Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:They will care, probably sooner than they think (Score 1, Insightful) 128 128

Even this is something journald does so much better than syslog

You are cherry-picking the one thing that isn't logged by most syslog daemons by default,, in a disingenious attempt to show that syslog is "worse", even though it is off by default because it is of little use. If we cared AT ALL to have the "log level" information, it would be logged.

The discussions of the many limitations of syslog,

Fine. Then solve the problem where it should be solved, and add this to /etc/syslog. You systemd apparatchik like editing non-script-based config files, right?

# probably already in the config
source src { system(); internal(); }

# here's your damn filter
filter f_err_only { level( "error"}; };

# pre-filtered log output
destination err_only_log { file("/var/log/err_only_messages"); };

# link the filter to a destination
log { source(src); filter(f_err_only); destination(err_only_log); };

Now you can read those messages only using "less". You DID know that syslog has very flexible log routing and filtering capabilities, right?

claiming that regular expressions are easy is laughable.

If regex is too hard, you might as well give up now. Regex is only hard if you abuse it badly, which is true for any programming language. This is just trolling at this point.

Oh, and thanks for admitting you are an inexperience n00b. You may have been using linux since the early slackware days, but didn't seem to learn much.

As for your "challenge", I have yet to see any systemd apparatchik rise to the challenge to prove that systemd isn't an unmaintainable monolithic mess, by showing how to replace (NOT CHAIN) journald with syslog-ng or indeed run any of the systemd components in isolation.

Comment: Re:They will care, probably sooner than they think (Score 1, Insightful) 128 128

Being able to do a "journalctl -b -1 -p err" is so much better than faffing around with grep and regex.

That statement alone shows the core problem with the systemd evangelists: you don' t want to learn generic tools, and instead want to use single-purpose, monolithic[1] apps. A key distinction between the two this windows-style "fancy speciality apps" idea and the design goals of UNIX-like environments is that someone has already implemented the query you want to ask the computer to run.

It's great that you found a useful way to view your log data. Now try to query on something that journalctl didn't already implement for you. What kind of query? I don't - and that's the point. We can't predict the future, and new problems show up all the time. The point of what you call "faffing around with grep and regex" is that those tools are not difficult to use, and once you are familiar with the basics you now have a general tool you can apply to any unexpected situation.

syslog severity level "error" and above

I have never even remotely needed to filter events by syslog(3)'s "level" bits - it's not a very reliable filter, as app can be inconsistent in what LOG_* flag they use. Filtering on the facility (source) or time is far more useful. If you find that particular command to be useful, then great - which would be a good example of how use-cases can vary a *lot* depending on what you're doing.

try that with grep!

Listen, if you want lessons on how to use basic unix tools, there are many available on the web. For now, what you're obviously missing is that you would use sed for range filtering, not grep. do the line-range filtering. You simply use two regex in the form sed -n '/start_line_pattern/,/end_line_pattern/ p'.

Then, once you have a useful query built with the standard tools, you save it in a 2 line shells script. Seriously, do you think we actually type this stuff out verbosely every time we want to search a logfile? Have you evne *used* a CLI? This is n00b level stuff.

how can systemd ever make it harder for non-systemd distros

If you're going to accuse someone of being misinformed, it's a good idea to actually know what you're talking about. To name the most obvious example, it is absolutely insane to have any specific application (server daemons included) depend on any particular "init system"2. Yet systemd promoted the idea of using sd_notify which created a link-time dependency. Yes, such things can be compiled out, but that misses the point. Introducing a binary, link-time dependency like this has the de facto effect of forcing distros to make an all-or-nothing choice about including systemd.

It is true that this is not entirely systemd's fault - the app/sever authors are also to blame for going along with this crap. That doesn't excuse all the social pressure Poettering's cabal put on a lot of projects.

1before anybody trolls with the usual response that systemd is not monolithic - probably by mentioning the number of binaries it compiles into - you should know that those claims will only prove you haven't actually understood what we mean when we say "monolithic"

2 this is why it was always a lie to call the systemd takeover a debate about "init systems", as systemd was never just an "init system", but also many other things as well, mostly inseperable by design

Comment: Re:Stupid ... (Score 4, Insightful) 126 126

It is dangerous to assume stupidity - especially when the people in question are making threatening gestures in your direction. What you describe is one possibility. Another is that these lawmakers (or the people they work for) DO understand these issues, and the inevitable problems that arise are the expected outcome.

Yes, Hanlon's razor is a good heuristic most of the time, but in this case we have a pattern. Technology that empowers people (e.g. real crypto/security, better communications technology like the internet) has been attacked fairly consistently. Tools and methods have been criminalized in the past with alarming frequency. For this specific issue, there are a lot of people invested in the status quo of where computers ("ii.e. "most products", eventually) are easily monitored/tracked, and easily attacked if the need arises. Dan Geer described our situation very accurately in his outstanding talk last year: the current strategy of the US government (and others) with regards to network security is "all offense".

