Shutdown as a result of blindly pulling out, yes. But this sounds like a shutdown as a result of the utility's bad planning and lack of foresight. It looks like the utility is trying to stick and external customer with the bill for being a "victim" of a changing time.
This isn't a case of MS not using that power anymore. It's a case of MS saying "you screwed up and we don't want to be part of your screw up"
But I've noticed the USPS Amazon deliveries don't always coincide with regular mail deliveries.
That is quite common, but it won't be a special Amazon delivery. You'll find it's a general parcel run or larger items run that carries Amazon stuff and those are not scheduled. You're right USPS would not be going to your house, but they will already be in your neighborhood, and quite likely already in your street.
The answer is no in many parts of the world. Despite the fact you'd be hard pressed showing that what you did created a contract (not only because your message was effectively hidden, not sent to a person or a system designed to engage in contracts for a person or business), but there's rules against contractual clauses that are out of the ordinary.
You can take it to court, but you'll find that your just as likely to get the privacy you want as any user of Purple is to be doing community service.
You see that on housing contracts as well. If there's anything that is out of the ordinary or not expected as part of the standard contract it is explicitly put on a separate page and that clause is explicitly signed separately.
I don't think the article knows the meaning of "technically legally binding". Such a clause is not technically legally binding as case law has demonstrated consumers are not bound to legal clauses that they don't expect in the normal course of a business.
Can't remember the case myself but it had someone to do with someone trying to get someone else signing over the deed of the house on a delivery slip.
If you're going to bitch about bugs, there are so many to bitch from. But the ones you linked seem perfectly reasonable won'tfixs.
- One single person reporting that DHCP leases don't renew even though his logs show that the client attempted renewal. If this were worth looking at there'd be thousands of confirmations. Why should the bug be fixed if it can't be confirmed? - Defaulting to google's NTP service is perfectly reasonable given the complete lack of alternatives. As shown in the bug tracker you are specifically requested NOT to default to pool.ntp.org unless you're the vendor, and then the configuration becomes vendor specific. i.e. if your default install is hitting Google.com then maybe you should be complaining to Ubuntu or Debian or Arch or whoever decided to blindly include systemd-timesyncd without creating a proper config default for their distribution. -NFS mounts are not a problem providing you RTFM. -A start job is running is a perfectly sane response to waiting for a critical part of a boot process, and it has the perfectly sane action of eventually timing out. If this occurred without change then chances are it's a hardware failure. If it occured due to an upgrade then you distribution maintainer did a shit job at adding the new package. e.g. the "bug" introduced in systemd 230 which curiously only affected Arch linux.
Every software has bugs, but systemd bugs are closed EWONTFIX because the principal developer has zero clue about modern operating systems.
Actually I find the problem more with the peanut gallery who think that ever turd smeared on a bug tracker is critical or even real. Like the guys who keep quoting the "open bugs" graph of systemd without realising that some 2/3rds of the bugs being posted are RFEs.
With a server market share of more than 50% (look up Netcraft monthly stats), and a desktop market share of 1% -- so guess where the priorities are
With the servers, where management of massive logs and monitoring of running processes was a key design goal and one of the primary reasons why the likes of Debian and RHEL adopted systemd.
What do you call design by committee but adopt by technical evaluation?
I mean the systemd project itself may be shit, but for some reason all the technical maintainers of distros who have nothing to do with systemd think the opposite.
The official spelling of his name is the way he chooses to spell it.
Based on his twitter handle: e_kaspersky and the fact that he himself has verified to twitter as Eugene Kaspersky, the fact that his bio on his own company website spells it Eugene, and his official blog with the title (and I quote) "NOTES, COMMENT AND BUZZ FROM EUGENE KASPERSKY – OFFICIAL BLOG" I would suggest the only person trying to impose anything on anyone is you. Go away and leave his name alone.
It has suffered from feature-creep, which directly opposes the unix-philosophy of doing only one thing, but doing it well. Recently, there was a problem with, I believe the DNS server which is part of systemD.
