Threads for jubalfh

  1. 2

    And no one asked the person on this picture to this day, right? I think she wouldn’t have anything against that her photo is being used for scientific purposes, especially when it actually made the whole image processing domain better. I’ve once seen the paper or article which explained that photo wasn’t randomly chosen and has some attributes which were valuable for testing and evaluation in various degrees. Same for that parrot being used in Wikipedia articles, for example explaining graphic modes in many articles. Well… has anyone asked the parrot about its consent, too? Maybe we should do a document about “Losing Ara”? :)

    Also, a note for people who claim they see that image for the first time - you probably didn’t got into ImageMagick docs, or any other tutorials on computer vision, raster processing, video processing, demoscene effects, etc. And… that’s fine, I’m completely OK with this. But, there are many things which are here and there around for decades in specific domains or industries which aren’t known to global audience. And, when someone out of the interest group discovers this, thinks that particular thing is archaic or, even better, offends someone while it was just a tool, reference or helpful resource.

    1. 3

      The model is fine with the image

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lena_Fors%C3%A9n

      1. 2

        do watch the movie. you don’t need a facebook account for that.

        1. 2

          Wait, does she not change her stance in today’s video? I’d assumed… This whole thread is a case study in why nobody should make video-only websites. :)

          1. 1

            The information above is apparently outdated.

          2. 1

            We don’t have a problem of parrots leaving tech because of feeling objectified, and you know there are very different standards of consent for people and animals.

          1. 1

            not enough women in tech

            lets blame and “ban” an old picture of a girl in a playboy magazine that got famous in image compression

            success.jpg

            1. 1

              can’t read, won’t watch, won’t do research

              will complain about any attempt at decreasing objectification of women

              am fighting censorship

            1. 1

              oh, I see that someone partially re-invented vcsh again :-)

              1. 2

                Interactive shell: zsh with slightly customised configuration and a very simple theme; this works on Linux, in WSL and on OSX.

                Non-interactive shell for scripts: bash; available on all systems I target my scripts at, with richer syntax requiring less contortions than pure POSIX shell.

                1. 2

                  …is this being referred to as “off topic” because people are being political or just because the tag is wrong? Tags can change, right? An article about a system widely used for software hosting is just as topical as most posts in this community.

                  1. 4

                    It’s borderline.

                    Reasons for marking it as off-topic: it’s a second hand source with clickbait titling, it’s internal business practices at one company, it really isn’t specific to “computing”.

                    Reasons for it being regarded as on-topic: it’s “consumer info” regarding a service many here might be familiar with, the debate regarding tech worker activism is interesting to many.

                    Edited I initially flagged it off-topic but removed my flag.

                    1. 3

                      And it’s an article on the register, which has many speculative/charged words to say about the actual change, which is documented in this merge request: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/commit/b5a35716deb4f63299a23a40510475f5503c11c4

                      1. 1

                        Exactly. Submissions from El Reg (as well as venues like TechCrunch) start with an initial negative on-topic score from me :)

                    2. 1

                      Almost certainly the former. This is an article about a business practice by a software company - I think definitely within lobsters’ purview - and I think it’s being downvoted by people who expect the discussion about it to be contentious. Which it probably would be, because the thread about this article on hn is 900+ comments long last I checked and made me personally mad. :)

                      1. 2

                        I’m in the camp that thinks we need to have very serious talks about ethics in software engineering, but that’s not really what lobste.rs wants to be about and in this case is even just going to be a discussion about Gitlab in particular. So I’m downvoting it for exactly the reason you said. Hellthread comments are welcome on the HN thread.

                        1. -1

                          “ethics can certainly be important but i don’t want to see it discussed here because it may disturb me” is both an expression of extreme privilege and a very short-sighted stance.

                          1. 4

                            Every time I convince myself that inviting more political discussion on Lobste.rs is a good idea - “it will be fine! Everyone will be civil and there’ll be a frank exchange of views, and we’ll move forward as a group!” - a comment such as yours reminds me there will always be people who twist other’s words and argue in bad faith.

                            Edit added words

                            1. 1

                              (…) I think it’s being downvoted by people who expect the discussion about it to be contentious. (…)

                              I’m in the camp that thinks we need to have very serious talks about ethics in software engineering, but that’s not really what lobste.rs wants to be about and in this case is even just going to be a discussion about Gitlab in particular. So I’m downvoting it for exactly the reason you said.

                              1. 2

                                Here’s the quote from @gthm again, with my emphasis this time

                                I’m in the camp that thinks we need to have very serious talks about ethics in software engineering, but that’s not really what lobste.rs wants to be about […]

                                This is what you took from that sentence

                                “ethics can certainly be important but i don’t want to see it discussed here because it may disturb me”

                                It’s clear from @gthm’s words that they’d like to discuss these questions, but they are currently considered off-topic on Lobste.rs. So instead of passive-aggressively attacking them, you should raise this issue with the community, like here:

                                https://lobste.rs/s/s1gzie/adding_politics_related_tag

                            2. 3

                              As @gerikson has already said, what I meant to say was that I think ethics are worthy of discussion, but as I interpret the mood on this site they’re off topic. I’m sorry I didn’t say that precisely enough.

                      1. -8

                        Flagged as “off topic” because the post is political 😉

                        1. 26

                          I downvoted, but I wanted to leave an explanation: I feel like comments like this degrade the community by bringing disagreements into multiple threads and outside of the meta threads meant to contain it. This comment isn’t targeted at a specific user (maybe borec, if anyone), doesn’t explain why the post is political, and seems designed to score a cheap dig at the community. I’d prefer Lobsters to remain a place where we disagree politely and with reasoning behind our points, in contrast to low effort places like the orange or proggit.

                          1. -2

                            Twas only a joke

                            1. 3

                              RMS said the same about the abort documentation.

                              These days, the safest course is not to try and be humorous, lest somebody sic a mob on you.

                              1. 0

                                These days if you say you’re English, you’ll get arrested and you’ll be thrown in jail.

                                (can we have less of the persecution complex and perhaps more of the introspection, these days?)

                                1. 0

                                  These days people mark as “incorrect” or “troll”, or “off-topic” everything they don’t understand.

                        1. 1

                          Filter out the politics, and he makes a few decent points. I felt this one hit awfully close-to-home:

                          This cabal is actively aided and abetted by the one-percent Silicon Valley Illuminati who are murderously intent on pulling up the ladder behind them so that the existing tech (and financial) structure in NorCal is etched forever in stone. Both of these groups have identified native-born American coders and tech experts as the only thing keeping them from turning tech into a plantation system where the San Jose crowd pursues ever-more-specific meanings of “diversity”, “race”, and “problematic” while the actual work of coding, designing, developing, and manufacturing is done overseas by lowest-bidder sweatshops where the concerns of the commissars are taken with precisely the seriousness they deserve — which is to say none.

