Comment Re:Nothing. (Score 2) 209
you're a horrible person for wanting such unreasonable things. Clearly you just don't know how incredibly useful a "smarthome" is. And stuff.
First, your phone is amazingly insecure - unless you have one of the ones dedicated to security. The most valuable thing you have is you - the who of who you are. Trusting that identity to your phone is...spectacularly foolish. Second, most people don't have a phone that could survive a trip to the hotel pool or hot tub, whereas the throwaway cards can do just that, just fine.
If someone breaks the card's security, the worst you're out is the stuff in your room. The more you stuff into your phone, then the worst that could happen is you aren't you anymore.
PS -
" Exactly what do you think in the 1980-90s you were doing to the mini computer culture of the generation before you when you made client server cheap and ubiquitous?"
Wasn't nobody doin nothin with Linux in the 80s, and the PC world (Doom, etc) was already out and in full swing before the earliest (Slackware, for instance) distros were even started.
Your history is a bit off here. Linux's earliest intent was as a workstation OS.
1) where in what I wrote did I say linux started as a server OS? Neverminding my first use of it as being just that, but "year of the linux desktop" doesn't - and never - meant that it would be the year someone would finally use it as a a desktop. I used it as one for many years.
2) Linux's first usage (and especially intent) most certainly was not as a workstation. "Workstation" has that word "Work" at the front of it because you accomplished "work" on the workstation, versus the work being the workstation. When I started using it in 94, no sane person would use it as a "workstation" because they'd be futzing with their machine too much. The mother's day release of redhat, which I still have on an old infomagic cd pack sitting on the shelf above my desk (for giggles), was not a "replacement" for a pizzabox in any far remote sense of the word.
Linux's earliest intent was to be a hobby plaything. It was for people who wanted to tinker around and play their hand at writing a device driver, or otherwise really know what it was their PC was doing. As for Linux being disruptive to UNIX - no, it wasn't. It was just cheap/free UNIX clone ala MINIX and other "learn-what-is-really-happening" educational tools of the time, but it still held the same "do one thing, do it well" principle, it came from/was birthed from the community/culture of UNIX users of the time, thus had more or less that same community and their ideals. Linux also never coopted anything - it eventually matured enough to be a competitor to the giants that came before it. Poettering's stunt was pure agism, as was that which allowed it to succeed. Change for the sake of change is and has always been stupid - don't try to paint it as a cycle, that Linux started the same way. Linux was an educational tool, and 100% of the rebellion of it was communistic; Ubuntu quite literally was anti-community from the start, as a core principle - as is and was systemd.
(stay with me here...) Once upon a time there was a community. In the community were lots of different opinions - Slackware, Redhat, Debian, the weird *BSD folk - we all worked together, despite being of different religions. We'd yell at each other, and to an outsider we'd look as though we hated each other, but we were yelling at each other at the same bar while buying each other drinks. We yelled at each other because that's just what we liked to do. We had a certain set of rules that we all followed - and those rules were our real religion. We contributed code upstream. We filed bug reports. We did code review. We contributed. We Kept It Simple, Stupid. RMS was one of our major prophets - maybe even a god (though, we often started rolling our eyes and heading home for the night if he showed up at the bar to drink with us). We laughed at people who would declare, year after year, that this would be the Year of The Linux Desktop.
Then, along came two things - Ubuntu, and modern capitalism/culture/media/whatever - a mindset where there should be no plan, just go go go new feature new feature new feature go go go (I'm looking at you Agile, facebook, google...). Suddenly, the highest and best praise your project can get became whether it was "disruptive."
The *NIX/FOSS community would not have been a place for this to take hold, were it not for Ubuntu. Ubuntu decided they would break all our paradigms - they'd refuse to contribute patches upstream, they'd take simple processes that worked well and left tremendous power in the user's hands, and replace them with very broken messes of stuff. (In contrast to what we had...) they'd make an experience that mostly worked for complete novices - to be distinguished from most other distros that rarely worried much if even their initial installer failed because meh, you should know enough to know how to fix it yourself. They'd ignore religious ideals like only using OSS. And last but most certainly not least, they replaced init.d.
Problem is, when a lot of new people started in on the scene via Ubuntu (and the like), the established distros decided that they had always wanted their distro to be the desktop featured in The Year of the Linux Desktop, and realized they were losing overall "market" share (@#$%@ for those nitwits thinking of people as a "market," when we had been a "community" for ages), even though the number of users of each of the major distros was still increasing. So they looked around at what Ubuntu was doing to become popular, and tried to decide what to adopt from it. Unfortunately, this new crop of people included the likes of Lennart Poettering, who would have ideas such as this one, regarding systemd. Instead of seeing diversity and differences as good things, those of his ilk decided to destroy (yes, a harsh word...but it's pretty much accurate) the FOSS community. An entire set of ideals just...disappeared. No longer are simple things kept simple, no longer is "Do one thing and do it well" followed, no longer do we try to let open inter-connectivity organically solve problems of integration (instead, we just birth a giant Rock Biter to mow our laws).
Systemd came from a new set of ideals where solving problems that don't exist is great, so long as the big bad Establishment is taken out. I actually saw it as a bit of agism - where youth expected to be peers to those who had been around for ages, and when they weren't immediately accepted as experts they just co-opted the entire environment and left us old farts without any toys anymore. Oh wait...you wanted something good about systemd. Um, well, my laptop now boots 0.5 seconds faster than it otherwise would have, even if I no longer know why and can no longer really do anything about it. That's good, right?
This is the line (whole post, really) to which you were responding:
And I wish people would stop using the word "universally" when we even haven't reached another solar system yet.
pray tell, how is that not obviously a witty comment, in response to the complaint about using "slavery" versus "sweatshop?" The response was clearly meant to show that arguing over the word used to describe the conditions is silly. Mayhaps you should calm down, have a glass of wine, and re-read the thread. You may find things about which you are still infuriated, and some of that may well be righteous anger that I share with you, but this particularline shouldn't be a thorn in your side.
seriously.
Love may laugh at locksmiths, but he has a profound respect for money bags. -- Sidney Paternoster, "The Folly of the Wise"
