So why can't there be other systems that do the various parts that aren't init but systemd is doing?
Because the whiners don't have a use-case. systemd is modular, but it tends to come with all the modules packaged together. They could simply move the non-init functionality (which is the parts that these other packages depend on) into their own package, and just install that. But I guess their fingers would get contaminated by re-packing those parts of the source?
If you read the link in the post you responded to, it explains most of this stuff. It is modular, but the people managing it are using all the modules, so the default distribution contains them all. But you can use just the parts you need, and replace the parts you don't. It just requires simple grunt-work to manage packages the way you want. Thousands of loud whiners, but none that actually have a reason to need a different set of the modules, or the ability to do a simple repackage.
The only reason that the distros don't repackage those parts to be separate is that there is no reason articulated to do so. Whiners just whine, but they don't say words that would have any chance of convincing professionals that they have a differing use-case. We understand they're unhappy, but they don't identify reasons that are technical and real, but rather their reasons are aesthetic and arbitrary. By arbitrary I mean, everything they're doing with their computer still works; all their software still works; all their use cases still work, but they're unhappy for entirely optional reasons. They're choosing to be unhappy, but there is nothing actually wrong. Which from an engineering perspective appears to be entirely "user error." They're using it wrong; if they want to be happy while they use it, they just need to smile more. It is not actually biting them, or making them cold, or eating their cheesy poofs.
If the other init systems want to gain support, they have to support this same kind of functionality somehow.
LOL no they just need to cry louder and louder until the world loses patience and goes back to SysV Hell!!! Just ask slashdot, and you'll see.;)
I suspect though that most of them are actually running windoze, because they're gamerz, and their *nix flag-waving is purely theoretical. If I'm right it means they won't eventually switch to the *nix flavor they like and shut up, but instead will keep blathering about it for decades.
I personally really appreciate the changes. dbus is the network-aware IPC solution of modern *nix. It already replaced the SysV IPC crap that many of us were still stuck coding for just a few years ago. Moving those advantages into the system level is natural, and a hell of a lot more pleasant than the "enterprise" crap that had the same network management capabilities but were shoehorned piecemeal on top of various directory services, databases, or (shudders) SNMP. Not that SNMP is bad, it is great at the monitoring side. But it is not very pleasant as a control mechanism or bidirectional communication medium.
I must have spent too much time in hotel lobbies lately...
That is your brain fighting back against the "$99 wifi available now" subliminal messaging. There is hope for you, but I recommend a tin-lined wig, just to be safe and blend in.
There is nowhere to go except for the 3-hour tour category.;) So he's totally right. Train travel didn't become commercially interesting because somebody had a loop track and could charge tickets to go in a circle. I mean, I know that one pizza place sells a lot of $5 tickets for their outdoor kiddie train ride, which just goes in a circle. But it is not the main commercial use for train travel. In general, commercial travel requires potential passengers with a latent demand to arrive at a destination. The only travel destination in space is the ISS, and it doesn't have the capacity for enough visitors to support an industry.
It isn't enough to build a moon base, you'd need a reason for travel to the moon. If there was a moon base with some sort of high paying jobs, that would create latent travel demand; mostly round-trip tickets to Earth, I assume. And if you had enough workers on that base to support a shopping market, then you might be able to entice a few Power Shoppers to come up from Earth. Then you'd at least be able to support a Bed & Breakfast. Eventually if you had enough jobs on the moon, you'd have a whole city, and would make sense for it to end up as a tourism powerhouse. But that still isn't an industry.
Joyrides at the edge of space seems to be the industry that is developing that is closest to "space travel." And I would assume that its size will be such that Space tours are to space flight as air tours are to air flight. Which is to say, it exists, and people get paid well to do it. But it isn't big business.
Vikings in north america were more like our moon landings than a space colony that mines and manufacturers.
Not really, because whatever they did in North America was a small backwater part of what they were doing on islands all across the north Atlantic, and which added up to a really large amount of trade. They were supplying lamp oil and walrus ivory even to the Mediterranean. The places those ships were sailing out from was seeing them come back loaded with trade, and those ports were made wealthy from it. So North American exploration by the Vikings or culturally related groups is better understood as the insignificant far reaches of a successful trade route, rather than something like the moon shot that didn't directly relate to commerce.
