You had me at cheese
Type your cheese here -- advanced dairy produce and hotcakes are allowed
706 posts • joined 18 Oct 2013
Type your cheese here -- advanced dairy produce and hotcakes are allowed
No Betty, the red zone is for immediate loading and unloading of passengers only. There is no stopping in a white zone.
This is the problem with using extortion as a business model. Eventually it comes full circle to bite you in the arse.
Yes, that was Microsoft's (and Apple's) main design goal, and as we all now know they were wrong, both in principle and in practice, because not only does such obfuscation wrongly assume that the system will never break and thus never require user intervention, but more generally as a matter of principle you cannot account for every possible outcome, and therefore you've just pretty much guaranteed unserviceable breakage.
The same principle applies to basically all consumer goods. The idea is that you should not have to be an engineer merely to use products built by engineers. While that may be a laudable goal, sadly it's not actually attainable, and the result is a throwaway culture of products that never quite work as expected, but still cost a fortune to keep running to any degree.
The alternative is simply good engineering. Use the least complexity with the fewest components to achieve a single clearly defined goal, then make no attempt to hide those components or the process, in order to make it as robust and serviceable as possible. A perfect example of this is The Arch Way (although sadly it should be noted that Arch seems to have abandoned this principle by moving to systemd).
If after all that you still have neither the time, skill nor enthusiasm to service your properly engineered products, you can still delegate to either replace them or have them serviced by someone else, just as we do now with throwaway junk, with the added bonus that servicing should be much cheaper than it is presently, because the engineering is so much simpler.
The only down side to this is that manufacturers will (IMHO falsely) claim that the application of proper engineering principles to their throwaway consumer junk will make it several orders of magnitude more expensive, which is exactly why they degenerated into producing such junk in the first place. I'd argue that this is at best a false economy and at worst an outright lie.
The systemd approach is basically the same as the Windows approach:
I call this the "Slouches Towards Bethlehem" development model.
My biggest gripe with Chrome is Google's tendency to arbitrarily block extensions it doesn't like, typically because they're antithetical to Google's spammy business model.
This is further compounded by Google then prohibiting the installation of extensions from outside its concentration camp, essentially banning you from doing anything at all without der Führer's approval.
Sorry, but some glorified spammer doesn't get to dictate how I choose to interact with the Web.
Mozilla has severely annoyed me in the past (endless breakage and missing features between releases, ridiculous version bumps, stripping the UI to the point where it's useless, etc.), but nothing ever came close to Google's brazenly totalitarian tactics (with one possible exception).
Ultimately I don't really like either company or their respective browsers, but Firefox is marginally the lesser of two evils (for now), and generally more full-featured and compatible than the more obscure alternatives.
Frankly, I really wish that something better would come along, so I can finally stop channel-hopping between them, in an endless game of dodge-the-bullet. When the hell is someone going to make a browser designed to do what the users actually want, as opposed to what the autocratic developers think they ought to want?
You assume that the certified sandwich engineers who brought us this monolithic garbage won't end up eventually making everything a dependency, intentionally or otherwise, which given the way things are going seems increasingly likely.
I believe the "faster boot" bullshit was officially dropped by the Poettering cabal's propaganda division, once they discovered that this claim wasn't supportable with any actual evidence.
From the many conversations I've read on the subject, as far as I can tell, the sole reason for Systemd is that Poettering absolutely detests the fact that other distros are not Red Hat, refuse to adopt Red Hat's initscripts and various other distro glue, and therefore are a problem ... to Red Hat. But not to anyone else. Anywhere. Ever.
Obviously the solution to this non-problem is to mutate every distro into the bastard son of Red Hat, by "unifying" the init, and subsequently in the long term all distros, into a single
Master Race distro, which for the sake of argument we'll just call "Red Hat".
This will then be followed by an intensive propaganda campaign in which choice is stigmatised as somehow being a bad thing, along with the perverted notions that war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength.
Then the book-burning ceremony begins, followed by tea and biscuits.