Recently there was a problem in the Linux kernel too. Both problems have patched in the true fast open source way. By the way your post is non sequitur. You talk about feature creep of the init system then post a problem about a component that is 100% separate from the init system and was actually unused on many of the systemd systems.
C-I-A Confidentiality, Integrity, Authenticity. You need all three!
Security is not a "thing" it is a sliding scale. Maybe actually read my comment and learn something. DV certificates provide elements of all three, especially the middle one which was missing from every other cert provider who mostly took it on the good word of your American Dollar that you own a domain.
LE provides exactly no better authentication than self signed certs.
I never said it did. And self-signed certs would be just fine on lots of the internet too if the browser vendors didn't think that encryption should warrant a big fat warning but plain text did not. In many cases I'm not interested in who the company is that I'm talking to. Take this link here for instance. I don't give a fuck who owns Slashdot. That doesn't mean I want every schmo at work or in the hotel i'm currently at knowing my login and password.
I am not relying on the little lock for authenticity, I can verify the subject but I would suggest a responsible CA would do a little diligence and not actively support
Ooooh I've heard of a great CA that does that. One that actively checks to ensure that the person who applies for certificates of a domain actually has write privileges to the server on that domain. They are called Lets Encrypt. Far better than the schmucks at Symantec who can't even do extended validation correctly, and will issue you a DV for a few dollars by sending you an email to your choice of a wide variety of fallible addresses that mean nothing at all in the grand scheme of ownership.
Sorry LE is providing a huge disservice to everyone.
Given you accuse me of not knowing about security I would say that opinion is born from your own ignorance on the topic.
Talk about abolishing DV if you want, but claiming LE is somehow bad in the horrid cesspool of what DV "certification" (it's hard to say that without laughing) is just utterly stupid.
Antitrust regulators and basically anyone with a functioning brain who requires that Google isn't about to cut off 1/3rd of mobile users from its services.
A modern smart phone has no problem lasting up to 2 weeks while ON and on low power mode. As for being off, my old S6 which has been lying in my draw unused for a year still has 70% charge.
Please don't spread ignorance. This site is new for nerds.
Sure it's not enforceable but how many developers - especially ones looking for a job like in OPs example - have a bunch of cash they want to burn through to defend themselves in court over it?
Even an unenforceable NDA has a chilling effect if you can't pay to negate it in court.
This isn't David vs Goliath. The small scam company is even less likely to want to engage in a frivolous lawsuit than the developer wanting to defend it. And given that the story has already come out with exactly the kind of details that you suggest are being sequestered... well the number is at least 1.
Except 2FA is optional. This is just saying when enabled it won't work on SMS anymore. So much for your rant on everything being the result of capitalism.
I'm pretty sure the NDA says the author IS barred from saying "I sold the business to a 3rd party and had nothing to do with the plugin update."
I'm sure it does say that. However that would make it not legally enforceable. As I said you can't NDA away your ability to lay claim to property. I can't make you sign an NDA that says you're not allowed to tell anyone you no longer own your house after you sell it. There are many things you can try and sign away that legally you can't actually do.
with no way of (legally) explaining the situation to the prospective employer.
You can't NDA yourself in to a position where you are unable to lay correct claim to property. He is likely legally barred from describing the transaction itself, but that's a far step from being barred for saying e.g. "I sold the business to a 3rd party and had nothing to do with the plugin update."
After all, non-disclosure agreements are non-disclosure agreements. They aren't "lie about ownership" agreements.
Bullshit. Your credit rating is only important if you care about it
Hey everyone look, someone who had a good credit rating and doesn't understand what credit rating fuckups do to people trying to (ironically) apply for things like credit cards, let alone houses.
Price competitive for *where*. The location is a big part of this story. If you're in an isolated community there a good chance a quick hop down to the local lumber yard isn't on the cards.
Slashdot Mirror
Shutdown as a result of blindly pulling out, yes. But this sounds like a shutdown as a result of the utility's bad planning and lack of foresight. It looks like the utility is trying to stick and external customer with the bill for being a "victim" of a changing time.
This isn't a case of MS not using that power anymore. It's a case of MS saying "you screwed up and we don't want to be part of your screw up"
I'll take 6 month old data over an anecdote.
