And lest anyone think this is paranoia, MI-5 did actually begin putting together a plot to overthrow the democratically elected government in the 1970s. It was only because Lord Mountbatten, their proposed replacement Prime Minister, refused to go along with it that the plan failed.
Really. It upgraded all by itself, despite the fact upgrades require operator intervention? And nobody thought to roll the upgrade back, despite the fact it's a big advertised feature of Windows 10 that you have a month to decide whether you want to keep it?
Windows 10 sucks, it's bug ridden, slow, and a memory hog, but let's at least have believable criticism used against it.
Every other post about Google is someone bashing it for "selling personal data to advertisers" (which, FWIW, never happens) so I'm not sure where you're getting it from that there's a double standard here.
As for these "ads", I can't comment. What I will say is that if there's no way to turn them off, then it's not a good thing. If I fork out $100-200 for an operating system, whether it comes with my computer or I buy it separately, I don't want ads with it. And no, for those about to say it, I don't consider a "free upgrade" a "free operating system". If you want to call it free, let me dual boot between my existing Windows 7 and Windows 8.1 installs and Windows 10. Replacements are not free. Ever.
It's easier than that in most of Europe (well, things might have improved since I left but...)
Once upon a time a friend of mine was leaving the company. He didn't much care for my co-worker, who sat next to me, and nor did most of the rest of the company. So on his way out, passing by our desks, he quietly flipped the voltage selector on the PSU of my co-workers PC, which was at the time (and possibly now?) on the outside of the case at the rear of the PC where virtually anyone can access it, from 220V to 110V.
Which might have been slightly funny, if abusive and unprofessional, except the fucker got the PC wrong and killed my PC instead (or rather, I did when I turned my PC on in the morning.)
I got a free drink and many apologies after it was discovered what had happened. So there's that.
Disclaimer: No idea what the "Notification center" is, that sounds like they're talking about something you explicitly go to.
But... certain applications, such as GMail, are also web pages, and you'd expect applications like email clients to notify you of new messages.
I was asked recently to integrate a third party "live helpdesk" widget into a website I maintain. It was one of those things that you click on and you get an IM-style chat with a helpdesk support person. On the helpdesk end, the third party service was implemented as a webpage that used notifications to warn logged in users that a "call" was coming in.
So, yeah, it's potentially a useful technology. It's a little awkward though, the potential for abuse means a clumsy permissions front-end on most browsers that users tend to have problems with when a legitimate webpage asks them to allow it to put up notifications.
get a cab. take the bus. walk. arrange for a friend to drive, before or after. sleep it off at the location. get a hotel. prop yourself up on the side of the wall. all options infinitely better than driving drunk
Cabs are expensive, buses don't exist, friends aren't always available, sleeping in a bar will get you arrested, hotels are expensive, propping yourself up on the side of a wall will get you arrested.
So no. Given your suggestion about buses, I have to assume you have absolutely no idea what you're dealing with. I don't blame you. Forced car suburbanism is that fucking insane. It needs to go.
As for whether it's an excuse or makes someone a douchebag or not, it doesn't matter. Demanding of someone that, due to a night of excessive drinking, they starve themselves to death, or even just spend time in jail (either through a drunk driving charge, or through a driving while suspended - which in practice is what people do instead of starving themselves to death), is excessive.
Give people choices rather than forcing everyone to live in suburbia: once you do, you'll have the right to more than tut-tut at people who do things that are antisocial and irresponsible in the name of getting home at night.
Meh. This is Florida. Most of Florida is designed so that it's impossible to hold down a job or get food without driving.
Once the zoning restrictions are lifted and developers are allowed to build a large enough amount of quality high density stock, with decent public transport (Hello All Aboard Florida, but you're not enough) linking residents to jobs and each other, I'll accept that we have the right to treat driving as optional and people who drive while drunk as having "no excuses".
Until then, however anti-social I might feel drinking and driving might be, I just can't side with those treating those who do it as deserving of severe punishments or bans on mobility.
Sorry suburbanists who believe in mandatory car use, but this is the hell you've built for us. I'm not going to make your hell safer until you build an exit door for those who don't want to live in it.
My family owns two cars. Self driving would at least cut the number needed to one. It can take me to work, drive home, do whatever my wife and child needs, and then drive back in the evenings. If the car isn't available when we need it (that is, my wife needs it when I'm on my way to work, or my wife is using it when it's time to go home) then a theoretical pool vehicle service (an automated taxi) could take care of that - which I suspect would be a rare enough event it would be scalable.