Quoting Poettering from that LWN article:
what we gain [by pissing all over POSIX] is a smaller chance to create bugsAnd how's that working out for you, Lenny?
On the other hand, the utterly delusional Poettering refuses to even accept bug reports, so I bet he genuinely believes it's working out great.
Even that isn't necessary to avoid problems like these. Heck, even being able to recite the Unix Philosophy like a Tibetan monk isn't necessary. You don't even need to be a programmer of any sort. All you need is the simple common sense to know that if the key doesn't fit the lock then you don't default to opening the fucking door anyway, then blame the guy with the key instead of the incompetent locksmith.
So how many homosexuals do you get knocking on your door trying to convert you, honey?
There's more than a subtle difference between "being pestered" and "they exist" that insecure bigots seem unable to grasp.
The whole "gays are pushing themselves on me" mentality sounds like latent homosexual wishful thinking.
Actually it's just code for "your very existence offends me", to which I'd reply; "ditto, but at least I'm not an insecure bigot, who's so weak-willed that he feels it necessary to shield himself from reality, just to stop himself becoming the object of his own bigotry".
On the other hand, the sort of cabbage-IQ people who are bigots probably couldn't understand that reply anyway, so I'd be wasting my breath.
Personally, my orientation is "trisexual": I keep trying to have sex.
...of the imminent threat to UK national security posed by naval vessels from, erm, which country again?
Maybe it's those damned "Commies" in Russia? You know, that country ruled by a hard-line Conservative who probably has more in common with Trump than Stalin, which is basically under siege by American military bases, and has waged war on the UK or any western nation a grand total of ... never.
Or maybe it's China, the world's most capitalistic "Commie" state, which basically supplies the entire planet with most of its goods, and again has waged war on the UK or any western nation a total of zero times.
Maybe it's those genocidal Israelis. Oh wait, aren't we supposed to be their
sycophants "allies", or something?
I know, it's them damned Jihadi mooselims in [insert name of this week's threat to
oil prices "national security"]. Hmm, does Al-Qaeda/ISIS have it's own navy now?
Got it. It's that nutter Kim Jong-un and his vast army of North Korean zombies ... piloting subs with such a limited range that apparently they can't even make it all the way around their own coastline. Damn.
Are we planning on invading Argentina again, to defend
yet more oil reserves one of the last bastions of British colonialism?
Answers on a postcard, addressed to the grieving families of those who died under the UK's brutal "austerity" measures, while we wasted £45.6 billion per annum on "defence" against imaginary bogeymen.
And most importantly totalitarian, with complete impunity, because of some ridiculous protocol that allows anything "international" in designation to violate human, civil and workers' rights.
Hopefully the ECHR will put an end to that travesty, and with it all future tin-pot Euro-dictators like "King" Battistelli.
No, seriously. Enough!
Yes, I understand that bigotry starts with the prevailing culture of "isms", that are most prominently disseminated by various entertainment mediums and their associated advertising, but on the other hand if you're the sort of person who actually needs some fucking regulator to tell you not to take the aforementioned fiction literally, then you seriously need to be nominated for the next round of Darwin Awards, because your DNA is dragging the rest of us down.
Personally I like Ye Olde Oak tinned ham. Yuuuge chunks. The best kind of chunks.
Mostly water, allegedly.
Damned tasty water, though.
On the other hand, I'm reliably informed that 'Murcan "meat" (along with pretty much everything else that passes for "food" in America) is mostly high fructose corn syrup, made from genetically mutated corn that's grown in a Petri dish in a secret underground lab somewhere in Minnesota, so frankly I think we got the better deal.
More precisely, markets need losers, specifically in order for there to be winners.
That is the entire foundation of capitalism.
The Mattapan ghetto is, yes.
Yes, some nutter spewing religious/political rhetoric over the airways is a problem, especially if he's interfering with the emergency services (although there's no indication that either of those things were happening in this instance, I accept that rules must be enforced for everyone, for the sake of the few serious offenders).