                          These people secretly believe that all the major necessary technological innovation has already been achieved, which is why they are so intent on crippling any further possible achievement with insane systems like Agile and pair-programming and Russian-doll containerization. Their current fetishes, NoSQL databases and headless content, are directly reflective of their moral, spiritual, and intellectual poverty.

                          1. 4

                            This is an outright racist take of zero technical value, fellow human. What do you find so enticing in this world salad?

                            1. 1

                              Exactly what I quoted. We have assholes like Tim Cook go on about the spirit of MLK and Bobby Kennedy, then send the fabrication off to China where they can put up the suicide nets and poison a bunch of old ladies with hexane–all with total impunity.

                              https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/may/07/chinese-workers-sickness-hexane-apple-iphone

                              If I have to choose between a flesh-and-blood nazi, or a neoliberal bean-counting automaton (i.e. “one-percent Silicon Valley Illuminati”), at this point, I think I’ll take the nazi. If I try not to look too jewish–perhaps even dye my hair blonde–the nazi might not kill me, or just ship me off to mexico. The automaton will grind my bones to make his bread as soon as wages, exchange rates, and regulatory conditions are favorable, and there isn’t much I can do about that.

                              1. 2

                                I’m not gonna pretend the stuff going on at apple/foxconn isn’t awful, but ya gotta divide the evil by the size of the enterprise to get a sense of what’s going on.

                                The suicide nets went up in response to the public outcry over a spate of suicides. I went and did the math at the time and found the suicide rate among Foxconn workers is several times lower than the suicide rate among the Australian population.

                                The hexane thing is just awful. However, I’m unaware of an organisational system that doesn’t have the problem of local management taking risks with employees lives because they’re getting squeezed to produce more. Communism did it; Feudalism did it; Mercantilism did it; Capitalism does it.

                                Humans do this because most of the time, when you apply pressure to produce more, you get more production. Occasionally you get chernobyl, or hexane poisoning, or some other horrid thing - but those are the kind of high-impact low-frequency events that humans are astonishingly bad at estimating.

                                1. 2

                                  Go over there, look at the place, and see that they’re poisoning a hell of a lot more people than just those old ladies–and they do this for a dollar or two more profit on a $1,000 phone.

                                  edit: and it’s probably not fair of me to pick on apple. all of these corporate sociopaths talk the talk of tolerance, social responsibility, and environmental sustainability at home, then go off to china/india/bangladesh/nigeria/etc, cast aside any and all hopes for tolerance, and proceed to vigorously rape the people and the land.

                                2. -3

                                  oh, that would mean that you were a nazi already, you just did not find proper justification until today, and frankly, it’s terrifying that you find the ideology of genocide and white supremacy acceptable to any alternative

                                  1. 2

                                    that is not an honest response. no excuse was made for the nazi. i’m just saying that if the shit hits the fan, i think we’re brewing something in our corporations that is even darker. have you seen what they have already done in china? what they have done in a period of prosperity and relative peace, when they are already ridiculously wealthy?

                                    1. 2

                                      The progressive cause is too important to tolerate this kind of low-effort intellectual dishonesty. Please try to spend a little more time thinking before you post.

                                      1. 1

                                        If I have to choose between a flesh-and-blood nazi, or a neoliberal bean-counting automaton (i.e. “one-percent Silicon Valley Illuminati”), at this point, I think I’ll take the nazi.

                                        I rest my case.

                                        1. 2

                                          I clearly stated a Jason vs Freddy scenario. You dishonestly twisted that into an endorsement and a campaign contribution.

                                          In light of, “If I try not to look too jewish–perhaps even dye my hair blonde–the nazi might not kill me,” my personal preference is obviously none-of-the-above.

                                          1. 0

                                            you still announced your choice (and no, you don’t use lending your support to white supremacists as a rhetorical device)

                                            sure, downvote me for putting a mirror to your face.

                                            1. 1

                                              I haven’t downvoted anyone, and “white supremacist” is libel against my intelligence. USA is living proof that white supremacy is a false doctrine.

                                              Everyone who knows me will freely tell you that I am a Japanese supremacist.

                              1. 5

                                so the author couldn’t stop just at ableism and misogyny, but needed to go for full-blown racism? @cnst, why do you think it’s a good choice to include here?

                                1. 3

                                  I’m a white dude and it makes me strongly question whether I want to contribute to the same projects as him; I’m sure I’d feel even more strongly if I were a woman or non-white. It’s not a good look.

                                1. 14

                                  I don’t think I could delete code that was doing good, even if it was being used to harm.

                                  1. 13

                                    Cars, video cameras, chef knives, toilets (kids put other kids’ heads in them), products containing water in general, products containing electricity that can be used accidentally/offensively, any tool for communication that can carry hate speech, any tool for computation that can execute evil plans (eg IBM doing logistics for Holocaust)… the list goes on and on.

                                    I’m with you. The techs are usually purpose-neutral. That someone bad uses it is rarely a reason to avoid creating it for the good it can do. I say rarely because mass surveillance, land mines, and nukes all made my list of exceptions. They seem to always do more harm than good. Better to not be invented or at least super-regulated.

                                    1. 21

                                      IBM doing logistics for Holocaust

                                      The tech wasn’t the issue and it was never claimed to be. It was IBM structuring its relationship with the Nazis so that it would be undetected. Not sure why you would use that as an example.

                                      1. 2

                                        It was argued at one point that it would be hard for them to pull the logistics off the way they wanted to without support of computers. They loved processes and records. The computers with customized punch cards helped them imprison and execute people more efficiently. Not giving them computers might have reduced harm to their victims or increased problems for the Nazis to some degree.

                                        My examples, though, were a response to the original comment which was tech (“code”) that could be used for evil purposes. Everything in my comment was tech that was used for evil purposes at some point. Also, stuff we’d likely want to keep anyway. That was my point.

                                      2. 5

                                        “Cars, video cameras, chef knives”, etc are broad categories. This is not a case of someone saying “don’t use computers, because some people use them for bad things”, it’s “this specific product provides value to a particular company that is doing business with someone I find reprehensible”.

                                        1. 2

                                          That’s a specific instantiation of the general class of things I just describe. Each thing is something that people have or regularly use to harm others. Sometimes themselves. Yet, we as a society choose to keep them around for the good they do and not internalize evils others use them for.

                                          1. 3

                                            To be more clear, the comparison you make is a specious one – a specific tool being taken down is not at all like banning cars, video cameras, or knives. The things you list are commodities that have more than one use. This is about a particular tool that makes working with one particular other tool easy. Even talking about banning a specific knife or whatever is different, because knives are a more-or-less fungible commodity; this software is not.

                                            1. 1

                                              It’s stopping the sale of Corvettes because someone used one to run down a kid.

                                              1. 1

                                                It’s not, but you people seem determined to not understand that. If you want to make an analogy to cars, maybe it would be like someone pulling their Corvette bodykit off the market because Corvette had a giant contract to supply to [some organization that would be objectionable enough for you].

                                                In any case, like Upton Sinclair said, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it”, so feel free to ignore this & let your cognitive dissonance tell you I’m just a troll.