But I've noticed the USPS Amazon deliveries don't always coincide with regular mail deliveries.
That is quite common, but it won't be a special Amazon delivery. You'll find it's a general parcel run or larger items run that carries Amazon stuff and those are not scheduled. You're right USPS would not be going to your house, but they will already be in your neighborhood, and quite likely already in your street.
The answer is no in many parts of the world. Despite the fact you'd be hard pressed showing that what you did created a contract (not only because your message was effectively hidden, not sent to a person or a system designed to engage in contracts for a person or business), but there's rules against contractual clauses that are out of the ordinary.
You can take it to court, but you'll find that your just as likely to get the privacy you want as any user of Purple is to be doing community service.
You see that on housing contracts as well. If there's anything that is out of the ordinary or not expected as part of the standard contract it is explicitly put on a separate page and that clause is explicitly signed separately.
I don't think the article knows the meaning of "technically legally binding". Such a clause is not technically legally binding as case law has demonstrated consumers are not bound to legal clauses that they don't expect in the normal course of a business.
Can't remember the case myself but it had someone to do with someone trying to get someone else signing over the deed of the house on a delivery slip.
we're not "suffering" under Obama anymore.
The RIAA associated companies voluntarily put their music up on the site...
If you're going to bitch about bugs, there are so many to bitch from. But the ones you linked seem perfectly reasonable won'tfixs.
- One single person reporting that DHCP leases don't renew even though his logs show that the client attempted renewal. If this were worth looking at there'd be thousands of confirmations. Why should the bug be fixed if it can't be confirmed?
- Defaulting to google's NTP service is perfectly reasonable given the complete lack of alternatives. As shown in the bug tracker you are specifically requested NOT to default to pool.ntp.org unless you're the vendor, and then the configuration becomes vendor specific. i.e. if your default install is hitting Google.com then maybe you should be complaining to Ubuntu or Debian or Arch or whoever decided to blindly include systemd-timesyncd without creating a proper config default for their distribution.
-NFS mounts are not a problem providing you RTFM.
-A start job is running is a perfectly sane response to waiting for a critical part of a boot process, and it has the perfectly sane action of eventually timing out. If this occurred without change then chances are it's a hardware failure. If it occured due to an upgrade then you distribution maintainer did a shit job at adding the new package. e.g. the "bug" introduced in systemd 230 which curiously only affected Arch linux.
Every software has bugs, but systemd bugs are closed EWONTFIX because the principal developer has zero clue about modern operating systems.
Actually I find the problem more with the peanut gallery who think that ever turd smeared on a bug tracker is critical or even real. Like the guys who keep quoting the "open bugs" graph of systemd without realising that some 2/3rds of the bugs being posted are RFEs.
With a server market share of more than 50% (look up Netcraft monthly stats), and a desktop market share of 1% -- so guess where the priorities are
With the servers, where management of massive logs and monitoring of running processes was a key design goal and one of the primary reasons why the likes of Debian and RHEL adopted systemd.
What do you call design by committee but adopt by technical evaluation?
I mean the systemd project itself may be shit, but for some reason all the technical maintainers of distros who have nothing to do with systemd think the opposite.
The official spelling of his name is the way he chooses to spell it.
Based on his twitter handle: e_kaspersky and the fact that he himself has verified to twitter as Eugene Kaspersky, the fact that his bio on his own company website spells it Eugene, and his official blog with the title (and I quote) "NOTES, COMMENT AND BUZZ FROM EUGENE KASPERSKY – OFFICIAL BLOG" I would suggest the only person trying to impose anything on anyone is you. Go away and leave his name alone.
The religious right has been trying to ram the bible down everyone's throats for decades.
You mispelt millennia. This practice predates left and right and even democracy.
It has suffered from feature-creep, which directly opposes the unix-philosophy of doing only one thing, but doing it well.
Recently, there was a problem with, I believe the DNS server which is part of systemD.
Recently there was a problem in the Linux kernel too. Both problems have patched in the true fast open source way.
By the way your post is non sequitur. You talk about feature creep of the init system then post a problem about a component that is 100% separate from the init system and was actually unused on many of the systemd systems.