So don't knock it, even for those of us in suburban hell the self driving car has the potential to reduce the need for $25,000 every five to ten years on a giant metal box, and will allow us to use more of our land for living on (or allow us to buy less in the first place.)
It isn't already a feature, and something of that nature has been wanted for a long, long, time, though not limited to colo{u}rs.
There are a few CSS macro processors, such as SASS and Less.js, built to workaround this specific deficiency. What's amazing is that it's never been addressed by the W3C, despite being identified as a problem right from the start.
It's largely the media, who themselves are following the lead of the public, and it's because he's just not that interesting. The public isn't showing any massive interest, and he's not an established politician who's due coverage simply by virtue of being a congressman, therefore he doesn't get covered.
The Democratic party doesn't really care who runs as long as (1) they don't topple an establishment candidate and (2) they don't make the Dems look like loonies.
Is Lessig charismatic and well known enough to get any interest beyond coverage in some nerd sites? No. Really, no. I'm sure his heart is in the right place, but issues like "Will I still have a job in four years", "How am I going to afford my cancer treatment?" and "Am I safe when I leave my house" trumps many, many, issues people here care about that Lessig is promising to address, from the outrageous evil that is not being able to copy a Nicki Minaj single onto an a DRM-free MP3 until 2127, to electoral reform.
:
I did propose a solution - open them as you need them and close them when you're done.
That's not a solution, that's what we do already. That's what everyone does.
What really confuses me is you exclaiming that this is something you do like it is some grand achievement.
Uh, what?
Let's use Slashdot as an example. So according to the description given they (and presumably you) open the main page. You then scroll through, reading and opening things in new tabs as you see fit, and then go to those new tabs and read those, correct? Except, by the time you've done this there have been all sorts of people who may have (or might not have) commented. By the time you get to the last Slashdot tab you opened you're quite late to the content and not viewing the more up-to-date conversation unless you refresh which is just silly because you could have saved yourself the effort and viewed each one, one at a time.
I'm really not getting it. You appear to be arguing, if I understand this correctly, that because an article might be slightly out of date by the time we get around to reading it, that we must - because somehow we know that we'll read it one day later - decide it would be better not to read it at all than to risk the chance we might have to hit the Refresh button to get the latest version.
That makes no sense whatsoever.
I'm just letting you know that there's a better way that lets you interact with pages in a more timely fashion and with far less confusion than needing more tabs open than you can possibly read the titles for.
You haven't proposed one.
Thus far, your latest screed argues that we should do exactly what we're doing already (closing tabs once we're done with them), and that somehow what we're doing already is the worst thing ever because we might have to hit the Refresh button by the time we look at the tab.
One is not actually telling us there's a "better way", the other is simply criticizing us over something so obviously pathetic I can't even fathom why you'd bring it up.
Perhaps you have a strange definition of trolling?
It's borderline trolling because you're immediately launching into an attack without even trying to determine why someone is doing what they're doing. It's like "Look at those stupid people writing numbers and squiggly lines on chalkboards! Don't then know that if they want to exercise their arms dumbbells would build up their muscles far more quickly?"
"I open 400 browser tabs at once!" This is not a viable solution to a mere mortal.
Nobody has 400 browser tabs, the fact you feel the need to exaggerate already should tell you you're on the wrong path. As to your complaint that I accused you, you poor delicate flower, of trolling when you have no interest in how I work and just don't care, how many words have you devoted to this issue that you clearly (sarcasm) don't care about?
But that said, I come back to my original comment. Having multiple tabs open is, in reality, the only way to look at a constantly changing index page - of forums, news, whatever - and say "I'm interested in this, in this, in this" without risking those pages disappearing before I've had a chance to look at them. So what is the viable solution? I don't want to clutter up my bookmarks, and besides, right-click, add book mark, and create a name, would be infuriatingly annoying compared to middle-click.
So what is the "real" solution?
Because opening multiple tabs is that solution. In fact, it's probably the #1 reason tabs were invented. Otherwise could just have three windows open and tabs are overkill for that.
Should a different solution have been implemented instead? Possibly. tabs aren't perfect. But let's stop pretending that people who have more than three tabs open are doing something wrong.