                                        2. 5

                                          Agreeing with animatronic… IBM sold counting machines (the holorinth?) to Germans under a subsidiary. That’s like selling dells to isis.

                                          1. 5

                                            Nope. Common misconception. Back then, computers were extremely expensive, hard to operate, and low volume. IBM regularly got close to institutions trying to sell them computers. They cut many scheming deals. The guy I originally watched on this stuff had dug up the contract for the sale. It was with the New York part of IBM, not Germany. They also custom made and sold the punch cards that Nazi’s used for their operation. Probably sent people to service the machines, too. Memory getting fuzzy at that point.

                                            Plus, I don’t usually sit at the table with dictators before telling folks they were a random customer. I owned a Dell but never hung with Dell. ;)

                                        3. 6

                                          What’s worse, it’s not inconceivable that in a similar situation some well-meaning sabotage (because, let’s be honest–that’s what this is, sabotage) could result in, say, the loss of data records delaying or outright preventing the timely release of people from the camps.

                                          Techies taking the law into their own hands by committing acts of sabotage of this nature are almost assuredly unable to prevent collateral damage.

                                          1. 11

                                            Techies taking the law into their own hands by committing acts of sabotage of this nature are almost assuredly unable to prevent collateral damage.

                                            It was his code, under his name, how is deleting your own copyrighted code from the internet “taking the law into their own hands”?

                                            1. 15

                                              It wasn’t sabotage in any form, it was protest. They knew full well it would get restored and the license allows it to be used for any purpose.

                                              1. 3
                                                sabotage (ˈsæbəˌtɑːʒ)
                                                n
                                                1. the deliberate destruction, disruption, or damage of equipment, a public service, etc, as by enemy agents, dissatisfied employees, etc
                                                2. any similar action or behaviour
                                                

                                                Sabotage is a form of protest. I’m not even arguing that they’re wrong to be angry–nobody should want kids in camps.

                                                My point is that techies deciding to do actions like this both can’t guarantee the exact impacts of those outcomes and seldom seem to reflect on that point. Everybody cries foul about us making policy with ML/AI…this is not so far afield.

                                                1. 11

                                                  I’d love if we could have this discussion face to face as a group. These kinds of conversations are really really hard online. It’s difficult for everyone not to come across as snarky, pedantic, trite, glib, etc. I struggle with giving others the necessary charity. I do strive to use a tone and form of argument that I would use if I were standing infront of the person. I was in debate, that form of rhetoric is about winning, not about using logic to arrive at the best decisions.

                                                  We both know what sabotage is, and this case, deleting the code was protest and not sabotage. Sabotage would be introducing bugs or special cases to actively hurt ICE. Pasting a definition doesn’t make your point stronger.

                                                  Of course you can’t guarantee impacts, that is a truism, we can’t even guarantee the code we write has the intended outcome. Putting that requirement on someone before they protest is a hugely imbalanced burden that we apply no where else. I would love it if humanity used science and formal methods to fully understand the impact of our designs and decisions, but we still operate in an open-loop where we react to the problems we cause. No technology is neutral, with every advantage also comes with it a disadvantage, a risk, most of them uncatalogued. My perception of arguments along the lines of the one you are making is that techies should stay in their box working on tools. That there is a clean hierarchical delineation between people (that people are things with labels) and they build technology (neutral) and that it is the application of said technology that does bad things. On the spectrum of applicability, a component of Chef is more neutral than a facial detection library.

                                                  Everyone should still have a moral code and realize how the tools they are building could be used. This person was thrust into something they weren’t prepared for, I don’t know how I would react in a similar situation. But the overall impact to ICE was zero and that would be known. This action was purely symbolic act of protest.

                                              2. 1

                                                Doesn’t the US government have additional rights on other people’s intellectual rights (like patents) in certain cases?

                                                1. 2

                                                  Content produced by the US Government is very often public domain.

                                                  During WW1, the US forced patents holders on airplane tech to pool their patents, but patents are intellectual property. State power in the US seldom appropriates private property. Eminent domain is an exception.

                                              3. 5

                                                Yes, this is technically a type of sabotage, and yes it’s the sort of thing that is likely to damage other entities besides the intended target, but I would oppose eatabliahing a norm where removing one’s own code from a public repo is considered punishable in and of itself. It should be considered the responsibility of the clients of open-source code to make local copies of the code they use, whether that’s an entity the code-author likes or dislikes.

                                                1. 3

                                                  There’s no risk of punishment (the licenses state, among other things, “NO WARRANTY”). I understood friendlysock to mean that developers should keep side effects (such as blocking procedures with positive effects, like getting people out of camps, in undesired organizations) in mind when considering such activities.

                                                2. 5

                                                  I agree with the risk of collateral damage, but see below.

                                                  I don’t agree with the term “sabotage” here.

                                                  In corporate context, sabotage would be an employee deleting code and backups so that development halts and the company suffers financial or reputational damage.

                                                  In this case, Vargo developed the software (apparently when working at Chef), and everyone was best buds and agreed for this to be released as Open Source (I’m assuming that’s a variant of the license used, not a form of the GPL).

                                                  Chef proceeded to build their business using software that was out of their direct control, all the while relying on a gentleman’s agreement that Vargo would not impede access to this software.

                                                  This is a supply chain problem, not sabotage. Obviously, Chef and others in their situation needs to hedge against contributors to their software stack not taking umbrage to the actions of Chef’s customers. They can do this by keeping local repo copies in the short term, and keeping other developers on retainers to rewrite the software in case a developer removes their repo.

                                                  Edit another solution if for the company to identify any repo that is critical to them, and then simply purchase the rights to it (as well as the maintenance overhead, of course) from the developer. Market solution! I love them.

                                                  Chef’s business model was to take software written by volunteers for free and package it into a form palatable for corporate customers (and whatever the US term for entities like ICE is), pocketing the proceeds.

                                                  Chef assumes the responsibility for maintaining access to the software. Having to hedge against software developer’s “whims”[1] will of course cut into the profit margin of this business. In the long term, it might make sense for companies like Chef to forego open source licensing entirely and develop their stuff in-house, keeping control of the IP. Or they’ll just have contingency plans such as the one outlined above.

                                                  [1] I hesitate to use “whim” for Vargo’s decision. But other developers might delete their repos “for the lulz”, to actually sabotage a company per the above, have access to their repos disrupted, or simply delete it all and move to a bunker.

                                                  1. 0

                                                    If Chef or any other technology is so key to the core of how ICE works that removing it crippled them, then the protest has proved its point. Imagine applying this cold logic to, say, Japanese internment camps during WWII. (which is not dissimilar to what’s going on now since there are multiple cases of legitimate citizens getting deported as well.)

                                                    Sometimes you’ve gotta throw an wrench in. Let’s hope that there are more.

                                                    1. 0

                                                      Techies taking the law into their own hands by committing acts of sabotage of this nature are almost assuredly unable to prevent collateral damage.

                                                      pardon me?