When proposals like this happen, people are tying to shape your future. Maybe they want to get an actual law passed. They just want to use a confusing topic in a show for the benefit of their constituency. Maybe the goal is propaganda or shifting the Overrton window. Whatever the purpose, we would be lucky to have stupid lawmaker which we can at least attempt to fix with education. Unfortunately, what looks like stupidity is often agenda, and underestimate their threat at your own peril.

Comment: Re:disable EME (Score 1) 371 371

Firefox tried to push open video formats, like webm, and refused to support H264.

I know - I argued against that stupid strategy at the time. part of my argument was the same one Mozilla is using now (give up the fight or risk of losing market share).

My solution is still the same: don't ever implement evil or you make the problem worse, do what you can to satisfy market demands by dodging the problem (leave the codec outside of the browser by calling standard OS support (even gstreamer/etc on linux supported h.264 at the time). By ignoring h.264 years ago, Firefox lost users. By adding DRM support, they lost their remaining moral high ground and ability to fight future industry demands. (if they accepted industry demands once, they will do it again in the future).

"plugin" that is very restricted on what it can do

It would be a hasty generalization to assume that this will always be the case. Describing the current implementation does not indicate how it will be implemented in the future. A better extrapolation is that the probability of Mozilla accepting even worse DRM into Firefox in the future is high, because the reasons for accepting it now only grow stronger with time. They wanted to avoid alienating users that supposedly demand Netflix support in the browser. That demand will only increase dramatically when everybody is accustomed to using Netflix in Firefox.

Do you really think Mozilla will put their foot down when the ebook industry gets together with the movie industry to enable text DRM? Or when the plugin changes and requires new holes in the sandbox (e.g. to support Intel's new SGX instructions to create a Trusted Execution Enviornment you cannot access)? You really think that Mozilla will reverse their current behavior, accept the even larger damage to their market share as the Netflix users move to "a browser that works"? No, they will keep paying the industry's demands for danegeld and we lose the free and open web. When lots of the web is wrapped in DRM, do remember that you helped create that future instead of fighting early when the battle was easier.

Comment: Re:CDM is sandboxed (Score 1) 371 371

The current implementation is sandbox; we know nothing about how it will be implemented in the future. Have fun when a new version of the plugin requires disabling the sandbox or giving the plugin access to more OS features. When the servers drop support for the old version for vague "security reasons" (or other excuse), good luck telling the people that are now used to getting Netflix that the new version won't be supported. No, the sandbox will be removed and the new version made to work, with the same justification they you short-sighted idiots are using now.

Even better: are you going to go out of your way to block the upgrade when the ebook publishing industry (which already uses a lot of DRM) demands the same browser DRM rights as the movie industry? When Amazon makes the same demands as Netflix, why won't the same justifications work? // non-DRM webpages were nice while they lasted

Comment: Re:Get cracking (Score 1) 371 371

in the end, the DRM'ed content has to be accessible


That's the key point - as long as you have the requirement that DRM content "must" be accessible, it the people that control that content can demand anything they want. You need to tell them the line you aren't going to cross, or the price you won't pay if you want the publishers to change. This is basic supply/demand economics. Infinite demand means the price can be anything.

Yes, this might mean some sacrifice from you, such as not getting to see the latest popular movie. Are you going to pay that cost now, or are you going to keep paying the publishers that demand more and more, so you have to sacrifice even more when the fight happens in the future?

Comment: Re:Get cracking (Score 2) 371 371

Maybe you should start paying attention to what's going on in the world. Major power-grabs are happening and you think it's about movies, simply because the people trying to grab power said so. I don't give a damn about movies or Netflix. What I do care about is legal precedent, the establishing of standards that will be used in other areas, the erosion of rights like the 1st-sale doctrine, and businesses that demand you weaken your computer security.

If this looks like a dystopian SF novel to you , maybe you should start doing something about it instead of accepting whatever price the publishing industry (not netflix) asks for just so you can see the latest movies. Welcome to the War On General Purpose Computing. Some of us have been fighting that war for over 20 years now, trying to prevent the "dystopian SF future". It would be nice if other people joined the fight once and a while, because we're losing the war; a decade ago Mozilla would have never caved, but the pressure has gotten a lot worse.

Anybody discussing movies isn't looking at the larger situation, where some people are asking you to hand your computer's root access over to them, and you do it because thy promise not to abuse that power while threatening to take your toys away.

Comment: Re:Disableable (Score 1) 371 371

What ligament legal way is there of getting DRM free movies and shows.

Excluding the occasional independent publisher that caters to that market, there isn't any. That's the point: in a society based on capitalism, you have to deny them revenue if you want a business to change. As long as these publishers know that you are willing to do anything to get their product - including risking legal and civil consequences by turning to piracy - then they know they can get away with demanding anything they want.

