Refusing a patch that added bare bones compatibility with LLDB results in less functionality software.

There are many reasons to refuse a patch, but not liking the other products licence should not really be one of them.

No, not new to the industry being now in my late thirties and having worked for the last decade as and server admin and developer. Don't really have an agenda as I have moved into pure development now and have no interest in moving back to being a sysadmin as I have a family now and the out of hours on call bit of being a sysadmin sucks.

You say that but in my last sysadmin role I was responsible for supporting a pair of IIS servers we needed to serve certain crap developed for windows (needed to be case insensitive, and had occasional chunks of ASP). Windows 2003 Server was rock solid in this regard and managed similar uptimes to apache which we used for most stuff.

MS desktop offerings might be utter shit without a reboot but I was pleasantly surprised by IIS. I would still never choose to use again out of principle though as do I think open source is a good thing.

Jesus, why would you even think about using Ubuntu in a server anyway? Everywhere I ever worked or heard of used RHEL, Centos or occasionally Debian. Since I discovered Mint I would not even waste my time using Ubuntu on a desktop.

His mind, in this case is that a piece of free software should be less functional, in order to lock you in to not using LLVM if you use the Emacs debugger, just because both separate packages are from the GNU stable. This seems remarkable similar to the sort of tactic Microsoft has been accused of for years.

But equally, thousands of companies now trust systemd to run enterprise servers since centos or RHEL is pretty much the defacto linux distribution in this regard. The fact that this is the case does indicate that it must be pretty stable when correctly configured.

If there are bugs in systemd, then report them and maybe even help diagnose them to make it better. It has huge traction now so there is zero chance of it disappearing.

What about "people keep saying it crashes but they are making it up or blaming it when the fault is somewhere else just because they hate the developer and do not agree with the reason for its development"?

In my experience most H1B programmers are not actually that much cheaper to hire that people already here. The real problem is that too many young geeks in the developed world are arrogant, over entitled assholes who are a pain to work with. Whereas generally that guy or girl from India or eastern europe is polite, professional and happy to work hard but without throwing a childish hissy fit when they don't get everything their own way. They just want to go to work and get paid.

Also, the best code is always produced by a team of developers who all practice things like pair programming and peer code review (every single commit should be reviewed by another member of the team). In that environment, not being an arrogant dick matters more than anything.

Nope. The real problem is that DDT is no longer effective against mosquitos in many parts of the world as they have evolved to be immune to it. The stuff that is still effective against them is so damn toxic that it has to be used carefully in case too much gets into drinking water, makes it into the food chain in other ways or even just poisons the rivers and kills all the fish on its way to the sea.

They want to listen in, not shut the conversation down so storming in anywhere armed with your court order is not a solution.

So many people here are ranting on about this but what he said is actually 100% reasonable in that he stipulated the government needing a court order. The truth is that if they can stand in front of a judge and convince him you are a legitimate target then you have very little expectation of privacy. Based on that judges say so they can legally sneak in to your home and plant listening equipment if they have information that indicates they have a chance of recording you discussing engaging in illegal activities.

A few years ago things were much simpler for them, they could ask a judge nicely and he could order a tap your phone line. Nowadays though, that does not help them as much as it used to. They can take that warrant to your ISP, get full access to all your email, and still be none the wiser about what you are discussing if you have decent encryption.

If some could come up with a perfect solution to this problem where a judge could order something decrypted and only then could government use their magic key to access it then I personally would have no problem with it, providing a few other safeguards were also in place, such as full disclosure in the case that nothing is found after 6 months or a year or something. Obviously, this magic key would also have to be bulletproof so that there was no possible other way that government or anyone else could decrypt it.

The problem is that this perfect solution is is not what government goes looking for, instead they always seem to look for something that provides us no safeguards whatsoever. So even if it is possible (which I personally doubt anyway), there is sod all chance of them ever coming up with it and if anyone else does I can seem them actually supporting it.

Quite right, I would actually consider that a perfectly legitimate form of protest providing the requests were coming from actual consumers who had paid for said product. You have to actually buy something in order to be a legitimate consumer.