Moon landing is more like ships that sailed out over the horizon, had no idea where they went, landed on some uninhabited island, and then managed to sail back, starving but alive, and with no trade items. I mean, there were serious practical reasons for the moon landings, but they were related to military technology and politics, not commerce. From a commerce perspective, a moon landing is way way smaller than a viking trade route.
One problem with space mining being profitable, there isn't anything on Earth that is plentiful enough that we have industry that relies on it, yet scarce enough that it would be easier to move it all the way from outside our orbit down to a soft landing, plus the insurance overhead. We've yet to actually use up any of the main industrial resources. For every raw material we use, we're only using the high grade sources. And when those run out, the lower grade Earthly sources will still require less energy to extract than would be needed for space mining.
If you go out and mine a bunch of gold or diamonds or something from the asteroid belt, all you'd do is crash the market on Earth for that item. You would not be able to begin accessing a giant new source of the resource without dropping the price and blowing market predictability to hell. You could flood the Earth with diamonds and improve the average quality of drill bits, but you might only lose money doing it. They won't still have notable cash value. It is the very nature of scarce items and why they are expensive. An unlimited supply might not have as much value as a limited supply would.
Sorry, no, they were using old maps. And cocaine from South America has been found in ancient Egyptian tombs. There was cross-Atlantic trade long before anybody wrote down the details, because those who had the details considered them to be trade secrets. It was only in the modern age when there were already large vessels in every corner of the seas (going "somewhere" but don't ask where) that so many people held the "secrets" that it became more valuable for some percentage of them to make and sell maps to capitalize.
Notice for example that international products were already in local markets in an age where there were no world maps, or even text descriptions, that could tell you where the places actually were that the products were from. That was the case from thousands of years ago, right up to the era of Columbus. Very few explorers were trying to "discover" things in the romanticized sense that modern school history units phrase things in, but rather they were trying to develop their own private maps and routes. When somebody would sponsor an expedition, that is what they were mostly paying for; the ship logs and maps that would be created on the voyage, and that can be used to send additional ships to the same places in the future.
How does Microsoft expect us to trust them with automatic updates if they're not going to tell us what those updates are supposed to do?
Just about fell off my chair laughing at you, sorry. You're running it, so they're winning. You being unhappy and still running it, that means they have low customer expectations that are easy to meet. Your intent is to insult their service, but if you apply theory of mind and look at if from their perspective, you're heaping them with compliments.
And in general, the whole point of the updates being automatic is that they don't have to tell you what they do. Knowing what they do is only useful when you're applying them manually. Think about it.;) If you see "automatic" as being a positive feature, you should not also be seeing "knowing in advance" as a positive feature. The whole point of automatic is to remove that burden from you, the simple user.
When I used to do small business IT I got a few companies to switch to linux because I stopped trying to explain what a "spreadsheet" is and that you can do that in OpenOffice, and switched my script to "you can do Excel in OpenOffice, too." It is really funny how their eyes light up when they hear that, after having been glazed over during the "spreadsheet" talk.
As for the personal bit, if my wife didn't have any porn on her computer I'd be worried.
If you can tell the poo-flinging monkeys from the bots that is pretty good. I'm of the opinion that the bots fling poo because they were coded by monkeys, and it doesn't actually make a difference which a particular instance is because they have shared goals.
Little boy, I know you were born yesterday by your user ID, but maybe you can get over the name-calling stage?
You're claiming somebody else is wrong on the internet, but the problem is that you're also claiming that Macs are as upgradeable as commodity x86-compatible machines. That is an absurd claim. As an Apple fanboy it is your right to claim that Macs are upgradeable enough for your use cases, but it is "insane" (literally) to claim that Macs are equally upgradeable. And yet, you seem to be claiming that because some part of the Mac is upgradeable, such as the disk drive, that therefore Macs are generally immune from comparisons that show it to be less upgradeable. That is absurd.
You actually give the impression, probably not as you intended, that you've had your head up your Mac so long that you never even learned which parts of other brands of computers are upgradeable.
Also, trim your neckbeard. Calling somebody with a 4-digit username the B-word shows that you have a small woowoo and should stop trying to over-compensate so hard. You don't even know that Macs are less upgradeable than most systems, even most commercial UNIXes, and yet you're going to try to wave your giant knowledge in the air? No little boy, that isn't an impressive knowledge, it is a laughable little hair.
