "no."
What successes are you referring to?
Well, getting elected as President of the United States does come to mind.
I NEVER said that. I said you can't sell Linux.
And if you'd read the link he pointed you to, you'd understand that your statement is completely false. Somehow I trust the FSF's interpretation of the GPL over yours.
Looks like the new color scheme would make it much easier to spot floating eyes.
That was my motivation for making a similar change to the blue on my xterm.
So ... multiple judges and juries have decided that it's nothing wrong with it but and they want to change that ?
The judges have determined that it's not against the law, not that there's "nothing wrong with it." The proposal is to change the law.
Not that I necessarily agree with this proposal, but it's not really correct to conclude that something is "right" or "wrong" based simply on court decisions. I'm sure we can all come up with cases where we think that the law should be written differently than how it now stands.
The number of times that another employee has distracted me in that entire time is zero.
Seventeen years, and you have never had another employee distract you from your work?
While that may be true for you, if it is, you should probably realize that your experience is way, way outside the norm. People with other experiences are likely to feel very different about the subject.
Again, systemd does the safe and sane thing here.
Let's see -- systemd's incorrect username validation caused a privilege escalation here. Yeah, real safe and sane, guys.
The actual correct implementation -- permit any username that the system allows to be created -- suffers from no such problems. As such, it is the safe and sane thing.
I'll just pick the obvious one: systemd accepts valid usernames.
Apparently you seem to think that repeating a falsehood over and over makes it true. Are you actually Donald Trump?
What the FUCK are you talking about? Never mind, you made it pretty clear you don't know.
Another quality post from our resident Poettering fanboy!
You want to enlighten us as to what part of my post you think is wrong, so I can correct you?
Most of those who oppose systemd are pining for the Good Old Days of loading the boot target using bat-handle toggle switches on the front of their IMSAI.
We're mostly pining for the Good Old Days when you could trust your init system to do what it was supposed to do.
That is, at best, an argument for not allowing all-numeric usernames. It's not a valid argument against usernames like "0day", which can't be misinterpreted as a user id.
Except of course that this very bug has been fixed for weeks now, as havevall tje other bugs listed.
Yes and no. They did fix the security problem by having the unit file error out if the username starts with a digit. So at least they're no longer randomly running things as root.
But they still haven't fixed the problem that systemd won't accept valid usernames. As far as I can tell, that is 100% an ego thing -- they won't admit that having systemd have its own username validation rules is a mistake.
Sadly nobody can write clean code anymore. I come across plenty of stuff that gives tons of errors when compiled on *BSD or even AIX (with GNU tools in both cases) that compiles without issue in Linux.
"Write once, run everywhere" is not as easy as you might think to accomplish in C for complicated software. If the developer is targeting Linux systems, and it works without problems on Linux, then you can't really fault the developer if it doesn't work without changes on another OS.
Linux is not POSIX compliant; and never will be. So, more than half of your rant is irrelevant.
Where Linux distributions (sans systemd) are not POSIX compliant, there's generally a stronger reason than "Poettering can't get his head around the standards."
The differences between the LSB and POSIX are pretty minor compared to the things that Poettering is ignoring.
So pranksters just need to say"no this is real" and we'll now start sending real resources again? I'm sure none of them will think of that!
And with this, you've made it dead obvious that you haven't bothered to read and understand my posts.
Don't forget that we're talking about a situation where the emergency services person specifically told the caller that they didn't believe that it was a real call. This changes a LOT about your scenario.
No. It doesn't. How the hell does hanging up on the person rather than saying, "no, I really am in trouble" make the least bit of sense?
The person you're postulating is far too stupid to be worth saving.
90% of what emergency services respond to is "saving people from themselves"
Not to the extent that this is. Not even close.
We're talking about someone, in a real emergency, who decides to hang up on the person who can help them. Some people are too stupid to be worth bothering with.
If we truly believed that we'd disband the fire department, the police force, the coast guard, and any health care that still remained in your country.
As a society we've decided to move beyond that.
There's a difference between "saving people" and "saving people from themselves."
If somebody, in a real emergency, decides to hang up during their emergency call -- well, I can't muster a whole lot of sympathy if things don't turn out well for them.
Unfortunately it's been shown that it also causes some people in real distress to hang up.
You can't always save people from themselves. Let Darwin's law take its course.
Whilst a really cool technology, I hope it never makes a mistake and says a real-life situation is really a prank.
The obvious thing to do is that if the computer says that it's a prank, to follow up further to try to determine if it's real or not.
Most of these are presumably coming from kids or really immature adults. Simply telling them that you're on to them and there are serious punishments for falsely claiming that there is an emergency will probably be enough to get most of them to hang up.
...what's to stop said prankster from playing audio of a boat in the background?
In general, people who are prank calling the Coast Guard probably aren't terribly bright.
Looking at some recent tweet storms regarding leaks, it seems Trump does.
So what does that prove -- that idiots do?
The average dollar investment in businesses with a woman on the management team was slightly higher for all three years during 2011Ã"2013, $12 million for those with women, $8 million for those with no women.
That's kind of an odd statement. Since when is a 50% difference "slightly" higher?
Although I'm pretty sure that you're just going to stick your fingers in your ears and pretend harder.
Called it!
Here's a good start for you, takes 5 seconds to google it:
http://without-systemd.org/wiki/index.php/Arguments_against_systemd
Although I'm pretty sure that you're just going to stick your fingers in your ears and pretend harder.