Not OP, but same workflow: They are being closed. After they've been read. Which is later.
My suggestion is rather than insist there's no reason someone would open links to read later, you propose either a sane alternative that's just as comfortable as opening tabs for things you plan to read using technologies in Firefox et al already (I don't think there are any, otherwise we'd be using them. No, we don't want to clutter up our bookmarks with them, and bookmarks aren't exactly a solution anyway given you can't really quickly add an unopened link to a bookmark, which might not work anyway given referrers and other nonsense.),
...or you could propose to Mozilla, Google, Apple, and Microsoft some other solution that means this perfectly normal workflow can be replaced by something else.
Until then, I question why you're complaining about other people opening a lot of tabs. It's none of your business (that applies to anyone making this complaint, not just you personally), you've made no effort to understand why people do this, and you're attempting to micromanage how other people read the web.
But was the screw up Flash, or the fact Flash was needed to make websites able to show animations, videos, and play audio, because until HTML5 nobody was willing to set the standards necessary?
Flash didn't come out of no-where, it was necessary to implement certain concepts over the web - and to a certain extent, still is.
I think the hold up is that ARM needs to be comparable in terms of computing power to Intel. Right now ARM's great as a low power platform (though Intel is seriously catching up) but Chromebooks are a very conspicuous case where ARMs are used in an environment they're almost never seen in.
I don't think the problem is the ABI. Apple has solved that three times before, 68K to PowerPC, and PowerPC to ix86 and ix86-64. The solutions weren't beautiful, but they worked. And the PowerPC to two different Intel APIs transition occurred with the current generation of operating system.
If ARM makes sense, they'll switch to it. I just don't see why they would - yet.
I'm not sure there's ever been that much interest. It's more of a theoretical standard, useful for people packaging binaries with hard coded paths, but even that isn't particularly useful right now. The LSB lost credibility from the Debian side from the start by picking the rival RPM as the packaging manager, and while I gather that different was papered over in time, the other fundamental issues - differing library versions, different standards for inclusion, etc - that prevent the concept of a "universal" package never got resolved.
It's probably a good thing it's going, a bad mostly ignored "standard" is probably worse than no standard at all, as it leads developers to make assumptions about what's available that they probably shouldn't.
Well, it's funny how something with "the underpinnings of how X11 does it are actually decrepit and inefficient and compare poorly to other strategies that leverage different entry points that Wayland actually preserves" still manages to solve the problem, and Wayland doesn't.
X11 isn't perfect. Nobody's ever argued that. It's just nobody's really asking for a replacement, and if they were, they wouldn't be asking for Wayland. X11 is an extraordinary piece of technology, it takes some gal to claim everyone should just throw it out and replace it with a ground up rewrite that adds no new features and doesn't support the major features X11 is famous and loved for.
It's not like init/SystemD, where init really was a bug ridden piece of garbage that's needed replacing now since before Linux itself came on the scene, and SystemD implements everything init did but does it right.
Hayden said that losing the first Crypto War on the Clipper Chip did not stop the US government from obtaining the information it needed.
âoeIn retrospect, we mastered the problem we created by the lack of the Clipper Chip,â he said. âoeWe were able to do a whole bunch of other things. Some of the other things were metadata, and bulk collection and so on.â
Your summary is missing the 500lb gorilla, which makes it extraordinarily misleading to anyone following the discussion.
Let's correct and add information to one dubious statement here:
And, one of my own questions: Why do we want/need PE binaries when ELF are extensible [the "E" in ELF] and have widely supported tool chains? Answer: Because MS is pushing it.
No, the answer is: Because Microsoft only signs PE binaries.
And then let's go up to:
why do you bother with the MS keysigning of Linux kernel modules to
begin with?
Here is the 500lb gorilla: Because most implementations of secure boot only accept keys signed by Microsoft.
So in order to get a random Linux-based distribution to run on a generic secure boot enabled PC, your choices are either to remove secure boot (which isn't always possible), hope that the firmware maker included your distribution's key (highly unlikely), or have it signed by Microsoft, which means going the PE route.
ELF may be superior to PE, but that doesn't make it a solution to the problem that RedHat raised. X.509 keys may be an international standard, but they have nothing whatsoever to do with this.