"Locked down hardware" in the context of personal computers means that you can't use third party hardware. So that was probably his point; what the words meant literally was also the "point." A better question would have been, "I don't understand your point, can you elaborate?" At which point it could be explained to you that while you can run different software on Apple's hardware, you can't replace Apple's choice of hardware with third party hardware. So that makes the hardware "locked down." Running windows or linux tells you about the software, and if it is locked down, not the hardware.
Apple does actually still sell personal computers, but it isn't a very profitable product for them. They mostly sell phones and music players. Which, BTW, are "locked down" in both hardware and software.
Don't be frightened, the Free Software Movement has your back. Right now you're still allowing yourself to be treated this way, because "nobody ever got fired for choosing MicroSoft," and your boss is an idiot. But don't despair! That isn't a slippery slope, because at any time when it gets too uncomfortable, Free Software will still be right there, waiting to respect your freedoms.
It is never too late to change, so it doesn't matter how awful they become. Whenever it is too awful for your tolerances, you can be Saved.
You're conflating totally different things: unhappy windows users, and the open source "crowd." People using open source receive no benefit at all from disaffected users switching. None. Zero. Zilch. You're welcome to use it, and clog up the help sites with questions. But it benefits only you. And it is up to you to decide if it even does that.
If software developers switch, that has benefits because whatever their pet tool or language is, they might release some library bindings or something. More developers at a minimum will tend to mean more compatibility, because that is the low-hanging fruit that new developers can pick up, and also that is the type of stuff that comes out of incremental "itch scratching."
There is no opportunity here to "seize" by the "open source crowd." If there is an opportunity, it is for the open source software vendors to make some enterprise support contract sales, if they can convince some corporation that this sort of forced uninstall threatens all of their core practices, which it likely does. But that doesn't benefit the "crowd" in any way. And no, those companies are not internally divided; they are regular companies with high morale and good worker loyalty.
To the extent that the open source "crowd" is divided, they're also compartmentalized; they aren't operating in an environment of division and conflict. Each team is operating in a fairly calm environment with an established leadership system and quantized decision-making.
If you're allergic to trimming your neckbeard and running a modern init, just switch to *BSD where they adopted the features that people are whining about decades ago.;)
Haters hate, but do they know why? Do they have a choice? Do they have Free Will, or were they born unable to tell the difference between choosing software they want to run, and being forced to run software that... they chose?
Everything I've read on the subject says that it is enough if there is a clear accusation that is being pardoned, but a blanket pardon will only cover things already known or explicitly listed. So in this case, there would be no problem with pardoning him. Note that it isn't a formal legal accusation that I'm talking about here, it is enough if there is public speculation about a particular crime.
Ford pardoning Nixon in that way remains somewhat controversial legally as to what actually was pardoned. Clearly the crimes related to the Watergate scandal were pardoned. Would some other crime unveiled after the pardon have been pardoned? Probably not, unless they could show it was known to the government while the pardon was being considered. Then it would. Silly stuff perhaps. It had more potential to matter in Nixon's case than in Snowden's. If they focus on an action, they can certainly phrase a pardon as covering all crimes related to [specific action at specific time].
They could also, as a sort of compromise, wait until his conviction and then commute the sentence. That can be done as soon as there is a conviction, without even waiting for the sentence, depending on if they want to hold it over the heads of others as a deterrent.
He could use the defence of defending his country from threats foreign and domestic. I don't know if he swore to that and I'm no expert on US law, but isn't revealing criminal activity that threatens the nation and its people a defence?
No, that is just what they call his "motive" for the crime, not a "defense." If his motive was just, and he broke the law anyways, then expect his lawyer to heavily discuss the value of his motive... during sentencing, perhaps requesting a short sentence that is heavy on probation instead of prison time.
Generally a legal "defense" is a thing that if you can prove it, then you're not guilty. Proving your motive makes it easier for the prosecution to show guilt, because motive is one of the required elements of a criminal accusation.
If he was legally tasked with the defense of the country, then he might find a defense there in that he had to balance that duty against the word of the law when they were in conflict. But that isn't the situation. He's wasn't in charge of even determining what the national threats are. We have a system for who does that, and it is the President and the people he directly appoints who make those types of determinations. Those are the only people for whom that would have any chance of being a defense
That's a silly theory. As the CIA head his job was to be a dishonest asshole, and all his peers know and respect that. Having it made public is no different than publishing the names of the soldiers on a special forces mission; they might be mad that they secret was revealed because it was supposed to be a secret, but they're still proud of their work. Same for the CIA. Just because you dislike them or what they do doesn't mean that they don't believe in it.