C-I-A Confidentiality, Integrity, Authenticity. You need all three!
Security is not a "thing" it is a sliding scale. Maybe actually read my comment and learn something. DV certificates provide elements of all three, especially the middle one which was missing from every other cert provider who mostly took it on the good word of your American Dollar that you own a domain.
LE provides exactly no better authentication than self signed certs.
I never said it did. And self-signed certs would be just fine on lots of the internet too if the browser vendors didn't think that encryption should warrant a big fat warning but plain text did not. In many cases I'm not interested in who the company is that I'm talking to. Take this link here for instance. I don't give a fuck who owns Slashdot. That doesn't mean I want every schmo at work or in the hotel i'm currently at knowing my login and password.
I am not relying on the little lock for authenticity, I can verify the subject but I would suggest a responsible CA would do a little diligence and not actively support
Ooooh I've heard of a great CA that does that. One that actively checks to ensure that the person who applies for certificates of a domain actually has write privileges to the server on that domain. They are called Lets Encrypt. Far better than the schmucks at Symantec who can't even do extended validation correctly, and will issue you a DV for a few dollars by sending you an email to your choice of a wide variety of fallible addresses that mean nothing at all in the grand scheme of ownership.
Sorry LE is providing a huge disservice to everyone.
Given you accuse me of not knowing about security I would say that opinion is born from your own ignorance on the topic.
Talk about abolishing DV if you want, but claiming LE is somehow bad in the horrid cesspool of what DV "certification" (it's hard to say that without laughing) is just utterly stupid.
Antitrust regulators and basically anyone with a functioning brain who requires that Google isn't about to cut off 1/3rd of mobile users from its services.
A modern smart phone has no problem lasting up to 2 weeks while ON and on low power mode. As for being off, my old S6 which has been lying in my draw unused for a year still has 70% charge.
Please don't spread ignorance. This site is new for nerds.
Sure it's not enforceable but how many developers - especially ones looking for a job like in OPs example - have a bunch of cash they want to burn through to defend themselves in court over it?
Even an unenforceable NDA has a chilling effect if you can't pay to negate it in court.
This isn't David vs Goliath. The small scam company is even less likely to want to engage in a frivolous lawsuit than the developer wanting to defend it. And given that the story has already come out with exactly the kind of details that you suggest are being sequestered ... well the number is at least 1.
Except 2FA is optional. This is just saying when enabled it won't work on SMS anymore. So much for your rant on everything being the result of capitalism.
I can just imagine how upset you'd be if you got a phone call.
I'm pretty sure the NDA says the author IS barred from saying "I sold the business to a 3rd party and had nothing to do with the plugin update."
I'm sure it does say that. However that would make it not legally enforceable. As I said you can't NDA away your ability to lay claim to property. I can't make you sign an NDA that says you're not allowed to tell anyone you no longer own your house after you sell it. There are many things you can try and sign away that legally you can't actually do.
with no way of (legally) explaining the situation to the prospective employer.
You can't NDA yourself in to a position where you are unable to lay correct claim to property. He is likely legally barred from describing the transaction itself, but that's a far step from being barred for saying e.g. "I sold the business to a 3rd party and had nothing to do with the plugin update."
After all, non-disclosure agreements are non-disclosure agreements. They aren't "lie about ownership" agreements.
Nope. I'm referring to recent successes such as Wayland. Successes in who's eyes you may ask? The technical communities that package distributions.
Frankly no one gives a shit what gweihir thinks and instead everyone of any kind of relevance has decreed that no... it hasn't made it worse at all.
I'll take stupid strawman for $10.
Only if you live off of loans.
And the percentage of people who buy houses and cars in cash in America is.... ?
Bullshit. Your credit rating is only important if you care about it
Hey everyone look, someone who had a good credit rating and doesn't understand what credit rating fuckups do to people trying to (ironically) apply for things like credit cards, let alone houses.
Check your privilege.
Price competitive for *where*. The location is a big part of this story. If you're in an isolated community there a good chance a quick hop down to the local lumber yard isn't on the cards.