Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Oh no (Score 3, Insightful) 154

It was a solution in search of a problem.

That's emphatically not true, as evidenced by other Unix-based OSes writing replacements for their init systems. For a pretty balanced view of how all of this came about, check this out from a few years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Once in a while I look through the "journal" and 99% of it is worthless garbage. It's actually too verbose and anything important is lost in the noise. The problem is major projects that should be cross platform are dependent on systemd to work.

This doesn't really have much to do with systemd or the journal. The journal just captures the logs, it doesn't have any say over what programs write to it.

Ah you can use the "ip" command, You know the program that does the exact same thing as ifconfig but with a slightly different syntax, because fuck you we invented this and you didn't.

This also has nothing to do with systemd - ip comes from the iproute2 package. FWIW though I do agree, as a user of ifconfig it would have been nice if it could have been adapted/enhanced instead of completely replacing it.

Comment What a fantastically short sighted own-goal (Score 5, Insightful) 28

Surely Mazda want people to buy more of their cars? Doesn't the work they are taking down actually help advertise the brand? Help owners to get more out of their cars? Dare I say it, even make users dependent on the Mazda-specific APIs and thus make them less likely to switch brands?

Comment Re:Disagreeing (Score 1) 202

If you read the code of conduct itself you will find:

When we disagree, try to understand why. Disagreements, both social and technical, happen all the time and the GCC community is no exception. It is important that we resolve disagreements and differing views constructively. A strength of free software is the varied community, people from a wide range of backgrounds. Different people have different perspectives on issues. Being unable to understand why someone holds a viewpoint doesn't mean that they're wrong. Don't forget that it is human to err and blaming each other doesn't get us anywhere. Instead, focus on helping to resolve issues and learning from mistakes.

Comment Re:Can someone kindly recap Spotify? (Score 1) 46

I'm a pretty big fan after completely ignoring it for years, although the app itself has had its issues. Gives me access to a bunch of my favourite music easily at a moments' notice. A completely proprietary service, but it's the music industry so what can you expect.

I'm unlikely to care about the home feed changes though, I usually just search for something or play from my favourites list.

Comment Re:Trump is awesome! (Score 2) 587

Muller did not find evidence of collusion and was very clear about not finding any.

He chose his words very carefully. As OP stated, "collusion" doesn't have any legal meaning. There was definitely communication, and the Trump campaign welcomed the Russians' activities. Given the level of obstruction it's hard to know whether that was the full extent of it.

He did not exonerate (or charge/condemn) the president. Doing so was not in the scope of his investigation.

Scope was not the issue. The DOJ memo stating that the president could not be indicted was the issue, and Mueller felt that that meant he could not even make allegations that a crime had been committed. He states very clearly however that his report does not exonerate the president - that to me is fairly damning, but for him to say any more would have been against the spirit of aforementioned memo.

Muller did find evidence of Russian election meddling. This was in relation to DNC email hacks.

That was part of it. The other, perhaps more damaging part of it was the social media interference.

Muller stated in his report that he believed there was obstruction. Meaning, that if Trump was a regular citizen he could have been charged with obstruction of justice. However, Trump is POTUS and that gives him special privileges. Meaning that the office gave him powers and protections that are not available to regular citizens, so we can't compare cases of private citizen obstructing and POTUS obstructing as they are categorically not the same. Considering that the issue being investigated BECAUSE Trump was POTUS, charging him with obstruction as a result of using power of POTUS is circular logic. Last but not least, failing to establish collusion, is obstruction a meaningful charge or purely procedural charge?

Label it what you like, but obstruction of justice is itself a crime whether or not the underlying crime which is investigated actually happened. Obstruction in this case definitely prevented a full investigation of the facts, and that means that you cannot conclusively say that no crime occurred. Fundamentally, is it OK for the president to be above the law? If you think yes, would your opinion change at all if it were a different president?

Slashdot Top Deals

As long as we're going to reinvent the wheel again, we might as well try making it round this time. - Mike Dennison

Working...