If it is helpful has absolutely nothing to do with the very technical question of if a person is guilty of violating an existing criminal statute.
It seems a lot of people become so blinded by disliking what the law is that they are no longer capable of remembering what it is. How do they still know they don't like it, if they can't even use its extant state in their analysis?
A fair trial and he would be found guilty, because he has admitted what he did in public. There is basically no factual difference between his account and the governments regarding what actions he took. The assertion that a 'fair' trial could end other than in a guilty verdict is silly.
It is perfectly reasonable to say that you don't believe he should be charged because [reasons]. But it is not obvious that allowing government workers to give away official secrets without penalty is some sort of "moral" objective. How is a law banning espionage by government employees inherently immoral? It seems an impossibly high hurdle to categorically show the espionage act to be immoral. That remains true even if you don't believe it should be applied in some cases.
I've heard a lot of people call for a pardon, for example. That seems a more reasonable basis of moral argument.
Anyway on a random jury only 2 or 3 people are going to want him hanged.
It only requires a very simple analysis to understand that the way it is now only critical security holes that were the manufacturer's fault are guaranteed to get a firmware update, and other security holes are ignored by many manufacturers.
However, that in no way contradicts my point. They have to be able to update firmware. Not all bugs and problems are equal. I mean think about it, they'd have to at least try to fix the worst bugs before shipping the units in your universe! The one I live in, shit shows up buggy, and every new router will have a critical security update the first year it is being sold. Why aren't there expensive recalls? Because consumers can update the device.
I recommend "osmtracker" https://f-droid.org/repository... I use both in the field, but osmtracker has a lot more features. MyTracks is still useful for caching and displaying the google satellite view, but osmtracker does a better job managing waypoints IMO so I record the tracks with that one. Also, while MyTracks is open source, most users are using the official google one and so if you improve osmtracker more people will benefit.
If you don't know enough about the subject to engage on it, then just asking general questions that are disbelieving but ignorant is not really useful. It doesn't convince there is utility in attempting to get into the details with you.
You failed to understand my comment, and just sortof waved your hands.
The company making the router can make what you do in the driver to tell the radio firmware how much gain to use into a NOOP. You'll still recompile your driver and try to do it, but the output gain simply won't change.
There is absolutely no reason at all that your OS would see any difference at all.
And no it isn't "all or nothing." You can flash the OS already, but the only reason that the OS driver can tell the radio to do x is because the radio listens and obeys. It doesn't have to. A brick would be the nonsense people speculate where the OS would get locked down. Then it would be a brick because security updates are a thing. The radio gain doesn't need to be adjustable.
One of the reasons it sounds all-or-nothing to the end user is that the whole OS is inaccurately called "firmware," apparently because they didn't put a keyboard port on the case? But there is actually real firmware that controls the radio. That can be altered to ignore the setting from the OS. There is absolutely no reason you would need to alter the OS or lock it down to achieve that.
Goodness, "everywhere?" No. I'll leave it up to you to find the context, but I can promise you the discussion of laws and rights is never in the context of "everywhere," at least not anywhere on Earth.
If it is a generic router with a fly-by-night brand that was slapped onto an unaltered OEM whitebox, OK, I'll believe your story.
But anything from a name brand they're going to want to be able to do a firmware update because otherwise they'd have to exchange or replace every unit sold in a giant recall if there turns out to be a security bug. Huge hit compared to issuing a firmware update and it being up to the consumer to install it.
I might still be more than half right after all.;)
Precisely. I challenge anyone here to describe the difference between a "cult" and a "religion".
I'll be reading War and Peace while I wait...
The problem isn't in any difficulty coming up with an answer. The problem in fact is somewhat opposite; almost everybody will find an answer, and they'll all be different!
Even the real religions don't want to agree. Some Christian factions refuse to agree that it is a "religion." That is why "creed" is protected, even though legally it just means "religions that don't agree to be called religions, or other similar things that people don't want to call that."
Slashdot Mirror
So why can't there be other systems that do the various parts that aren't init but systemd is doing?
