esarbe

20 ms·

241.
by esarbe 3y ago
I've used this opportunity to look at some recent init files. Here's one of the first I stumbled upon. https://github.com/NagiosEnterprises/nagioscore/blob/master/... It's 288 lines long;
242.
by esarbe 3y ago
For me the hard part comes when you don't want these services run all the time, but only when needed. How'd you do that?
243.
by esarbe 3y ago
No, I didn't post an entire Wikipedia article; I posted a link to an entire Wikipedia article. But anyhow; I still don't see why your distinction between the formulations of > If you don't have the capacity to produce func
244.
by esarbe 3y ago
Okay. Would you mind explaining how you set up dependencies between the various services if you don't use the "LSB dependency nonsense"? What does Slackware use for that?
245.
by esarbe 3y ago
Thanks for the clarification. But I still don't get it; have you ever _seen_ a complete init script? These things are hundreds of lines long if you want to account for stuff like PID management and restart capability and isolation. And
246.
by esarbe 3y ago
Manually writing bash scripts to juggle cgroups is not "the init system supporting it". With systemd, this comes out of the box.
247.
by esarbe 3y ago
How are Systemd's unit files any worse than unconstrained init scripts written in a Turing complete language with even basic stuff - like PID files - managed manually?
248.
by esarbe 3y ago
With Systemd you have a configuration language and a defined surface. With OpenRC you have unconstained init scrips written in a Turing-complete language. How exactly is Systemd more complex?
249.
by esarbe 3y ago
You might want to have a look here for the complete definition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex I again ask; does it change anything?
250.
by esarbe 3y ago
> No one has to accept it, that’s what’s what. Sure; language is an agreement. No one can force you to communicate clearly and if it is your desire, you can go all day long babbling nonsensical syllables. No one can stop you; do as your
251.
by esarbe 3y ago
> sex and gender were always seen as one in the same and interchangeable Various cultures always have had different norms and rules for the sexes. What might appear manly manly in one culture might seem effeminate in another culture. Jus
252.
by esarbe 3y ago
> You may well say so, but it is a novel use of an existing word, So what? The way we use words changes all the time. We discovered that we want to differentiate between the innate sexual reproductive capabilities and their expression in
253.
by esarbe 3y ago
Thanks for clarifying!
254.
by esarbe 3y ago
It seems that poverty is much more of a factor than good parenting. In rich countries, most of the kids "make it out", not just the ones with good parenting.
255.
by esarbe 3y ago
You confuse the concepts of "sex" and "gender". Sex is defined by the gametes one produces. Female for few large gametes, male for many small gametes. If you don't have the capacity to produce functional gametes, yo
256.
by esarbe 3y ago
How about means-providing instead? Poverty is not a choice but dictated by economic circumstances. If you want to "fix" humanity, it's not by taking away a universal right from humans, but by making sure that their needs are
257.
by esarbe 3y ago
That these points are somehow relevant for "unit cohesion" is entirely yours to demonstrate. But after these ad hominem attacks I'm not actually in a mood to discuss this any further with you. If you cannot make a cogent argu
258.
by esarbe 3y ago
Most of the things you list there are not necessarily tied to WFH but to failures implementing it. Other I don't know where you get them from, like "Unending distractions"; that's specifically one thing I love about WFH,
259.
by esarbe 3y ago
I'm really wondering what kind of downsides you see to WFH; to me, there are only upsides: - no commute - being at home with the people you love and miss - not getting distracted by office drama - simplified work/life integration
260.
by esarbe 3y ago
If you are interested in the subject, I suggest you start with Wikipedia: > Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. https://en.wikipedia.org&#x
261.
by esarbe 3y ago
These complains are brought up by people that never actually worked with Stallman and are ridiculous nonsense. Why are you supporting and repeating such vile accusations that have repeatedly been debunked by people that actually worked with
262.
by esarbe 3y ago
Exactly. This claims are unfounded rumors spread by people that don't like RMS and want to see him gone. Not because there's actually any objectionable behavior from his side. Yes, I get it - he's weird. So what?!
263.
by esarbe 3y ago
> but because he directly insults and threatens other individuals when he doesn't get his way. Why do you spread this nonsensical rumors? The link you posted doesn't even reference whatever behavior your vilely imply - instead
264.
by esarbe 3y ago
That's what the FSF does. It's target audience are human being. The organizations composition reflects this; all of the FSF coworkers are human beings.
265.
by esarbe 3y ago
Sorry about the late edit. Mea culpa. The Slave reference is not as inappropriate as you might think. The vast majority of people living in our modern capitalist systems are no more free to chose their employer than a a Slave in ancient soc
266.
by esarbe 3y ago
https://whoisylvia.medium.com/richard-stallman-has-been-vili...
267.
by esarbe 3y ago
So, a slave would phrase that "How is the food and shelter I receive from my master not the fruit of my labor?" Capitalism is a system where the people doing the work are not the ones deciding over the fruits of their labor. This
268.
by esarbe 3y ago
If you knew RMS you'd know that he's a very kind human being. Your words - in my opinion - just expose that you don't know the man at all.
269.
by esarbe 3y ago
You confuse the messenger with the message. Accept that you'll never find the perfect messenger. There's always someone more alienated, someone more disfavored and someone more ignored, someone even less privileged. You can keep f
270.
by esarbe 3y ago
You seem to defend something you don't know the definition and meaning of. You can have free markets and private property without capitalism. You can have capitalism without "free" markets or private property. Capitalism simp

More ›