It was a legitimate issue to raise, and it was handled badly by Torvalds and others. A legitimate response would have been "The inability of our kernel to be installed on what's likely to be the majority of computers in a few years is a small price to pay for using superior technologies", not "RedHat just wants to give Microsoft blow jobs", which is immature, pathetic, and doesn't answer anything.
In this case, it's a poor example, because RedHat wasn't showing any signs of proposing this because they wanted to please Microsoft. RedHat was, instead, saying they felt practical concerns meant that accepting Microsoft has de-facto control over the signing process needed to be recognized.
But if they did? What's wrong with "please" or maybe "serve", as in "If RedHat wants to serve Microsoft, then..."?
Windows 8.1 didn't really fix the major problem people had with Windows 8.0 (the lack of a Start menu and insistence on having a touch-oriented Start Screen by default)
People hated Vista because of the slow speed, poor memory handling, and the permission dialogs, all of which were (mostly) fixed in 7 (albeit I suspect the permission dialogs were fixed by the third party developers who stopped doing the things that caused them to come up.)
So 8.1 wasn't really the 7 to 8.0's Vista, it was more of one of the service packs that made Vista more usable later on its life. 10 though seems like... it's a whole new Vista. And 8.1 was a nice tablet operating system even if it was horrible on the desktop, whereas 10 seems to be fairly poor everywhere.
Here's hoping they fix it soon. Otherwise I'm going to have to see if I can restore 8.1 on my tablet...
No, it's not. It's entirely appropriate - she points out that the questioner is trying to paper over the extent of the abuse she's receiving as a result of conversations on the LKML by requesting only LKML posts be quoted.
She illustrates why that's absurd (though it apparently flew over your head), and then, after that, goes on to quote abuse from the LKML itself as requested.
It sounds to me like she's getting an extraordinary amount of hate messages solely as a result of her (1) being involved in kernel development and (2) having a disagreement with other kernel developers.
I'm struggling to understand why so many on Slashdot think that's acceptable. But then many support a hashtag campaign whose initial goal was to drive a female developer to suicide because they thought a journalist had written good reviews of her products in exchange for sex. So nothing about some here showing a complete lack of human decency surprises me any more.
She's arguing for a more professional communications style. If anyone spoke to (or emailed) me at work the way kernel developers are frequently quoted as communicating with one another on the lists, I'd pass the message on to my boss, and expect them hauled up in front of HR if they carried on. What's more, I've seen this happen (once, in my more than 20 years of professional experience.)
Anyone posting on Slashdot that they think this is normal, or that it's somehow how males normally talk to one another, is in for a shock when they graduate from whatever high school they're from and attempt to get a degree and/or a job. Office or academic politics is often vicious, but you accuse a co-worker of sexually gratifying a corporation in email, and you can expect consequences, at minimum a talking to, and quite possibly (job) termination.
I cannot believe so many here think this is normal behavior, or even acceptable. Yeah, we're all obnoxious assholes on Slashdot, but that's because we're not working together here and we're letting off steam.
Slashdot Mirror
ISIS is the name of a school I once went to, so personally I call the terrorists ISIL. Now, if that school had sucked more...
And lest anyone think this is paranoia, MI-5 did actually begin putting together a plot to overthrow the democratically elected government in the 1970s. It was only because Lord Mountbatten, their proposed replacement Prime Minister, refused to go along with it that the plan failed.
Really. It upgraded all by itself, despite the fact upgrades require operator intervention? And nobody thought to roll the upgrade back, despite the fact it's a big advertised feature of Windows 10 that you have a month to decide whether you want to keep it?
Windows 10 sucks, it's bug ridden, slow, and a memory hog, but let's at least have believable criticism used against it.
Every other post about Google is someone bashing it for "selling personal data to advertisers" (which, FWIW, never happens) so I'm not sure where you're getting it from that there's a double standard here.
As for these "ads", I can't comment. What I will say is that if there's no way to turn them off, then it's not a good thing. If I fork out $100-200 for an operating system, whether it comes with my computer or I buy it separately, I don't want ads with it. And no, for those about to say it, I don't consider a "free upgrade" a "free operating system". If you want to call it free, let me dual boot between my existing Windows 7 and Windows 8.1 installs and Windows 10. Replacements are not free. Ever.
It's easier than that in most of Europe (well, things might have improved since I left but...)