                                                    2. 2

                                                      I could definitely see myself doing it to protest a company selling it to do something I disagreed with.

                                                    1. 6

                                                      Why is there so much pedophilia apologia in this thread?

                                                      1. 9

                                                        Where are you seeing that? The person spamming the most about it is mempko, who isn’t even decent enough to link to the actual thing they’re crowing about–which is a shame, ’cause the secondary link there would really help their case.

                                                        1. 4

                                                          Where are you seeing that?

                                                          Strange considering you said this.

                                                          Stallman is Stallmaning as per normal

                                                          In other words, stallman making excuses for pedophilia is somehow a ‘stallman just being his cute self’ thing. In other words, you are doing pedophilia apologia of the second order.

                                                          The person spamming the most about it is mempko

                                                          Other people call ‘spamming’ having a conversation.

                                                          who isn’t even decent enough to link to the actual thing they’re crowing about

                                                          I didn’t link to it because I thought a picture would be easier and I didn’t realize he had anchors to those comments.

                                                          1. 4

                                                            As someone is deeply troubled by Epstein, the media lab, and just about everything related to this ugly business, I’d still cut RMS (and friendlysock by proxy) some slack. It’s a borderline Terry Davis situation.

                                                            1. 9

                                                              I’m well aware that he’s personally responsible for a shitload of the things I use daily. Not every tenured professor is so generous with their time, and that’s to his credit.

                                                              He follows his moral compass, no matter what. I have a lot of respect for him for being able to do that, though I often disagree with where that compass points.

                                                              I know multiple people, women and men, who got out of the FSF because of his behavior. They were good engineers. That’s not the mark of an effective leader.

                                                              1. 1

                                                                This is probably the best argument to cut RMS some slack. However, I don’t believe he is borderline Terry Davis. Stallman calls himself ‘borderline autistic’. I’m curious to know if other autistics have similar views to his. However, Stallman’s cause that he has been fighting is a social and moral cause. It’s clear he has strong moral convictions and if anything I should keep him to high moral standards that he himself would keep. He is just wrong, badly wrong about this, and if anyone needs to be pressed about it, it would be someone like him who has strong moral convictions. I think a bigger disrespect to RMS would be ‘you have a bad brain, you are therefore excused’ since he would likely strongly disagree with this.

                                                                1. 1

                                                                  “Bad brain” is editorializing.

                                                                  Terry Davis was one of the few people in this industry who managed to call it what it is: error, confusion. He also saw CIA glowni*****s when he went to Target. Nutty? Yes. Bad brain? Hell no. A very relevant one!

                                                                  RMS is obviously touched–perhaps not to Terry’s extent, but still touched. What he feels about that diagnosis doesn’t change anything. Facts are facts.

                                                              2. 5

                                                                Additionally,

                                                                https://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html

                                                                28 June 2003

                                                                The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, “prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia” also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally–but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.

                                                                Also, to use Stallman’s own words, look at all the “narrowminded” downvotes on the article. It’s interesting, why downvote such a thing as off-topic when it’s very much about a central figure of free software, a focus of this forum? There are regularly far more poorly written technical pieces on this website that are upvoted to the top only because they don’t call a “hero” of free software out for thinking pedophilia is totally fine.

                                                                While friendlysock said, “Stallman is Stallmaning as per normal” I’d say that the software community is just being itself as per usual. Morally bankrupt in its perpetual fence-sitting and deathly frightened of approaching any social problems on their own terms.

                                                                1. 14

                                                                  I’ll respond to both you and mempko.

                                                                  kel:

                                                                  It’s interesting, why downvote such a thing as off-topic when it’s very much about a central figure of free software, a focus of this forum?

                                                                  In short, because it’s ugly and petty and not even news to anybody who’s familiar with Stallman’s writing, style, or viewpoints.

                                                                  Because it’s gossip, because I’d bet few people here even interact with Stallman on a regular basis, and from a standpoint of actionability the takeaway seems to be “Don’t have low EQ or autism or ever be mistaken about anything important because if you do people will ignore three decades of exceptionally hard work in favor of getting a chance to tear you down and misrepresent you in the press.”

                                                                  There are regularly far more poorly written technical pieces on this website that are upvoted to the top only because they don’t call a “hero” of free software out for thinking pedophilia is totally fine

                                                                  That’s incorrect. Those articles are in fact technical while this one is not, and frankly actionable, while this one is not–unless you consider mob justice and doxxing action. Further, look at it simply: the folks that are going to think pedophilia is wrong are not suddenly going to see the light, and the (probably, hopefully) small minority that think it is fine are not going to stop. There’s little to be gained here–hell, I’m only engaging because I think that using Lobsters as a clearinghouse for witch-hunts is bad practice.

                                                                  mempko:

                                                                  In other words, stallman making excuses for pedophilia is somehow a ‘stallman just being his cute self’ thing. In other words, you are doing pedophilia apologia of the second order.

                                                                  It’s not Stallman “being his cute self”, as you so dismissively put it. I put “Stallmanning” because there’s a very particular brand of hairsplitting that some folks do, and Stallman in particular is both very very particular about word choice (arguably to the detriment of the FSF, see the profound verbosity of the GPL and AGPL), famously stubborn (like, because he doesn’t run non-free software and because he handles emails in bulk periodic downloads, the poor bastard probably isn’t even going to see most of these articles about him until next week when it’ll be too late to do anything about it), and in possession of one of the strongest moral compasses I’ve ever seen in tech.

                                                                  Him saying “hey, if something is wrong, it shouldn’t be wrong because it’s the wrong calendar day in the year for this jurisdiction” is not defending statuatory rape, it’s him trying to make sure we’re talking about something other than the banalities of law. And note, in the transcripts, he explicitly acknowledges both that the lady was being harmed and that there was a bunch of information we don’t know and so we should give the benefit of a doubt.

                                                                  Him saying “hey, if people aren’t being coerced, something shouldn’t be illegal just because people are squicked out by it” is pretty tame support of explicit consent and not blindly making laws. You can disagree with him about whether or not kids can give consent, or how old they have to be to do so, or whether his understanding of developmental psychology is correct, but his core claim is something that can be engaged with without needing the explanation that he’s some sort of monster.

                                                                  ~

                                                                  I get that y’all are out for blood and nothing will slate your desire to string up some poor autistic nerd who is a relic of a time where people could think critically and engage specifically with words on mailing lists and generally not assume the worst of their coworkers, but can you just…like..do it somewhere else?

                                                                  (If you want to continue this slapfight, DMs are open.)

                                                                  1. 10

                                                                    I get that y’all are out for blood and nothing will slate your desire to string up some poor autistic nerd who is a relic of a time where people could think critically and engage specifically with words on mailing lists and generally not assume the worst of their coworkers

                                                                    can we stop doing this? his behaviour is not caused by (supposed, not diagnosed) autism, it’s assholery, and assigning it to being on the spectrum is patronising to the people actually being on the spectrum; people on the spectrum have been writing about it since long; cf. Russel Coker’s take from 2012 and more recent The Myth of the Autistic Jerk by Brandon Weaver.