However, in the grand scheme of things, a guy spouting "hallelujah" without permission in some muddy backwater, does not exactly constitute a travesty of justice on the scale of, oh say, violating an entire nation's privacy by allowing their private information to be sold to the highest bidder. For example.
I was about to say that the FCC seems to have its priorities backwards, but then I remembered that it too has been sold to the highest bidder. Pretty much just like everything else in the Land of the Fee®.
We should base a new epoch on copyright date for Mickey Mouse.
That's pretty much guaranteed to never expire.
I think the purpose of this case is (or at least should be) to demonstrate how ridiculous the entire premise of copyright really is.
It's bad enough that those who claim "exclusive rights" to that which is clearly not exclusively of their making (i.e. is derivative to any degree, which would be all so-called "creative works" throughout history) have been granted this artificial privilege of a state-protected monopoly on their not-really-exclusive "creations", but for them to then claim the "exclusive rights" to something created by a monkey, just because the monkey used their camera, is beyond ridiculous.
Yes, and a weevil once scuttled out of a bag of flour in my kitchen, making a nice pattern in its wake. I therefore claim the "exclusive rights" to that pattern, because ... my kitchen.
I agree, but sadly the intellectual monopolists do not, and it's their opinion that determines how they choose to deliver their content, like it or not.
On the one hand I despise DRM and every other measure that treats consumers like criminals. I also believe that all standards must be open, and more importantly free (as in academic freedom), not something that perverts supposedly "sold" goods into an eternal rental scheme, where your supposedly "purchased" goods magically disappear at the whim of the vendor.
But on the other hand I reluctantly accept that this is the only model that intellectual monopolists will ever use to sell their wares, and if we actually want their "nice things" then we are forced to obtain them on their terms. This either means having a hundred competing and incompatible proprietary standards for DRM-protected content delivery, which only work on certain platforms, or having a single standard built right in to open source tools that can run on any platform.
In short, this is the lesser of two evils.
Yes, but he's a yuuuuge orange haired fuck witted cuntbubble. The best sort of orange haired fuck witted cuntbubble.
Translation: "We fucked up and don't want to embarrass ourselves."
Oh, plus it's a financial institution, and can therefore play the "security" card as a bogus explanation for everything, just like the government does every time it breaks the law.
Talk about the blind leading the blind!
McCarthyism at its most hysterical
Actually, as a dedicated Linux user I can say in all seriousness that I'd probably vote for Windows before Systemd (which, let's face it, actually qualifies as an operating system at this point, albeit undoubtedly the worst operating system of all time).
I'm less interested in hating it than simply getting rid of it, as a very pragmatic matter of necessity, not personal bias. It's a serious liability, as has just been clearly demonstrated, yet again, not merely because it has "a bug", but because this level of exposure should never be allowed anywhere near an init system, and certainly nowhere near something running at PID 1. That's sheer lunacy, a fundamental design flaw that cannot simply be "patched".
It's beyond time that the blinkered Poettering cabal faced the reality that Systemd is an overreaching abomination, created for highly dubious reasons, that is doomed by virtue of its own convoluted design to cause more problems, and of a far more serious nature, than it purports to solve.
Unlike the Poettering cabal, the Unix philosophy is not a fanboi club vying for popularity, it's the advocacy of solid engineering principles in the realm of software, principles that the aforementioned fanbois have completely abandoned. This incident should serve as a warning to them that they need to grow up and start thinking more like engineers, and less like children.
My lack of outrage at something that has zero impact on my life (or anyone else's life, for that matter, beyond a handful of companies I have no interest in) is not somehow equivocal to an undying devotion to the company that supposedly harmed them. Quite the opposite, in fact, I find fanboyism a rather odd affliction. I fail to understand why anyone would have any interest in the success or failure of somebody else's business.
Equally, I find it very odd that Google should be fined vast sums for something that is, it seems to me, quite trivial, especially when there are far greater corporate crimes that cause significantly more harm to more people (or indeed something that could genuinely be characterised as harm of any sort, at least of the sort that actually matters).