I bet this is not what this retard was doing though, he was most likely triggering off thousands of illegitimate calls from PC's emulating the DRM system not from consoles owned by people who had bought a game.

Also, it is worth bearing in mind that some consumers out there who buy games (like me) actually like things like DRM because I do not see why some other free loading little shit should get free access to something that I pay my hard earned wages for. If you can't afford something like a game or DVD, you should go without it as they are luxury items anyway.

Here in the UK it probably doesn't really matter what you were actually doing, if your INTENT was to stop or prevent people engaging in a lawful activity then that is most likely a criminal offence. This is generally how our laws are written then we just let juries sort it out.

In this case we passed a law in 2006 called the Police And Justice Act. Here is an old register article about it: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...

Our legal system generally has intent woven into its fabric at a far deeper level than in the US so that if the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) feel there is a reasonable likelihood of them being able to convince a jury that an individuals intent was malicious then they can drag you through the courts. In this case whether this retard is charged will probably depend on how clean his PC's were when they raided him.

You might note that I have zero sympathy for him, being susceptible to getting DDOS'd is not really a security issue worth exposing. If you throw enough traffic from a bot-net at an awful lot of sites they will go down. The simple truth is that when companies provision any sort of on-line infrastructure or offering you look and how much load it is expected to be under during normal operation then plan from there by adding a certain safety margin. In this case it sounds like this service was only going to be called each time a game was started so creating far more load then this by lots of bots pretending to start games over and over again thousands of times a minute was miles away from the intended traffic volumes.

I know some people say this vulnerability never should have existed as this phoning home is a form of DRM and this should not happen but the probably is that without it there are an awful lot of people out there who just freeload and play stuff without paying. Of course companies are going to try an make this difficult in order to stay in business, that is what capitalism dictates they must do in order to maximise shareholder returns.

I hope this guy also realises that he has utterly screwed over any chance he had in life of actually becoming a real paid security researcher with this stupid stunt. With a prior arrest on public record like this he is just not worth the risk, especially as he has not really showed any special technical skills. He will be lucky to get any sort of computer work for the next 10 years.

The problem is that would also destroy them economically at the same time as they require US consumers to buy all the crap they produce. China keep their own currency artificially low just to keep their exports going.

Add to that they might like to visit the place for a cheap holiday.

Exactly.

Who gives a shit about storing your data with google or anyone else, at this point we should be storming the Pentagon / White House / Senate en masse to demand and take real freedom. There is no terrorist threat that actually warrants this level of intrusion, our own police seem to be better at killing defenceless citizens than terrorists anyway over the last year.

It is not about a labour shortage, it is about the race to the bottom in terms of working conditions and pay.

It sounds like broadly speaking we agree with who benefits the most from immigration though. My take on it though is that no matter what you do people from Mexico are always going to try and flock from there to the US to work, and keeping them all out is an effort doomed to failure. We have a hard anough time in Europe stopping them crossing a fairly wide sea so the poxy river you have is no barrier at all, even with all the fences around it.

The only real option is making sure that when they get here they are not able to undercut our own labour force at the bottom of the market. The best way to do that is to shift the punishment to the people who employ illegal immigrants with no work permit. Also, minimum wage laws might help too providing the punishment for breaking it as an employer suitable outweighs the benefit of cheap labour (ie: prison time). The main thrust should definitely be though that if you employ someone and do not check their legal status sufficiently you get hefty fines for the first offence then prison for any repeats.

I also have no problem with outright denying things like foodstamps to recent arrivals, I just doubt it will do the slightest thing without the measures I mention above apart from make them more desperate and so willing to work for less.

Other countries do, I doubt the US immigrants are too different to those trying to get to europe. Also, can illegals still get food stamps with no proof of residency? Here in Europe they can't but they come anyway.

It doesn't surprise me that most people believe the same way you do, as that is way it is often presented. The truth is though that is because the current situation of there being tons of people here illegally is actually better for those who want to pay as little as possible as illegal immigrants will work for less than legal immigrants as they are more desperate. That is the main reason that the parties like the republicans that represent the richest are also usually anti-imigration, they know that people will come anyway they will just work for less due to their desperation.