Because the whiners don't have a use-case. systemd is modular, but it tends to come with all the modules packaged together. They could simply move the non-init functionality (which is the parts that these other packages depend on) into their own package, and just install that. But I guess their fingers would get contaminated by re-packing those parts of the source?
If you read the link in the post you responded to, it explains most of this stuff. It is modular, but the people managing it are using all the modules, so the default distribution contains them all. But you can use just the parts you need, and replace the parts you don't. It just requires simple grunt-work to manage packages the way you want. Thousands of loud whiners, but none that actually have a reason to need a different set of the modules, or the ability to do a simple repackage.
The only reason that the distros don't repackage those parts to be separate is that there is no reason articulated to do so. Whiners just whine, but they don't say words that would have any chance of convincing professionals that they have a differing use-case. We understand they're unhappy, but they don't identify reasons that are technical and real, but rather their reasons are aesthetic and arbitrary. By arbitrary I mean, everything they're doing with their computer still works; all their software still works; all their use cases still work, but they're unhappy for entirely optional reasons. They're choosing to be unhappy, but there is nothing actually wrong. Which from an engineering perspective appears to be entirely "user error." They're using it wrong; if they want to be happy while they use it, they just need to smile more. It is not actually biting them, or making them cold, or eating their cheesy poofs.
If the other init systems want to gain support, they have to support this same kind of functionality somehow.
LOL no they just need to cry louder and louder until the world loses patience and goes back to SysV Hell!!! Just ask slashdot, and you'll see. ;)
I suspect though that most of them are actually running windoze, because they're gamerz, and their *nix flag-waving is purely theoretical. If I'm right it means they won't eventually switch to the *nix flavor they like and shut up, but instead will keep blathering about it for decades.
I personally really appreciate the changes. dbus is the network-aware IPC solution of modern *nix. It already replaced the SysV IPC crap that many of us were still stuck coding for just a few years ago. Moving those advantages into the system level is natural, and a hell of a lot more pleasant than the "enterprise" crap that had the same network management capabilities but were shoehorned piecemeal on top of various directory services, databases, or (shudders) SNMP. Not that SNMP is bad, it is great at the monitoring side. But it is not very pleasant as a control mechanism or bidirectional communication medium.
Do they have Free Will...
I read that as "Do they have Free WiFi?".
I must have spent too much time in hotel lobbies lately...
That is your brain fighting back against the "$99 wifi available now" subliminal messaging. There is hope for you, but I recommend a tin-lined wig, just to be safe and blend in.
There is nowhere to go except for the 3-hour tour category. ;) So he's totally right. Train travel didn't become commercially interesting because somebody had a loop track and could charge tickets to go in a circle. I mean, I know that one pizza place sells a lot of $5 tickets for their outdoor kiddie train ride, which just goes in a circle. But it is not the main commercial use for train travel. In general, commercial travel requires potential passengers with a latent demand to arrive at a destination. The only travel destination in space is the ISS, and it doesn't have the capacity for enough visitors to support an industry.
It isn't enough to build a moon base, you'd need a reason for travel to the moon. If there was a moon base with some sort of high paying jobs, that would create latent travel demand; mostly round-trip tickets to Earth, I assume. And if you had enough workers on that base to support a shopping market, then you might be able to entice a few Power Shoppers to come up from Earth. Then you'd at least be able to support a Bed & Breakfast. Eventually if you had enough jobs on the moon, you'd have a whole city, and would make sense for it to end up as a tourism powerhouse. But that still isn't an industry.
Joyrides at the edge of space seems to be the industry that is developing that is closest to "space travel." And I would assume that its size will be such that Space tours are to space flight as air tours are to air flight. Which is to say, it exists, and people get paid well to do it. But it isn't big business.
Vikings in north america were more like our moon landings than a space colony that mines and manufacturers.
Not really, because whatever they did in North America was a small backwater part of what they were doing on islands all across the north Atlantic, and which added up to a really large amount of trade. They were supplying lamp oil and walrus ivory even to the Mediterranean. The places those ships were sailing out from was seeing them come back loaded with trade, and those ports were made wealthy from it. So North American exploration by the Vikings or culturally related groups is better understood as the insignificant far reaches of a successful trade route, rather than something like the moon shot that didn't directly relate to commerce.
