| 1 |
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 4:42 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Mark David Dumlao wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> Feel free to set me straight tho. As long as you don't tell me my |
| 5 |
>>> system is broken and has not been able to boot for the last 9 years |
| 6 |
>>> without one of those things. ROFL |
| 7 |
>> Nobody's telling you _your_ system, as in the collection of programs |
| 8 |
>> you use for your productivity, is broken. What we're saying is that |
| 9 |
>> _the_ system, as in the general practice as compared to the |
| 10 |
>> specification, is broken. Those are two _very_ different things. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> From what I have read, they are saying what has worked for decades has |
| 13 |
> been broken the whole time. Doesn't matter that it works for millions |
| 14 |
> of users, its broken. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Yes, that is exactly what they are saying. What I am pointing out, |
| 17 |
however, is that there is, informally, a _technical meaning_ for the |
| 18 |
word "broken", which is that "the specs don't match the |
| 19 |
implementation". And in the case of /usr, the specs don't match the |
| 20 |
implementation. For like, maybe all of the Linuxen. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> They say it is broken so they can "fix it" with a |
| 23 |
> init thingy for EVERYONE. Sorry, that's like telling me my car has been |
| 24 |
> broken for the last ten years when I have been driving it to town and it |
| 25 |
> runs just fine. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
NOBODY is telling you your system or that the systems of millions of |
| 28 |
users out there aren't booting. You're assigning emotional baggage to |
| 29 |
technical language. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
To push your analogy, oh, your car is working just fine. Now anyone |
| 32 |
with a pair of spark plugs and a few tools may be able to start it |
| 33 |
without you, but your startup _works_. Now imagine some German |
| 34 |
engineer caring nothing about you lowly driver, and caring more about |
| 35 |
the car as a system, and he goes using fancy words like |
| 36 |
"authentication systems" and declaring that "all cars have a flaw", or |
| 37 |
more incensingly, "car security is fundamentally broken" (Cue angry |
| 38 |
hordes of owners pitchfork and torching his house). |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Thing is, he's right, and if he worked out some way for software to |
| 41 |
verify that machine startup was done using the keys rather than spark |
| 42 |
plugs, he'd be doing future generations a favor in a dramatic |
| 43 |
reduction of carjackings. And if somehow it became mandated for future |
| 44 |
cars to have this added in addition to airbags and whatnot, it'd annoy |
| 45 |
the hell out of car makers but overall still be a good thing. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
And here the analogy is holding up: NOBODY is breaking into your car |
| 48 |
and forcefully installing some authentication system in its startup. |
| 49 |
And NOBODY is breaking into your servers and forcing you to switch to |
| 50 |
udev/systemd or merged /usr. You can still happily plow along with |
| 51 |
your system as is. Heck, you can even install current udev without |
| 52 |
changing your partition setup. Just modify the ebuild and have it |
| 53 |
install it into / instead of /usr. Or use an early bootup script. Or |
| 54 |
use an init thingy. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
> |
| 57 |
> The udev/systemd people sound like politicians. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
If anything, Lennart is the worst possible politician on the planet. |
| 60 |
He makes unpopular decisions, mucks around in stuff people don't want |
| 61 |
touched, talks snide and derisively, etc etc etc, because he's a |
| 62 |
nerd's nerd that knows nothing about PR and goodwill. The software is |
| 63 |
good, but that's about all he knows how to write. He's like DJB on |
| 64 |
crack. |
| 65 |
-- |
| 66 |
This email is: [ ] actionable [ ] fyi [x] social |
| 67 |
Response needed: [ ] yes [x] up to you [ ] no |
| 68 |
Time-sensitive: [ ] immediate [ ] soon [x] none |
Archives