                                                                    1. 3

                                                                      Ok, I can easily argue his core argument. When two people consent, who makes the decision it’s consent? If two people have unequal power relationship, can consent exist? I would argue NO. Consent can only exist between peers. He mentioned necrophilia (clearly one side cannot consent ) or bestiality (clearly one side can not consent ) and pedophilia (clearly one side can not consent). This is because in all of those cases, there are unequal power relations.

                                                                      RMS is wrong as explained above. For him to dismiss power relations is wrong. His arguments against the protesters are petty and wrong. Is he being rational ? Yes. You can be both rational and very wrong at the same time.

                                                                    2. 3

                                                                      Thank You!

                                                                      The cause RMS is fighting (Free Software) is a just cause. However , his understanding of people is poor, therefore his social commentary is poor and at times, completely bankrupt.

                                                                    3. 1

                                                                      I don’t see “X being X as normal” in any way apologetic. More accepting of facts. If you are not in the position of power to stop X from doing X.. I’d use that if “X doing/being X” if I saw it multiple times. There’s no endorsing or going up in arms.

                                                                      If this is a good thing to do is another topic, but I do think you’re reading too much into this statement. Whenever I read such a statement, the *eyeroll* is basically implied, so to me it actually sounds the complete other way - but of course I could be wrong as well.

                                                                1. -3

                                                                  Flagged off-topic, since it’s about a personnel change and extremely light in detail.

                                                                  Also flagged because frankly I hate seeing bullies win.

                                                                  1. 26

                                                                    Also flagged because frankly I hate seeing bullies win.

                                                                    I don’t see any “bullying” going on in this situation. Stallman did something inappropriate, again, and is facing consequences and taking actions as a result of that.

                                                                    This isn’t happening because of “SJWs”, “outrage culture”, or any other cheap excuses. Stallman did something incredibly inappropriate, insensitive, and rude, that unfortunately isn’t very surprising if you’re aware of his past behavior. This is life. This is the “adult” world. There are consequences for your actions.

                                                                    If most people pulled half the shit he has in a professional setting, most people would no longer be in a professional setting. It’s pretty clear that Stallman has been getting a pass on his bad behavior for decades.

                                                                    Aside from that, Stallman represents the FSF as its president and is somewhat representative of the free software movement as well. His actions are relevant far beyond just his office, a mailing list, or even just MIT.

                                                                    1. 13

                                                                      “Stallman did something incredibly inappropriate, insensitive, and rude, that unfortunately isn’t very surprising if you’re aware of his past behavior.”

                                                                      “If most people pulled half the shit he has in a professional setting, most people would no longer be in a professional setting. It’s pretty clear that Stallman has been getting a pass on his bad behavior for decades.”

                                                                      Although I don’t like it on Lobsters, I agree with this characterization of Stallman in general. He got special treatment overlooking what wouldn’t work for most of us. His bad habits gave enough ammunition to his opponents to finally do him in at least on MIT side of things. That’s whether the interpretations are true or not. He’s still handling it so badly.

                                                                      1. 4

                                                                        If most people pulled half the shit he has in a professional setting, most people would no longer be in a professional setting. It’s pretty clear that Stallman has been getting a pass on his bad behavior for decades.

                                                                        And it’s worthwhile asking why that is. People who are exceptional in one dimension are on occasion lacking in others. In the past, society seemed generally OK with cutting slack for the shortcomings roughly in proportion to the value.

                                                                        We seem to be moving away from that, towards a situation where we’d prefer to discard genius unless it is presented in an acceptable way. There’s a long list of people who have moved the needle in compsci alone who fail our modern standards - Stallman, Torvalds, Eich, De Raadt, DHH, even Jobs. I dare say it’s the same in a lot of other industries.

                                                                        Perhaps we’re making progress in one dimension, but I’m not sure we’re fully weighing up the costs.

                                                                        1. 14

                                                                          In the past, society seemed generally OK with cutting slack for the shortcomings roughly in proportion to the value.

                                                                          This indicates that a sufficiently valued person will be allowed to get away with heinous crimes because “they’re too valuable!” I don’t and won’t accept that.

                                                                          #metoo took out several of those people who benefited from such slack for nearly a lifetime. Times are changing and people are no longer satisfied with looking the other way for some “genius’s” indiscretions when they exceed the “Oopsie” scale. I’d consider writing about how a 17 year old coerced into sexual contact as not being rape falls off the oopsie scale and jumps into minimizing the crime.

                                                                          Then we look at his other notes (advocating for possession of CP, claims that CP et al are illegal due to narrow-mindedness and prejudice), it paints a rather unsympathetic picture. It’s a shame to confront those icky parts of him, but they’ve been there in writing since 2012, 2002 (I don’t want to peruse for more of this… ugh)

                                                                          1. 13

                                                                            We seem to be moving away from that, towards a situation where we’d prefer to discard genius unless it is presented in an acceptable way . . . Perhaps we’re making progress in one dimension, but I’m not sure we’re fully weighing up the costs.

                                                                            On the contrary, I think you’re not fully weighing up the costs. You only write about the individual and their relationship to their field. What about all of the other individuals who aren’t a part of the field because of the negative behaviors of this one? How do we calculate the costs of never getting their contributions?

                                                                            We’re moving not toward discarding genius, but demanding basic civility.

                                                                            1. 2

                                                                              We’re moving not toward discarding genius, but demanding basic civility.

                                                                              I’m a big fan of civility. But what if genius doesn’t always come in a civil package? I think there are some people (perhaps RMS is one) whose disagreeableness is in no small way related to their genius.

                                                                              There is the possibility that there are geniuses whose input we’ve missed because they were chased out of a field. This is a Bad Thing. Genius is incredibly rare; I think we should be very wary of discarding it intentionally (when we deem a person unacceptable) or unintentionally (when we fail to create a conducive environment). There can be conflicts between those two goals.

                                                                              1. 16

                                                                                But what if genius doesn’t always come in a civil package?

                                                                                I am totally 100% OK with demanding that anyone I work with be civil.

                                                                                You are very focused on single geniuses, but they’re not a great model for future discoveries and progress. Humanity pushes the boundaries of our knowledge and our fields less and less with lone geniuses, and more and more with groups and teams. And effective groups and teams don’t mesh with jerks.

                                                                                1. 5

                                                                                  In the early 20th century, major progress was made by single geniuses. Some time back, Friendlysock pointed out to me that Haber, a nazi chemical weapons scientist, is responsible for most of the humans living today (via his discovery and implementation of efficient nitrogen synthesis). Even after the allies got their hands on his factory they needed him to show them how it worked.

                                                                                  I think we’ve run out of fields where a single mind can make a massive breakthrough (and carry it to implementation, as Haber did).

                                                                                  I don’t have strong evidence for that claim beyond anecdotes from my friends who still do that sort of work and the observation that papers author lists have gotten much longer over the past 50 years.

