effie

23 ms·

211.
by effie 4y ago
Security is a spectrum, and too much security means less freedom and shitty life experience. I don't have a problem with a new tool such as systemd-run. I do have a problem with breaking well established workflows in the name of securi
212.
by effie 4y ago
Why is systemd developers preventing sysadmins/developers from something they want to do on their own/assigned machines a "good default"? Why is their systemd-run idea valid and decades of established unix practice is no
213.
by effie 4y ago
What kind of user services and "portable services" are you managing? I have trouble imagining what that means. User pulseaudio daemon on your laptop/desktop? Or some server services for many clients?
214.
by effie 4y ago
> Without systemd, bootstrapping a complicated desktop environment would be a hot mess What is a complicated desktop environment? Why should I run it? I want to run simple desktop environment, like Xfce. I run startx in tty, and get unpr
215.
by effie 4y ago
> Systemd is really well designed and makes Linux workstation use predictable and more secure across distros in numerous ways. You can have any service you want now, even xorg/ wayland, as an unprivileged user. It basically removes
216.
by effie 4y ago
> Production systems should never be changed or administered in place, only replaced. Servers should be immutable appliances. They do not need a package manager, or systemd, or ssh, or even a shell. Such things are developer tools and o
217.
by effie 4y ago
> the bare minimum that typical end users need to know to stop systemd from breaking use cases that have worked for years? That is bound to be a losing strategy. Systemd development (of breaking changes) is not stopping anytime soon. The
218.
by effie 4y ago
systemd is usually a root process, regular user does not control it. Whether user being logged off means no such user processes should run is a policy question that has different answer on different systems and depends on the user as well.
219.
by effie 4y ago
> I personally decided Linux was a lost cause and definitely switched to macOS. That is an strange course of action. So because you saw some low quality discussion on the internet, you switched from free software you can influence to com
220.
by effie 4y ago
> distro maintainers didn't look up what it did Even then, the default broke decades of standard behaviour so systemd failed users here. > long-running processes are services. Not all of them. A data processing/computation j
221.
by effie 4y ago
What is there to debug in cron??? It periodically runs processes, it is simple and solid as rock.
222.
by effie 4y ago
> it is definitely our intention to gently push the distributions in the same direction so that they stop supporting deviating solutions ... -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives&#
223.
by effie 4y ago
I recall part of the problem was that in some cases, Debian packagers/developers did not know how to integrate systemd with sysvinit properly, there were weird problematic constructions such as sysvinit scripts calling systemctl or vic
224.
by effie 4y ago
Why are we complaining? You're right that systemd provides useful things that sysvinit was not strong about. That is not enough to make systemd as distributed a good init system. It is a bloated C codebase with no definition of goa
225.
by effie 4y ago
But debian has chosen to adopt systemd, so at least some substantial part of Debian developers preferred going with it to keeping the status quo with sysvinit. Maybe they were badly influence by Redhat/Poettering, but it was their call
226.
by effie 4y ago
Microsoft pushes ads, surveillance software and broken updates on most Windows users. That they are buying influence in Linux and throwing some money at it does not absolve them. Working for bad behaved corporation isn't laudable unles
227.
by effie 4y ago
Why? That is a very good question! Libc and linux kernel are good solutions to well defined problems: a standard C library, and a kernel. They pretty much do what is expected, sometimes they do more, but not by much. Systemd? It is not a go
228.
by effie 4y ago
In some market segments this has already happenned - laptops, desktops, fast servers. SSD prices came down substantially. They are predicted to go down further, but I don't think they will surpass HDDs at gigabytes/dollar. Flash m
229.
Switching from SAS/SATA to NVMe for heavy traffic websites/web services?
1 points by effie 4y ago|1 comments
230.
by effie 4y ago
No, it's the "internet is the platform for sharing" argument. Copying, sharing work of others is not, in essence, stealing that work. It is sharing that work, maybe illegaly, but then it is illegal sharing, not stealing.
231.
by effie 4y ago
> If it's not possible to make a living at a vocation, all you will get is amateur participants. Any examples? Do you believe the widespread availability of stuff on the internet makes it not possible to make a living writing softwa
232.
by effie 4y ago
> But pretending that IP theft doesn't matter is naive I agree with you in the sense that distributing stuff on the Internet for free may cause lower revenue of the author than there would be without that. But the author and distr
233.
by effie 4y ago
In your line of argumentation, if we enforced the ban on copying books, songs, movies perfectly, we would get much more of them. Is this what we want though? We are flooded with bad quality books, songs, movies, and it is hard to find somet
234.
by effie 4y ago
Oh, the moral card. Morals are highly context-dependent and vary across the population and social classes. There is no consensus on the idea "reading books without paying for them is immoral". It may be - if the person reads all b
235.
by effie 4y ago
> Rather than simply admitting that there is something at least a little immoral about benefiting from someone else's work without paying for that work You've got it backwards. The onus is on you to provide a convincing argumen
236.
by effie 4y ago
The law protects against somebody else making money. It is not very effective in making readers pay the author. > You deny his right to get paid for his work. I think he (and me) is saying there is no such right in general. There is only
237.
by effie 4y ago
Not at all. The point is sound - the reader is not responsible for paying the author, not even if the reader read author's work. The buyer is responsible for paying the author. If the author can't hack it and get buyers(often the
238.
by effie 4y ago
Let's get real. Even in the era of Internet and easy copying, zillions of books are being made and sold for money, profitably. The number of books being printed has no end. This situation is harmful to society, because good quality boo
239.
by effie 4y ago
Also, just because people will take it for free doesn’t mean they would have paid for it.
240.
by effie 4y ago
> Your entire argument boils down to the idea that musicians shouldn't own distribution rights to their work and that sass software licenses should be free. Not really. It's about copying not being the same, in benefits and dra

More ›