As with any other product or service, if I have an actual need for it then I'll go looking for it. Having them shoved in my face in an unsolicited manner is something I'd describe as abuse, specifically spam. The fact that Google apparently failed to spam me with third party services I have no interest in is something I actually consider a benefit.
Moreover, I really don't see how it can be legally incumbent upon Google, or any other company, to spend money promoting competitors' services. That's just bizarre, frankly.
But anyway, I'm pretty sure the whole point of competition law is to protect consumers, and, like I said, I'm struggling to see how I or any other consumer has genuinely been harmed by Google's billion-euro crime.
Apparently I've just been brutally violated by some evil corporation, but never even noticed.
Nope, all my bits are still present and correct.
So I googled for "how has google harmed me today", but just got a bunch of news stories all saying basically the same thing, that Google is evil and must be crucified.
But, for the life of me, I still can't figures out exactly how I've been harmed.
Whatever it was, it must've been pretty bad to warrant beeelions in fines, Shirley.
The most prominent examples of which include our own respective governments.
As far as I'm concerned, our "five eye" totalitarian rulers can go and jA0EDQMCeXkH6U63OH7e0kgBTAQqbLCijG9IqlKUP1VRu2C4ivk3nDBe+OtRfJIBLWnfBxZtcj2cLkkNHaHY9A646uMF/MT3DKZbGt/FdZokzxDeEoi09Zs=!
I see Trump has been watching The Godfather again.
It'll never happen, because no company is going to sacrifice the world's biggest market in pursuit of some ideological cause.
The best we can hope for is that US tech firms reluctantly capitulate to this new totalitarian regime, then lose all their customers due to unpopular government-mandated privacy violations, forcing the government to choose between Draconian "national security" policies or a healthy economy.
In practice I suspect that, sadly, those companies won't actually lose many customers, most of whom will be completely oblivious to the aforementioned government-mandated privacy violations, or worse will be too apathetic to care.
An excellent way to drive all communications activity offshore and/or underground, beyond the jurisdiction of the five (or any) eyes.
What then, genius?
Is the supposedly "free world" destined to become just another North Korea: fenced in, watched and herded like a flock of sheep, all in the name of supposedly "protecting our Freedumb®", because I really don't see how else our totalitarian rulers could prevent the extrajurisdictional circumvention of their cunning plan?
Well I'd expect that, at the very least, the aforementioned security researchers would study it, since that is their sole purpose.
But yes, the general availability of information does not automatically make us informed, it's merely an opportunity to become informed.
Unfortunately, neither proprietary software nor services afford us that opportunity at all, either in practice or even in principle, so they are untrustworthy by design. This is only compounded by a political environment where we may assume, as a matter of near certainty, that the software or service in question is bound to be compromised by a hostile government.
With that kind of certainty, security researchers are more likely to actually go looking for security beaches, especially when it's suspected they've been deliberately injected, but of course this is only possible if the exact corresponding (or indeed any) sources are available, or at least something that can be packet sniffed and/or reverse engineered, and sadly that isn't really possible with a remote service.
After what we all now know, as a matter of documented fact, about how the US intelligence agencies operate, clearly the idea that anything pertaining to security that comes from the US is inherently untrustworthy, is certainly not "nonsense", and any supposed security researcher who casually dismisses this proven conflict of interests must be gravely afflicted by bias.
On the other hand, open source entirely mitigates such concerns, since any attempt to compromise its security is subject to public scrutiny. It can still happen briefly (e.g. via hacked repos), perhaps even long enough to cause serious damage, but ultimately it will be found out, and sooner rather than later.
But certainly in terms of services based in the US, the only safe assumption one can possibly make is that they are all under the thumb of the US intelligence agencies, and therefore cannot be trusted. I believe that is a very reasonable assumption under the circumstances. Moreover there is absolutely no way to ascertain their trustworthiness, given that said intelligence agencies can not only coerce and compromise them, but also gag them to ensure they are legally prohibited from even revealing this coercion.