Moon landing is more like ships that sailed out over the horizon, had no idea where they went, landed on some uninhabited island, and then managed to sail back, starving but alive, and with no trade items. I mean, there were serious practical reasons for the moon landings, but they were related to military technology and politics, not commerce. From a commerce perspective, a moon landing is way way smaller than a viking trade route.
One problem with space mining being profitable, there isn't anything on Earth that is plentiful enough that we have industry that relies on it, yet scarce enough that it would be easier to move it all the way from outside our orbit down to a soft landing, plus the insurance overhead. We've yet to actually use up any of the main industrial resources. For every raw material we use, we're only using the high grade sources. And when those run out, the lower grade Earthly sources will still require less energy to extract than would be needed for space mining.
If you go out and mine a bunch of gold or diamonds or something from the asteroid belt, all you'd do is crash the market on Earth for that item. You would not be able to begin accessing a giant new source of the resource without dropping the price and blowing market predictability to hell. You could flood the Earth with diamonds and improve the average quality of drill bits, but you might only lose money doing it. They won't still have notable cash value. It is the very nature of scarce items and why they are expensive. An unlimited supply might not have as much value as a limited supply would.
Sorry, no, they were using old maps. And cocaine from South America has been found in ancient Egyptian tombs. There was cross-Atlantic trade long before anybody wrote down the details, because those who had the details considered them to be trade secrets. It was only in the modern age when there were already large vessels in every corner of the seas (going "somewhere" but don't ask where) that so many people held the "secrets" that it became more valuable for some percentage of them to make and sell maps to capitalize.
Notice for example that international products were already in local markets in an age where there were no world maps, or even text descriptions, that could tell you where the places actually were that the products were from. That was the case from thousands of years ago, right up to the era of Columbus. Very few explorers were trying to "discover" things in the romanticized sense that modern school history units phrase things in, but rather they were trying to develop their own private maps and routes. When somebody would sponsor an expedition, that is what they were mostly paying for; the ship logs and maps that would be created on the voyage, and that can be used to send additional ships to the same places in the future.
How does Microsoft expect us to trust them with automatic updates if they're not going to tell us what those updates are supposed to do?
Just about fell off my chair laughing at you, sorry. You're running it, so they're winning. You being unhappy and still running it, that means they have low customer expectations that are easy to meet. Your intent is to insult their service, but if you apply theory of mind and look at if from their perspective, you're heaping them with compliments.
And in general, the whole point of the updates being automatic is that they don't have to tell you what they do. Knowing what they do is only useful when you're applying them manually. Think about it. ;) If you see "automatic" as being a positive feature, you should not also be seeing "knowing in advance" as a positive feature. The whole point of automatic is to remove that burden from you, the simple user.
When I used to do small business IT I got a few companies to switch to linux because I stopped trying to explain what a "spreadsheet" is and that you can do that in OpenOffice, and switched my script to "you can do Excel in OpenOffice, too." It is really funny how their eyes light up when they hear that, after having been glazed over during the "spreadsheet" talk.
As for the personal bit, if my wife didn't have any porn on her computer I'd be worried.
If you can tell the poo-flinging monkeys from the bots that is pretty good. I'm of the opinion that the bots fling poo because they were coded by monkeys, and it doesn't actually make a difference which a particular instance is because they have shared goals.
Little boy, I know you were born yesterday by your user ID, but maybe you can get over the name-calling stage?
You're claiming somebody else is wrong on the internet, but the problem is that you're also claiming that Macs are as upgradeable as commodity x86-compatible machines. That is an absurd claim. As an Apple fanboy it is your right to claim that Macs are upgradeable enough for your use cases, but it is "insane" (literally) to claim that Macs are equally upgradeable. And yet, you seem to be claiming that because some part of the Mac is upgradeable, such as the disk drive, that therefore Macs are generally immune from comparisons that show it to be less upgradeable. That is absurd.
You actually give the impression, probably not as you intended, that you've had your head up your Mac so long that you never even learned which parts of other brands of computers are upgradeable.
Also, trim your neckbeard. Calling somebody with a 4-digit username the B-word shows that you have a small woowoo and should stop trying to over-compensate so hard. You don't even know that Macs are less upgradeable than most systems, even most commercial UNIXes, and yet you're going to try to wave your giant knowledge in the air? No little boy, that isn't an impressive knowledge, it is a laughable little hair.