                                                                                  1. 17

                                                                                    In the early 20th century, major progress was made by single geniuses.

                                                                                    No. (And neither was it true earlier.)

                                                                                    Some time back, Friendlysock pointed out to me that Haber, a nazi chemical weapons scientist, is responsible for most of the humans living today (via his discovery and implementation of efficient nitrogen synthesis). Even after the allies got their hands on his factory they needed him to show them how it worked.

                                                                                    This is verifiably untrue. Haber worked on nitrogen fixation (not nitrogen synthesis), for which he developed a solution with help of British chemist Robert Le Rossignol; the process then was brought up to scale by Carl Bosch at BASF. Both Haber and Bosch received the Nobel prize; Le Rossignol’s work was recognized by Haber well enough that his name is on a number of patents related to the process.

                                                                                    The “solitary genius” narrative is a false one, and results in extremely toxic work environments.

                                                                            2. 6

                                                                              Stallman claims to represent an ethos of individual liberty where the morally pure “free” and “non-free” are so easily assigned to good and evil in the software domain, and yet by placing an assault victim under the microscope, he arrives at strange conclusions regarding good and evil in another context. Apparently Minsky suffered the “injustice” - despite being dead - of an assault allegation. And in discussing morality, apparently the salient topic is examining and re-defining “sexual assault” rather than engaging in the impact of these events on the MIT community.

                                                                              There’s a long list of people who have moved the needle in compsci alone who fail our modern standards - Stallman, Torvalds, Eich, De Raadt, DHH, even Jobs. I dare say it’s the same in a lot of other industries.

                                                                              Funny how Turing, Lovelace, and Hopper are pretty clean, but it’s the modern man failing our “modern standards”.

                                                                              1. 6

                                                                                You’re rather downplaying the damage Turing suffered at the hands of the “modern standards” of his day. Standards changed, and he’s a hero. Standards can change again, and he may well be vilified.

                                                                                1. 6

                                                                                  You may have misread my point, which is about what these people have done in their lives, not about how they were victimized by others.

                                                                                  1. 2

                                                                                    Ah, I indeed may well have. Thank you for pointing that out.

                                                                              2. 5

                                                                                Once upon a time, it was difficult for somebody to spread an idea outside their home, their friends, their workplace, or their town (if they wrote a letter to the editor of the local paper). Most of the people who encountered an idea, and most of the people who accepted it, came from a similar background and upbringing. If the person spreading the idea had personal failings, it was easy for the audience to forgive them, because everyone in the audience probably shared at least a few of them, or knew many people who did.

                                                                                These days, anyone can set up a blog, or post to Facebook or Twitter, and share an idea with a billion people around the world. Most of the people who encounter that idea, and indeed many of the people who accept it, probably don’t come from a similar background; if the person sharing the idea has any personal failings, they’re likely to be surprising and upsetting to a good part of the audience. It’s therefore much more important that the people representing an idea to the public be unobjectionable — to avoid distracting outsiders from the idea itself, and to avoid personal failures being stereotypically associated with the idea.

                                                                                To a certain kind of technically-oriented mind, this smacks of non-orthogonality: why should a person’s behavior in context X affect their respect or authority in unrelated context Y? But the problem of disseminating ideas is a social problem, not a technical one, and it must be solved by social rules.

                                                                                1. 1

                                                                                  To a certain kind of technically-oriented mind, this smacks of non-orthogonality: why should a person’s behavior in context X affect their respect or authority in unrelated context Y? But the problem of disseminating ideas is a social problem, not a technical one, and it must be solved by social rules.

                                                                                  I agree. Those social rules apply both sides of the interaction however; the rule for the author may be “be as polite as possible” while the rule for the reader may be “assume good intentions and attempt to look past poor communication”.

                                                                                  1. 5

                                                                                    “assume good intentions and attempt to look past poor communication”.

                                                                                    People have been extending this courtesy to Stallman for decades.

                                                                                    1. 1

                                                                                      People have been extending this courtesy to Stallman for decades.

                                                                                      Yes, and broadly, I’d say that has been a net positive.

                                                                                      1. 5

                                                                                        Perhaps. Or if RMS had had credible pushback for the stuff he’s been getting away with for decades, maybe he wouldn’t be in the situation he’s in now.

                                                                              3. 3

                                                                                This is happening because some lady second-hand (she was forwarded some chunk of a mailing list from her angry friend iirc) got pissed off and decided to write a blog about it–and apparently spam a lot of news outlets. Said outlets (both Vice and The Daily Beast) frequently misquoted or used out of context his writing.

                                                                                If having people purposefully misrepresenting your views (say, by “summarizing” your post to say that you “defended Epstein” in a mailing list when you actually said the exact opposite) and using that to gain clicks and pressure you to remove yourself (or be removed) from a position you’ve worked very hard for isn’t bullying, I’m skeptical.

                                                                                1. 9

                                                                                  This is happening because some lady second-hand (she was forwarded some chunk of a mailing list from her angry friend iirc) got pissed off and decided to write a blog about it–and apparently spam a lot of news outlets. Said outlets (both Vice and The Daily Beast) frequently misquoted or used out of context his writing.

                                                                                  That is incredibly disingenuous; and tries to remove any responsibility for the situation from Stallman. Don’t do that.

                                                                                  1. 5

                                                                                    decided to write a blog about it […] “summarizing” your post to say that you “defended Epstein” in a mailing list when you actually said the exact opposite

                                                                                    Are you saying the medium post says that? I can’t see anything in the post that says that.

                                                                                    The Medium post takes issue with the arguments Stallman made to defend Marvin Minsky. (Rightly so to take issue with them, in my opinion.)

                                                                                    1. 4

                                                                                      The really obnoxious one was The Daily Beast.

                                                                                2. 0

                                                                                  Ok

                                                                                1. 37

                                                                                  Because I’d rather admin a CA, manage cert signing, handle revocation (how does this get pushed out to servers?), and all that jazz, more than running some ansible scripts? Wait.. No, I wouldn’t.

                                                                                  1. 11

                                                                                    Hah. I thought about this a lot when I read this article.

                                                                                    I think plenty of companies grow organically from a couple of dudes and as many servers, and before you know it you have 3 branch offices and 2 datacenters and a bunch of contractors, and it’s all well and good when everyone sort of trusts each other but then you get purchased and SOX’d and you have to scramble to make sure Larry who quit 3 years ago doesn’t have root on production still…

                                                                                    I assume your ansible scripts are well documented, and are run when you’re on vacation? ;)

                                                                                    I thought this article made a bunch of good points. Of course it’s an advertorial, but there’s enough meat in there to be interesting.