Not sure what a "but(sic) management Unit(sic)" is (from the story photo), but the top hit returned by Google News on that search phrase is: "Uber advisor outlines what the company should do next". I can certainly think of a few relevant answers, unlike Google, apparently.
Probably for the same reason that they're a bunch of hypochondriacs with fictional "disorders", because the prevailing loony trend of political correctness encouraged them to be.
I believe that's called totalitarianism (or more euphemistically a Nanny State), and is equally applicable to the non-autonomous forms of vehicles.
Sorry, but no, the majority should not be treated like idiots and/or criminals just because a handful of us are.
Yes, about two feet away!
[Boom, boom (crash)]
Not necessarily. It's far more nuanced than that.
I'm a lifelong Labour Party member and voter, a socialist and therefore an internationalist, radically opposed to nationalism.
And yet I support Scottish independence.
Here's why: For me (and every "YES" supporter I know) Scottish independence is not about nationalism in the usual (far-right) sense, it's not about racism or xenophobia or even money, it's about getting out from under the thumb of Westminster, a clique of Bullingdon Club graduates that only represents the privileged few, and is completely out of touch with the working class majority.
It's worth remembering that the SNP has long since lost its reputation as the "Tartan Tories", ever since the left-wing reforms of the 79 Group (led by Salmond amongst others). In fact, prior to Corbyn's reign at the helm of Labour, the SNP were probably only second to the Greens (and possibly Plaid Cymru) in terms of socialist policy.
As a socialist, I could easily have voted for the SNP in good conscience, but the opportunity to vote for the only truly socialist Labour leader in (my) living memory was too good to pass up.
But I still support independence, not least of which because it might actually be the only chance we (in Scotland) have to rejoin the EU (Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain), securing our civil and human rights, escaping austerity politics, and fully benefiting from the economic advantages of the single market. Most of all, though, it's about a deeply socialist country finally being allowed to operate like one, instead of being perpetually oppressed and overruled by the intractably right-wing values of Westminster.
Even as a staunch socialist radically opposed to nationalism, I just can't see any way for Scotland to realise its socialist ambitions as part of this toxic union, so clearly the only way forward is independence.
Usually only when there's a vote on MP's wages.
Sort of. In fact the gift is "An invitation to participate in the breathtaking experience of mooring your yacht using Van den Hul's 120 quid per millimetre oxygen free copper gold plated 5mm solid core thunderbolt yacht mooring cables at a time-limited substantial discount, during a presentation to be held at Fordwich Exhibition and Conference Centre (a.k.a. The George and Dragon Pub)".
Actually you need an oxygen free copper gold plated 5mm solid core thunderbolt cable to ensure your yacht is properly moored with the correct attenuation and frequency response, according to the 120 quid per millimetre Van den Hul yacht mooring cable literature that came with my free promotional gift.
Consider the irony of demanding evidence of something that's kept secret by design.
However, it seems you're in luck, as this is sadly a common problem:
You misunderstand. I'm not defending abuse, I'm merely noting that it's a fact, whether we like it or not, then considering what sort of environment is more conducive to dealing with it: the secretive world of proprietary software, or the alternative where everything is laid bare for all the world to see.
Asking a forum regular on El Reg how he could possibly know about what happens at software companies is a bit obtuse, isn't it, given that probably 99% of the readership works in tech?
I assume you're part of the 1% that doesn't, given that apparently you've never heard of an NDA, or the prevailing tendency to tolerate abuse in the name of promotion prospects, or the apathetic resignation to the fact that things are the same no matter which company you work for these days (not just in tech), amongst many other factors that suppress formal complaints.
But yes, every now and then some cubicle monkey breaks out of his cage and screeches in public, destroying any prospect he has of ever working again in the process. But hey, at least he got his day in court, and
his lawyer struck pay dirt, right?
See also: David v. Goliath. Not a court case, exactly, but more an allegory to the modern corporacratic world of business, and how the humble
slave's employee's fantasy of being David is just that, a fantasy.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017