Once upon a time a friend of mine was leaving the company. He didn't much care for my co-worker, who sat next to me, and nor did most of the rest of the company. So on his way out, passing by our desks, he quietly flipped the voltage selector on the PSU of my co-workers PC, which was at the time (and possibly now?) on the outside of the case at the rear of the PC where virtually anyone can access it, from 220V to 110V.
Which might have been slightly funny, if abusive and unprofessional, except the fucker got the PC wrong and killed my PC instead (or rather, I did when I turned my PC on in the morning.)
I got a free drink and many apologies after it was discovered what had happened. So there's that.
Disclaimer: No idea what the "Notification center" is, that sounds like they're talking about something you explicitly go to.
But... certain applications, such as GMail, are also web pages, and you'd expect applications like email clients to notify you of new messages.
I was asked recently to integrate a third party "live helpdesk" widget into a website I maintain. It was one of those things that you click on and you get an IM-style chat with a helpdesk support person. On the helpdesk end, the third party service was implemented as a webpage that used notifications to warn logged in users that a "call" was coming in.
So, yeah, it's potentially a useful technology. It's a little awkward though, the potential for abuse means a clumsy permissions front-end on most browsers that users tend to have problems with when a legitimate webpage asks them to allow it to put up notifications.
Cabs are expensive, buses don't exist, friends aren't always available, sleeping in a bar will get you arrested, hotels are expensive, propping yourself up on the side of a wall will get you arrested.
So no. Given your suggestion about buses, I have to assume you have absolutely no idea what you're dealing with. I don't blame you. Forced car suburbanism is that fucking insane. It needs to go.
As for whether it's an excuse or makes someone a douchebag or not, it doesn't matter. Demanding of someone that, due to a night of excessive drinking, they starve themselves to death, or even just spend time in jail (either through a drunk driving charge, or through a driving while suspended - which in practice is what people do instead of starving themselves to death), is excessive.
Give people choices rather than forcing everyone to live in suburbia: once you do, you'll have the right to more than tut-tut at people who do things that are antisocial and irresponsible in the name of getting home at night.
Meh. This is Florida. Most of Florida is designed so that it's impossible to hold down a job or get food without driving.
Once the zoning restrictions are lifted and developers are allowed to build a large enough amount of quality high density stock, with decent public transport (Hello All Aboard Florida, but you're not enough) linking residents to jobs and each other, I'll accept that we have the right to treat driving as optional and people who drive while drunk as having "no excuses".
Until then, however anti-social I might feel drinking and driving might be, I just can't side with those treating those who do it as deserving of severe punishments or bans on mobility.
Sorry suburbanists who believe in mandatory car use, but this is the hell you've built for us. I'm not going to make your hell safer until you build an exit door for those who don't want to live in it.
My family owns two cars. Self driving would at least cut the number needed to one. It can take me to work, drive home, do whatever my wife and child needs, and then drive back in the evenings. If the car isn't available when we need it (that is, my wife needs it when I'm on my way to work, or my wife is using it when it's time to go home) then a theoretical pool vehicle service (an automated taxi) could take care of that - which I suspect would be a rare enough event it would be scalable.
So don't knock it, even for those of us in suburban hell the self driving car has the potential to reduce the need for $25,000 every five to ten years on a giant metal box, and will allow us to use more of our land for living on (or allow us to buy less in the first place.)
Maybe because they don't want to die?
There are a few CSS macro processors, such as SASS and Less.js, built to workaround this specific deficiency. What's amazing is that it's never been addressed by the W3C, despite being identified as a problem right from the start.
It's largely the media, who themselves are following the lead of the public, and it's because he's just not that interesting. The public isn't showing any massive interest, and he's not an established politician who's due coverage simply by virtue of being a congressman, therefore he doesn't get covered.
The Democratic party doesn't really care who runs as long as (1) they don't topple an establishment candidate and (2) they don't make the Dems look like loonies.
Is Lessig charismatic and well known enough to get any interest beyond coverage in some nerd sites? No. Really, no. I'm sure his heart is in the right place, but issues like "Will I still have a job in four years", "How am I going to afford my cancer treatment?" and "Am I safe when I leave my house" trumps many, many, issues people here care about that Lessig is promising to address, from the outrageous evil that is not being able to copy a Nicki Minaj single onto an a DRM-free MP3 until 2127, to electoral reform.
That's not a solution, that's what we do already. That's what everyone does.
Uh, what?