                                                                                    1. 6

                                                                                      I think plenty of companies grow organically from a couple of dudes and as many servers, and before you know it you have 3 branch offices and 2 datacenters and a bunch of contractors, and it’s all well and good when everyone sort of trusts each others but then you get purchased and SOX’d and you have to scramble to make sure Larry who quit 3 years ago doesn’t have root on production still…

                                                                                      Precisely this. My team went from 2 DCs with maybe a few dozen machines between them to 6 DCs in various stages of commission/deccommision/use and hundreds (probably just over 1000) machines to manage. Running an ansible script to update creds on hundreds of machines takes a very long time even on a powerful runner. We’re moving to a cert-based setup and for the machines where it’s enabled it’s incredibly quick, lets us do key rotation more efficiently, and is just generally a huge improvement. It’s an economy of scale problem, as most are, ansible was fine when it was a couple of us, but not even at our relatively small Xe3 scale. I can’t imagine trying to do that on larger scales. Managing a few servers for CA and so on is a dream comparatively.

                                                                                      1. 3

                                                                                        What do you do with hundreds of machines?

                                                                                        1. 2

                                                                                          Currently? We wait.

                                                                                          In the hopefully near future – something like OP

                                                                                          EDIT: I feel like the brevity may be interpreted as snark, so I’m going to add some details to mitigate that as it wasn’t intended. :)

                                                                                          Right now it takes a weekend or so to fully update everything, we mitigate some of it by running the job in stages (running only on pre-prod environments by product, only legacy machines, etc) It works out to running the same job a couple dozen times. That bit is automated. The real killer is the overhead of executing that many SSH connections from a single machine, basically. Running it in smaller chunks does mean we have a not entirely consistent environment for a while, but it’s pretty quick to run the job on a single machine if it fails or was missed. The runner has got flames painted on the side which helps, but it’s still quite slow.

                                                                                          I think this is probably representative of a big disadvantage that Ansible has compared to something agent-based like Chef or Puppet, on some level I’m okay with that though because I think Chef/Puppet would just hide the underlying issue that direct key management is a little fraught.

                                                                                          1. 3

                                                                                            This is why I switched from Ansible to Saltstack - deploys are fast and it has a similar feel and structure as Ansible.

                                                                                            1. 1

                                                                                              So to piggy back on SaltStack, it’s also neat because you can do a distributed setup of multiple Masters.

                                                                                              Makes it even faster for large fleets to roll out changes as each master manages a subset of the fleet with a salt master then farming out tasks to the other Masters to farm out to the minions/hosts.

                                                                                            2. 2

                                                                                              Another option may be to use a PAM module that updates the user’s authorized_keys file (from a central repo, such as LDAP) on attempts to lookup an account.

                                                                                              I’ve done this in the past and it worked out okay for largish deployments.

                                                                                              1. 2

                                                                                                You don’t need to update the key file on disk from ldap, you can use ldap to produce the contents of the key file directly.

                                                                                                https://man.openbsd.org/sshd_config#AuthorizedKeysCommand

                                                                                                https://github.com/AppliedTrust/goklp

                                                                                                1. 1

                                                                                                  Also an option, but you need to ensure that there is a timeout and caching, etc as well. Updating the on-disk copy has this trivial and built-in (respectively)

                                                                                                  1. 2

                                                                                                    sssd does all that, and more

                                                                                              2. 1

                                                                                                Gah, sorry, let me rephrase: what sort of workload is it?

                                                                                                (also, why not kerberos or something similar?)

                                                                                                1. 2

                                                                                                  I added an edit. As for kerberos, I just found this idea first – there was a FB article about it I came across a while ago (last year sometime, before this became a real problem), and started pushing for it. I work for an International BeheMoth, so changing things can be slow.

                                                                                            3. 1

                                                                                              I’ve reached this point too - considering moving the base stuff to either an os pkg and/or to use something like cfengine to distribute these faster than what ansible does. As an interim stage, I have a git pull-based ansible run on each box for the core, but I would prefer something that is more “reportable” than manually collating the status of packages on each system. Either way, I’m keen to store the CA info in an OS package, as a faster way to get boxes set up and updated.

                                                                                              1. 1

                                                                                                Precisely this. My team went from 2 DCs with maybe a few dozen machines between them to 6 DCs in various stages of commission/deccommision/use and hundreds (probably just over 1000) machines to manage. Running an ansible script to update creds on hundreds of machines takes a very long time even on a powerful runner.

                                                                                                this is why you can keep your public key in a kind of centralised store, say, an LDAP server, and disable local storage of public keys entirely; sssd supports this model very nicely.

                                                                                                (what irks me a bit about the advertorial above is that it conflates using host certificates and user certificates; and you can have one without another)

                                                                                              2. 3

                                                                                                I’ve managed ldap systems to handle distributed ssh / user authentication. I have less fear of that than anything CA related. I think its because OpenSSL taught me that all the tooling around it is terrible. Though I feel that Vault and other tooling is changing that slowly.

                                                                                                1. 2

                                                                                                  Probably about as well as crl’s get pushed out to server fleets, and accounts are actually deleted along with certificates revoked. Eg. Not bloody likely. ;)

                                                                                                  1. 1

                                                                                                    I think for every sysadmin who knows their sh*t, there are 10 who don’t. This article is meant for them.

                                                                                                    1. 2

                                                                                                      Fair enough; this probably also makes more sense for large (or very large) companies with a full team of ops/secops managing fleets of servers, coupled with some type of SSO solution (as mentioned in the article).

                                                                                                      1. 3

                                                                                                        I estimate that this becomes a problem once you surpass the the fact that more than 3 users need SSH access and have more than 30 machines accepting SSH-connections.

                                                                                                        Below that, it’s probably not worth the effort, but the moment you reach those numbers you will probably continue to grow beyond that rapidly and it’s still possible to make the change with relative ease.

                                                                                              1. 4

                                                                                                I’ve been using and am happy with using openssh certs for signing host keys, however the openssh cert experience for user keys seems less ideal compared to a solution leveraging AuthorizedKeysCommand and some central identity manager. The other disadvantage I can see with user certs is dealing with revocation and dealing with renewals. For server keys, there are much less moving targets to wrangle with, so this isn’t a huge problem.

                                                                                                1. 1

                                                                                                  very much this.

                                                                                                1. 4

                                                                                                  We use ssh certs where I work and they have worked really nicely for our use case. The only issue with them is PuTTY does not support them.

                                                                                                  https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/wishlist/ssh2-openssh-certkeys.html

                                                                                                  1. 1

                                                                                                    Honest question, is there a point for putty for the windows admins out there at this point with OpenSSH in powershell?

                                                                                                    1. 2

                                                                                                      I don’t know, I run linux. I just know a few years ago it was a small hiccup in adopting signed ssh keys. Personally I would push people to just use openssh, but I assume windows users love their GUIs.

                                                                                                      1. 1

                                                                                                        How long has OpenSSH in PowerShell been halfway usable?

                                                                                                        Can I have different color schemes, for one thing? How about typefaces?

                                                                                                        I’ve been using PuTTy for close to 2 decades now. It’s quirky, sure, but it’s what I’m used to…

                                                                                                        1. 3

                                                                                                          I found that wsl + ssh-agent-wsl are just what I need. There are a few terminal emulator apps that are reasonably usable: wsltty, windows terminal (amazingly enough) and terminus or extraterm (both electron apps).