Right now, there are many publishers demanding that you install rootkits and backdoors ("DRM") if you want access to their products. Technology is being used to confuse the situation so you don't notice that they are trying to reverse the first-sale doctrine and the concept of ownership in general. The end game is that you never own anything while getting nickel-and-dimed every time you press "play", while the people that own copyright (NOT the creators) get rich. If we let it happen completely, it will effectively be a return to feudalism, with the ownership class and everybody else who pays for it.

Many people in this thread and the developers at Mozilla are choosing to let this future happen. Some of us are saying that we shouldn't let Hollywood get away with rewriting the way ownership works. We are trying to point out that publishers are trying to scam/con you when they offer to give you more convenient access to movies in exchange for your first-sale right to own your copy of a creative work and installing their badly written backdoors (at best) or explicitly malicious rootkits (e.g. Sony XCP).

It would have been nicer if we had stopped this problem earlier, but people like you decided toi give the publishers money and expand their popularity with piracy. Fixing it now will unfortunately require sacrifice in the form of not using their products. If we let EME gain a foothold in the web, fighting this problem in the future might require doing without certain websites as well. If you think the restrictions on the current plugin are going to prevent that, consider that those restrictions just went from "no DRM allowed" to "some DRM for movies is allowed". Is it really that big of an extrapolation to suggest that other industries - such as those currently feeling left out, like the book publishing industry - will force a change to "slightly stronger DRM for movies and text (books) is allowed"?

So no, there is no legal way to get most movies DRM free. Are you going to keep accepting the larger and larger demands of the publishers, or are you finally going to tell them "no, that cost is too high"?

Comment: Re:Disableable (Score 1) 371 371

You are trading your future freedom for a few movies. Worse, you could get those movies in other ways, so you're really trading your future freedom for slightly more convenient access to movies. When DRM is even more entrenched in the future, be sure to remember that you made this trade and helped that DRM become established.

Comment: Re:sandboxing (Score 1) 371 371

He's talking about security.

So am I. I'm sorry you don't seem to understand that. DRM is insecure by design. The entire point is make sure the owner of a computer doesn't have root access. This is really basic, so I assume most people know this.

More importantly, the fallacy you are stuck in is that you are looking at the current plugin. I was talking about future updates that no longer follow this model. Or do you think that won't happen? Will you refuse to update when it does? The properties of a future plugin are not restrained to what the current plugin is limited to, and it will be easier to extend the plugin once the current plugin has a lot of users.

Of course, you're posting as annymous, so I assume you salary depends on DRM and therefor there is little chance that you will actually listen to what I have said here. If you want to respond, try to actually address the topic at hand (Firefox's new EME plugin) , instead of parroting useless off-topic facts like the popularity of other DRM schemes or the number of netflix users in general. Of course other types of DRM exist; the question is if you're going to fight this encroachment into a new area or if you're going to give this new plugin it the market share it wants.

Comment: Re:Get cracking (Score 1) 371 371

You're talking about "standard" tools and protocols as if they are some holy relic that is known and defined for all time. The entire fscking point is that these standards are currently in flux, with new standards trying to gain a foothold, while collaborators and useful idiots fight try and convince people that they should adopt it.

You choose to be a collaborator and support DRM by giving it market share. I choose to deny that protocol, because this isn't about movies. Are you going to also accept DRM when the upgrade happens and the current protocol no longer works? Or were you a fool, thinking this particular version of EME was the final version? Would you fight a new version, after everybody has become used to using netflix? No, you support DRM now, so you'll do what you're told and support it again in the future. Oh, of course - you think you're just going to pirate whatever you want!

A huge power grab is being attempted, and you (and many other's in this thread) choose to give DRM the foothold it's looking for. In the future when businesses use DRM for far more than just video - which many industries have been trying to accomplish for years - and you have to turn to piracy for things you use "save as" for right now, do remember that you asked for those restrictions instead of fighting when the threat was smaller. After all, those future publishers will simply be using the new "right tool" for the job.

Comment: Re:Get cracking (Score 1, Insightful) 371 371

instead their job is to write down what the big vendors are already doing, so that everyone else can interoperate

We call people who work with the enemy collaborators, which is one of the faster ways to get your former allies to see you as a traitor.

There is a fight for freedom going on here, and many of you are talking about movies. Anybody that things this is hyperbole or "crazy" hasn't been paying attention.

(actually, given that the target audience of this post is nerds that like netflix, I suppose these links would be more appropriate)

Comment: Re:Disableable (Score 0) 371 371

The DRM isn't a closed source part of *firefox*.

That is a disingenuous game of semantics, and you know it. Firefox is enabling it, and any sane person see that firefox (the package they downloaded) is what is playing the DRMed video. The specific technical nature of sandboxed processes, plugins, and dynamically loadable object files are mere implementation details.

These implementation details can change in the future, too. Remember, anybody that uses this is literally asking for a non-free (as in freedom) internet, and is making any future fight against DRM significantly harder. Once this crap is established and you have to fight people that USE the DRM, you're going to have a lot harder time fighting updates. The fight is hard enough already; good luck when you have to also convince users that they should give up their netflix instead of installing some rookit-style update.

You're using a keyboard! How quaint!