I'm really not getting it. You appear to be arguing, if I understand this correctly, that because an article might be slightly out of date by the time we get around to reading it, that we must - because somehow we know that we'll read it one day later - decide it would be better not to read it at all than to risk the chance we might have to hit the Refresh button to get the latest version.
That makes no sense whatsoever.
You haven't proposed one.
Thus far, your latest screed argues that we should do exactly what we're doing already (closing tabs once we're done with them), and that somehow what we're doing already is the worst thing ever because we might have to hit the Refresh button by the time we look at the tab.
One is not actually telling us there's a "better way", the other is simply criticizing us over something so obviously pathetic I can't even fathom why you'd bring it up.
It's borderline trolling because you're immediately launching into an attack without even trying to determine why someone is doing what they're doing. It's like "Look at those stupid people writing numbers and squiggly lines on chalkboards! Don't then know that if they want to exercise their arms dumbbells would build up their muscles far more quickly?"
Nobody has 400 browser tabs, the fact you feel the need to exaggerate already should tell you you're on the wrong path. As to your complaint that I accused you, you poor delicate flower, of trolling when you have no interest in how I work and just don't care, how many words have you devoted to this issue that you clearly (sarcasm) don't care about?
But that said, I come back to my original comment. Having multiple tabs open is, in reality, the only way to look at a constantly changing index page - of forums, news, whatever - and say "I'm interested in this, in this, in this" without risking those pages disappearing before I've had a chance to look at them. So what is the viable solution? I don't want to clutter up my bookmarks, and besides, right-click, add book mark, and create a name, would be infuriatingly annoying compared to middle-click.
So what is the "real" solution?
Because opening multiple tabs is that solution. In fact, it's probably the #1 reason tabs were invented. Otherwise could just have three windows open and tabs are overkill for that.
Should a different solution have been implemented instead? Possibly. tabs aren't perfect. But let's stop pretending that people who have more than three tabs open are doing something wrong.
Not OP, but same workflow: They are being closed. After they've been read. Which is later.
My suggestion is rather than insist there's no reason someone would open links to read later, you propose either a sane alternative that's just as comfortable as opening tabs for things you plan to read using technologies in Firefox et al already (I don't think there are any, otherwise we'd be using them. No, we don't want to clutter up our bookmarks with them, and bookmarks aren't exactly a solution anyway given you can't really quickly add an unopened link to a bookmark, which might not work anyway given referrers and other nonsense.),
Until then, I question why you're complaining about other people opening a lot of tabs. It's none of your business (that applies to anyone making this complaint, not just you personally), you've made no effort to understand why people do this, and you're attempting to micromanage how other people read the web.
You're not helping. You're borderline trolling.
But was the screw up Flash, or the fact Flash was needed to make websites able to show animations, videos, and play audio, because until HTML5 nobody was willing to set the standards necessary?
Flash didn't come out of no-where, it was necessary to implement certain concepts over the web - and to a certain extent, still is.
I think the hold up is that ARM needs to be comparable in terms of computing power to Intel. Right now ARM's great as a low power platform (though Intel is seriously catching up) but Chromebooks are a very conspicuous case where ARMs are used in an environment they're almost never seen in.
I don't think the problem is the ABI. Apple has solved that three times before, 68K to PowerPC, and PowerPC to ix86 and ix86-64. The solutions weren't beautiful, but they worked. And the PowerPC to two different Intel APIs transition occurred with the current generation of operating system.
If ARM makes sense, they'll switch to it. I just don't see why they would - yet.
I'm not sure there's ever been that much interest. It's more of a theoretical standard, useful for people packaging binaries with hard coded paths, but even that isn't particularly useful right now. The LSB lost credibility from the Debian side from the start by picking the rival RPM as the packaging manager, and while I gather that different was papered over in time, the other fundamental issues - differing library versions, different standards for inclusion, etc - that prevent the concept of a "universal" package never got resolved.
It's probably a good thing it's going, a bad mostly ignored "standard" is probably worse than no standard at all, as it leads developers to make assumptions about what's available that they probably shouldn't.
Well, it's funny how something with "the underpinnings of how X11 does it are actually decrepit and inefficient and compare poorly to other strategies that leverage different entry points that Wayland actually preserves" still manages to solve the problem, and Wayland doesn't.