                                                                                                          1. 2

                                                                                                            I’m not a windows admin,but I know you can theme powershell via the terminal. When I do have to use windows I install a terminal called alacritty and run openssh from there.

                                                                                                            1. 1

                                                                                                              I’ve tried a couple of other terminal emulators for Windows but keep coming back to PuTTy…

                                                                                                      1. 6

                                                                                                        “Init system freedom”, “only supports sysvinit style init systems”

                                                                                                        1. 7

                                                                                                          That’s an uncharitable way of reading this announcement. Your second “quote” doesn’t even appear on the page.

                                                                                                          Devuan is about choice. We think people should be able to choose whether to use a GNU+Linux system with or without systemd.

                                                                                                          Devuan decided to fork not only the base distribution, but also its governance, because Debian has made it difficult to avoid systemd as init, entangling the system with unnecessary dependencies and did so despite widespread community concern. We encourage potential Devuan users who wish to install systemd to use Debian’s installer, Debian’s packages and Debian’s mailing lists, all available directly from Debian’s mirrors.

                                                                                                          They are enabling init system freedom by supporting an alternative. It would be silly to expect them to support systemd installations when that is already covered by Debian.

                                                                                                          If your needs are not met by sysvinit, openrc, runit, or sinit, Devaun suggests additional systemdless distros here: https://devuan.org/os/init-freedom/

                                                                                                          1. 5

                                                                                                            I’m not saying what they’re doing is bad, and there are plenty of people around the internet who prefer sysvinit style init systems, but to claim “init system freedom” is pretty outlandish. Especially when their core packages explicitly conflict with systemd. You also presumably can’t install upstart without causing massive headaches or breaking everything.

                                                                                                            In no way am I trying to make a value judgement about specific init systems here, but claiming you have freedom of choice in your init system with Devuan is a little like saying you can have a car painted any color so long as it’s black, extra noir, super dark gray, or #000.

                                                                                                            1. 1

                                                                                                              Isn’t Upstart defunct since Ubuntu abandoned it?

                                                                                                              1. 1

                                                                                                                that’s not really relevant – anything that supports systemd d-bus interfaces won’t work on devuan

                                                                                                                1. 1

                                                                                                                  Well what else is there?

                                                                                                                  • systemd: covered by Debian
                                                                                                                  • upstart: defunct
                                                                                                                  • sysvinit, openrc, runit, sinit: supported by Devuan
                                                                                                                  • s6, perp: supported by recommended other distros

                                                                                                                  What additional init system should they be supporting?

                                                                                                            2. 1

                                                                                                              Debian offers exactly this (an ability to run sysvinit) without the ideology-based purging of all systemd-related libraries from the distribution. There is literally no advantage in running devuan right now (and devuan has to rely on Debian for the security updates, they simply do not have manpower to provide proper security support).

                                                                                                          1. 5

                                                                                                            I’m glad he updated his blog post to reflect that this wasn’t surreptitiously done. When recently helping a student we installed homebrew and we did receive the notification about usage analytics reporting and declined.

                                                                                                            I wonder if the notification of this new feature was rolled in to a brew update and most people ignored the terminal scroll where it provides the commands to disable analytics.

                                                                                                            1. 3

                                                                                                              Potentially. For what it’s worth I am fairly sure I saw the question and agreed.

                                                                                                              1. 2

                                                                                                                It’s quite prominently displayed on installation and upgrade, along with the information how to disable it.

                                                                                                                1. 1

                                                                                                                  I believe I noticed it because there was a new file or folder in my home directory; I searched around until I could figure out how to disable it

                                                                                                                1. 17

                                                                                                                  User: my wifi doesn’t work

                                                                                                                  Guru: that is the price of admission into the free world

                                                                                                                  User: but I have to be able to access the internet

                                                                                                                  Guru: “Have To” Is a Relative Phrase, there can sometimes be hard choices to make

                                                                                                                  User: nevermind, I dropped the binary firmware blob onto my file system and now my wifi works

                                                                                                                  Guru: proprietary software can’t be the answer because proprietary software is the problem

                                                                                                                  User: uh, okay, but I have wifi now, so I’ll continue using Linux

                                                                                                                  Guru: more people using free software doesn’t necessarily mean more people believing in free software ideals

                                                                                                                  User: that’s great and all but ideally my wifi will work

                                                                                                                  Guru: It’s more important to spread the ideals of free software than the actual software itself

                                                                                                                  User: in that case I’ll just use Windows

                                                                                                                  Guru: People will naturally start using free software if they believe in the ideals

                                                                                                                  User: not if their wifi doesn’t work

                                                                                                                  1. 7

                                                                                                                    this isn’t a Guru, this is a free software zealot, and in real life User stops listening much faster than this.

                                                                                                                    1. 4

                                                                                                                      And then when the user goes and cries about their data getting owned or locked up or how they can’t get something they want or how they are getting spied on they have nobody but themselves to blame.

                                                                                                                      It’s not an ideal system, mind you, but for schadenfreude it works pretty well. The hell of it is, of course, that RMS et all are right–we are all just doing the expedient things over the correct ones.

                                                                                                                    2. 2

                                                                                                                      What’s your point? What difference does it make whether the user uses Windows or Linux-with-binary-blobs?

                                                                                                                      1. 7

                                                                                                                        The point is compromise. Spreading the ideals of free software is harder if you can’t connect to the internet, and people can believe in ideals all they want but that won’t help them route packets. Is using Trisquel with no internet access really more free than using Debian with binary firmware to make the wifi work?

                                                                                                                        It makes about the same difference as using Debian with a modern wifi card that needs the binary firmware to be uploaded to the device, or using Trisquel with an older wifi card that has the binary firmware already present in ROM.

                                                                                                                        1. 3

                                                                                                                          It makes about the same difference as using Debian with a modern wifi card that needs the binary firmware to be uploaded to the device, or using Trisquel with an older wifi card that has the binary firmware already present in ROM.

                                                                                                                          Depends what your concerns are. If you’re worried about very sophisticated malware (stuxnet-style) using the wifi card as an attack vector then it makes a big difference.

                                                                                                                        2. 1

                                                                                                                          Pray expand.

                                                                                                                      1. 1

                                                                                                                        “Native apps are doomed”…“Native Apps are Not Dead Yet”

                                                                                                                        Which is it?

                                                                                                                        1. 2

                                                                                                                          That depends on the phase of the computer sciences cycle we’re in, I guess…

                                                                                                                          1. 2

                                                                                                                            Both. They’re doomed in the long term, but not dead yet.

                                                                                                                          1. 2

                                                                                                                            I found quite a time ago that full syntax highlighting just distracts me, so I configured vim’s limelight plugin to stretch the highlighting for two paragraphs; which gives exactly what the author describes: limited, conditional highlighting. (limelight was designed with more textual input in mind, but still works great with my python/ruby/bash code).