"Locked down hardware" in the context of personal computers means that you can't use third party hardware. So that was probably his point; what the words meant literally was also the "point." A better question would have been, "I don't understand your point, can you elaborate?" At which point it could be explained to you that while you can run different software on Apple's hardware, you can't replace Apple's choice of hardware with third party hardware. So that makes the hardware "locked down." Running windows or linux tells you about the software, and if it is locked down, not the hardware.
Apple does actually still sell personal computers, but it isn't a very profitable product for them. They mostly sell phones and music players. Which, BTW, are "locked down" in both hardware and software.
Calm down, remember to breathe.
Don't be frightened, the Free Software Movement has your back. Right now you're still allowing yourself to be treated this way, because "nobody ever got fired for choosing MicroSoft," and your boss is an idiot. But don't despair! That isn't a slippery slope, because at any time when it gets too uncomfortable, Free Software will still be right there, waiting to respect your freedoms.
It is never too late to change, so it doesn't matter how awful they become. Whenever it is too awful for your tolerances, you can be Saved.
Praise to Saint IGNUcius!
You're conflating totally different things: unhappy windows users, and the open source "crowd." People using open source receive no benefit at all from disaffected users switching. None. Zero. Zilch. You're welcome to use it, and clog up the help sites with questions. But it benefits only you. And it is up to you to decide if it even does that.
If software developers switch, that has benefits because whatever their pet tool or language is, they might release some library bindings or something. More developers at a minimum will tend to mean more compatibility, because that is the low-hanging fruit that new developers can pick up, and also that is the type of stuff that comes out of incremental "itch scratching."
There is no opportunity here to "seize" by the "open source crowd." If there is an opportunity, it is for the open source software vendors to make some enterprise support contract sales, if they can convince some corporation that this sort of forced uninstall threatens all of their core practices, which it likely does. But that doesn't benefit the "crowd" in any way. And no, those companies are not internally divided; they are regular companies with high morale and good worker loyalty.
To the extent that the open source "crowd" is divided, they're also compartmentalized; they aren't operating in an environment of division and conflict. Each team is operating in a fairly calm environment with an established leadership system and quantized decision-making.
If you're allergic to trimming your neckbeard and running a modern init, just switch to *BSD where they adopted the features that people are whining about decades ago. ;)
Haters hate, but do they know why? Do they have a choice? Do they have Free Will, or were they born unable to tell the difference between choosing software they want to run, and being forced to run software that... they chose?
Everything I've read on the subject says that it is enough if there is a clear accusation that is being pardoned, but a blanket pardon will only cover things already known or explicitly listed. So in this case, there would be no problem with pardoning him. Note that it isn't a formal legal accusation that I'm talking about here, it is enough if there is public speculation about a particular crime.
Ford pardoning Nixon in that way remains somewhat controversial legally as to what actually was pardoned. Clearly the crimes related to the Watergate scandal were pardoned. Would some other crime unveiled after the pardon have been pardoned? Probably not, unless they could show it was known to the government while the pardon was being considered. Then it would. Silly stuff perhaps. It had more potential to matter in Nixon's case than in Snowden's. If they focus on an action, they can certainly phrase a pardon as covering all crimes related to [specific action at specific time].
They could also, as a sort of compromise, wait until his conviction and then commute the sentence. That can be done as soon as there is a conviction, without even waiting for the sentence, depending on if they want to hold it over the heads of others as a deterrent.
He could use the defence of defending his country from threats foreign and domestic. I don't know if he swore to that and I'm no expert on US law, but isn't revealing criminal activity that threatens the nation and its people a defence?
No, that is just what they call his "motive" for the crime, not a "defense." If his motive was just, and he broke the law anyways, then expect his lawyer to heavily discuss the value of his motive... during sentencing, perhaps requesting a short sentence that is heavy on probation instead of prison time.
Generally a legal "defense" is a thing that if you can prove it, then you're not guilty. Proving your motive makes it easier for the prosecution to show guilt, because motive is one of the required elements of a criminal accusation.