X11 isn't perfect. Nobody's ever argued that. It's just nobody's really asking for a replacement, and if they were, they wouldn't be asking for Wayland. X11 is an extraordinary piece of technology, it takes some gal to claim everyone should just throw it out and replace it with a ground up rewrite that adds no new features and doesn't support the major features X11 is famous and loved for.
It's not like init/SystemD, where init really was a bug ridden piece of garbage that's needed replacing now since before Linux itself came on the scene, and SystemD implements everything init did but does it right.
So... "don't ban encryption, we don't need to!"
Your summary is missing the 500lb gorilla, which makes it extraordinarily misleading to anyone following the discussion.
Let's correct and add information to one dubious statement here:
No, the answer is: Because Microsoft only signs PE binaries.
And then let's go up to:
Here is the 500lb gorilla: Because most implementations of secure boot only accept keys signed by Microsoft.
So in order to get a random Linux-based distribution to run on a generic secure boot enabled PC, your choices are either to remove secure boot (which isn't always possible), hope that the firmware maker included your distribution's key (highly unlikely), or have it signed by Microsoft, which means going the PE route.
ELF may be superior to PE, but that doesn't make it a solution to the problem that RedHat raised. X.509 keys may be an international standard, but they have nothing whatsoever to do with this.
It was a legitimate issue to raise, and it was handled badly by Torvalds and others. A legitimate response would have been "The inability of our kernel to be installed on what's likely to be the majority of computers in a few years is a small price to pay for using superior technologies", not "RedHat just wants to give Microsoft blow jobs", which is immature, pathetic, and doesn't answer anything.
In this case, it's a poor example, because RedHat wasn't showing any signs of proposing this because they wanted to please Microsoft. RedHat was, instead, saying they felt practical concerns meant that accepting Microsoft has de-facto control over the signing process needed to be recognized.
But if they did? What's wrong with "please" or maybe "serve", as in "If RedHat wants to serve Microsoft, then..."?
Thank God the Internet doesn't exist and isn't the core communications network used by virtually everyone in the Western World!
Where I was coming from was this:
Windows 8.1 didn't really fix the major problem people had with Windows 8.0 (the lack of a Start menu and insistence on having a touch-oriented Start Screen by default)
People hated Vista because of the slow speed, poor memory handling, and the permission dialogs, all of which were (mostly) fixed in 7 (albeit I suspect the permission dialogs were fixed by the third party developers who stopped doing the things that caused them to come up.)
So 8.1 wasn't really the 7 to 8.0's Vista, it was more of one of the service packs that made Vista more usable later on its life. 10 though seems like... it's a whole new Vista. And 8.1 was a nice tablet operating system even if it was horrible on the desktop, whereas 10 seems to be fairly poor everywhere.
Here's hoping they fix it soon. Otherwise I'm going to have to see if I can restore 8.1 on my tablet...
No, it's not. It's entirely appropriate - she points out that the questioner is trying to paper over the extent of the abuse she's receiving as a result of conversations on the LKML by requesting only LKML posts be quoted.
She illustrates why that's absurd (though it apparently flew over your head), and then, after that, goes on to quote abuse from the LKML itself as requested.
It sounds to me like she's getting an extraordinary amount of hate messages solely as a result of her (1) being involved in kernel development and (2) having a disagreement with other kernel developers.
I'm struggling to understand why so many on Slashdot think that's acceptable. But then many support a hashtag campaign whose initial goal was to drive a female developer to suicide because they thought a journalist had written good reviews of her products in exchange for sex. So nothing about some here showing a complete lack of human decency surprises me any more.
She's arguing for a more professional communications style. If anyone spoke to (or emailed) me at work the way kernel developers are frequently quoted as communicating with one another on the lists, I'd pass the message on to my boss, and expect them hauled up in front of HR if they carried on. What's more, I've seen this happen (once, in my more than 20 years of professional experience.)
Anyone posting on Slashdot that they think this is normal, or that it's somehow how males normally talk to one another, is in for a shock when they graduate from whatever high school they're from and attempt to get a degree and/or a job. Office or academic politics is often vicious, but you accuse a co-worker of sexually gratifying a corporation in email, and you can expect consequences, at minimum a talking to, and quite possibly (job) termination.
I cannot believe so many here think this is normal behavior, or even acceptable. Yeah, we're all obnoxious assholes on Slashdot, but that's because we're not working together here and we're letting off steam.