This technology clearly needs an international regulatory framework, since in principle its possible to exterminate a species
in another country with it - country A could decide to wipe out a species it shares with country B, without the consent of country B;
I mean: could mexico decide which species should life in the US? Can think of many many nasty scenarios that go beyond the "lets kill these
obnoxious mosquitos" type...
All of this work for moving to the latest and greatest thing
That "latest greatest thing" is _9 years old_
9 years.
Next year it'll be a decade.
If you've stubbornly refused to migrate your existing code for 9 years, then frankly, you're a fuckwit that deserves to have your code break. But even morons like you still have another 2 years to finally change that one function that won't work.
well apparently, it means that for _9 years_ no compelling reason to switch to python 3 has come up...for the 2 to 3 switch, there are no carrots..only a stick..tells you something..
He says that:
1: it should be an easy admin task to enable-disable users ability to run such tasks since they are a security risk (eg. a lingering ssh connection out through the firewall can be reversed so it can be used to connect back into the system).
2. As default, only programs that explicitly have permissions (from PAM etc) to linger after logout should be allowed to do so.
So he has no problems with lingering processes, he just thinks they should be secure and easy to admin. No sane modern OS would ever implement the current Linux scheme with unrestricted ability for users to run arbitrary programs after logout (and even after the account have been locked).
bogus argument - this so-called security risk is also there when the user is logged in - you cannot really make security contingent on a user being logged in, because logged in means zip - user can be logged in a system for weeks w/o doing anything..in reality LP redefines what it means to have a user account, and what it means to be logged in, arbitrarily limiting the user (and this *is* windows think), I mean next thing he figures out its a good idea for security to log user out at midnight, eventually figuring out he needs positive id checking user's ass is continuesly behind the terminal..)
According to Poettering this is just a 'misunderstanding:'
"The changed default here is really about defining the lifecycle of unprivileged code by privileged code, and thus about security"
Logging out is not meant to invalidate your credentials of running code on a system - its just as arbitrary to make this the default behaviour as it is to automatically kill user processes at 00:00 or after 30 minutes of inactivity - I am sure this would also "improve" security....if the user is removed from the system - then, yes kill his processes.. the runaway processes argument is bogus - a runaway process is equally bad whether you are logged in or not...
on the other hand - compared to an oil pipeline, you need to maintain the alignment to a much greater precision for a hyperloop system, probably you need some way to actively compensate for thermal expansion, uneven heating, ground movement, wind buffeting etc..if you look at oilpipelines they are not straight at all and are probably free to move about a bit... dunno if this is included in the cost estimates
Slashdot Mirror
This technology clearly needs an international regulatory framework, since in principle its possible to exterminate a species in another country with it - country A could decide to wipe out a species it shares with country B, without the consent of country B; I mean: could mexico decide which species should life in the US? Can think of many many nasty scenarios that go beyond the "lets kill these obnoxious mosquitos" type...
All of this work for moving to the latest and greatest thing
That "latest greatest thing" is _9 years old_
9 years. Next year it'll be a decade.
If you've stubbornly refused to migrate your existing code for 9 years, then frankly, you're a fuckwit that deserves to have your code break. But even morons like you still have another 2 years to finally change that one function that won't work.
well apparently, it means that for _9 years_ no compelling reason to switch to python 3 has come up...for the 2 to 3 switch, there are no carrots..only a stick..tells you something..
same here, rarely use google now. in addition I like DDGs infinte scroll for the search results...
He says that: 1: it should be an easy admin task to enable-disable users ability to run such tasks since they are a security risk (eg. a lingering ssh connection out through the firewall can be reversed so it can be used to connect back into the system). 2. As default, only programs that explicitly have permissions (from PAM etc) to linger after logout should be allowed to do so.
So he has no problems with lingering processes, he just thinks they should be secure and easy to admin. No sane modern OS would ever implement the current Linux scheme with unrestricted ability for users to run arbitrary programs after logout (and even after the account have been locked).
bogus argument - this so-called security risk is also there when the user is logged in - you cannot really make security contingent on a user being logged in, because logged in means zip - user can be logged in a system for weeks w/o doing anything ..in reality LP redefines what it means to have a user account, and what it means to be logged in, arbitrarily limiting the user (and this *is* windows think), I mean next thing he figures out its a good idea for security to log user out at midnight, eventually figuring out he needs positive id checking user's ass is continuesly behind the terminal..)
According to Poettering this is just a 'misunderstanding:' "The changed default here is really about defining the lifecycle of unprivileged code by privileged code, and thus about security" Logging out is not meant to invalidate your credentials of running code on a system - its just as arbitrary to make this the default behaviour as it is to automatically kill user processes at 00:00 or after 30 minutes of inactivity - I am sure this would also "improve" security. ...if the user is removed from the system - then, yes kill his processes.. the runaway processes argument is bogus - a runaway process is equally bad whether you are logged in or not...
on the other hand - compared to an oil pipeline, you need to maintain the alignment to a much greater precision for a hyperloop system, probably you need some way to actively compensate for thermal expansion, uneven heating, ground movement, wind buffeting etc..if you look at oilpipelines they are not straight at all and are probably free to move about a bit... dunno if this is included in the cost estimates