If he was legally tasked with the defense of the country, then he might find a defense there in that he had to balance that duty against the word of the law when they were in conflict. But that isn't the situation. He's wasn't in charge of even determining what the national threats are. We have a system for who does that, and it is the President and the people he directly appoints who make those types of determinations. Those are the only people for whom that would have any chance of being a defense
That's a silly theory. As the CIA head his job was to be a dishonest asshole, and all his peers know and respect that. Having it made public is no different than publishing the names of the soldiers on a special forces mission; they might be mad that they secret was revealed because it was supposed to be a secret, but they're still proud of their work. Same for the CIA. Just because you dislike them or what they do doesn't mean that they don't believe in it.
If it is helpful has absolutely nothing to do with the very technical question of if a person is guilty of violating an existing criminal statute.
It seems a lot of people become so blinded by disliking what the law is that they are no longer capable of remembering what it is. How do they still know they don't like it, if they can't even use its extant state in their analysis?
A fair trial and he would be found guilty, because he has admitted what he did in public. There is basically no factual difference between his account and the governments regarding what actions he took. The assertion that a 'fair' trial could end other than in a guilty verdict is silly.
It is perfectly reasonable to say that you don't believe he should be charged because [reasons]. But it is not obvious that allowing government workers to give away official secrets without penalty is some sort of "moral" objective. How is a law banning espionage by government employees inherently immoral? It seems an impossibly high hurdle to categorically show the espionage act to be immoral. That remains true even if you don't believe it should be applied in some cases.
I've heard a lot of people call for a pardon, for example. That seems a more reasonable basis of moral argument.
Anyway on a random jury only 2 or 3 people are going to want him hanged.
It only requires a very simple analysis to understand that the way it is now only critical security holes that were the manufacturer's fault are guaranteed to get a firmware update, and other security holes are ignored by many manufacturers.
However, that in no way contradicts my point. They have to be able to update firmware. Not all bugs and problems are equal. I mean think about it, they'd have to at least try to fix the worst bugs before shipping the units in your universe! The one I live in, shit shows up buggy, and every new router will have a critical security update the first year it is being sold. Why aren't there expensive recalls? Because consumers can update the device.
I recommend "osmtracker" https://f-droid.org/repository...
I use both in the field, but osmtracker has a lot more features. MyTracks is still useful for caching and displaying the google satellite view, but osmtracker does a better job managing waypoints IMO so I record the tracks with that one. Also, while MyTracks is open source, most users are using the official google one and so if you improve osmtracker more people will benefit.
If you don't know enough about the subject to engage on it, then just asking general questions that are disbelieving but ignorant is not really useful. It doesn't convince there is utility in attempting to get into the details with you.
You failed to understand my comment, and just sortof waved your hands.
The company making the router can make what you do in the driver to tell the radio firmware how much gain to use into a NOOP. You'll still recompile your driver and try to do it, but the output gain simply won't change.
There is absolutely no reason at all that your OS would see any difference at all.
And no it isn't "all or nothing." You can flash the OS already, but the only reason that the OS driver can tell the radio to do x is because the radio listens and obeys. It doesn't have to. A brick would be the nonsense people speculate where the OS would get locked down. Then it would be a brick because security updates are a thing. The radio gain doesn't need to be adjustable.
One of the reasons it sounds all-or-nothing to the end user is that the whole OS is inaccurately called "firmware," apparently because they didn't put a keyboard port on the case? But there is actually real firmware that controls the radio. That can be altered to ignore the setting from the OS. There is absolutely no reason you would need to alter the OS or lock it down to achieve that.
Goodness, "everywhere?" No. I'll leave it up to you to find the context, but I can promise you the discussion of laws and rights is never in the context of "everywhere," at least not anywhere on Earth.
If it is a generic router with a fly-by-night brand that was slapped onto an unaltered OEM whitebox, OK, I'll believe your story.
But anything from a name brand they're going to want to be able to do a firmware update because otherwise they'd have to exchange or replace every unit sold in a giant recall if there turns out to be a security bug. Huge hit compared to issuing a firmware update and it being up to the consumer to install it.
I might still be more than half right after all. ;)
Precisely. I challenge anyone here to describe the difference between a "cult" and a "religion".
I'll be reading War and Peace while I wait...
The problem isn't in any difficulty coming up with an answer. The problem in fact is somewhat opposite; almost everybody will find an answer, and they'll all be different!
Even the real religions don't want to agree. Some Christian factions refuse to agree that it is a "religion." That is why "creed" is protected, even though legally it just means "religions that don't agree to be called religions, or other similar things that people don't want to call that."