Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:So close, so far (Score 1) 541

by arth1 (#48428067) Attached to: "Barbie: I Can Be a Computer Engineer" Pulled From Amazon

I recently paid a visit to my sweet friend Helen Jane and was excited to find this book at her house.

She was excited to find a Barbie book at her friend place ? and she's excited because it could inspire her daughter ?

No, she was excited because that would likely be ammunition for another sexism rant.

Comment: Re:LOL ... w00t? (Score 1) 541

by arth1 (#48427309) Attached to: "Barbie: I Can Be a Computer Engineer" Pulled From Amazon

Someone who should be fired, not for being misogynistic, but simply for being stupid enough to not understand what he/she was doing.

We cannot really accuse the woman who wrote this booklet of misogynism.
Of being of the same, ehrm, intelligence level as Barbie, no doubt. But not misogynism.
A little bit of sexism in how boys are portrayed, perhaps.

Comment: Re:I know this! (Score 1) 541

by arth1 (#48427235) Attached to: "Barbie: I Can Be a Computer Engineer" Pulled From Amazon

To be fair to that scene, it actually takes a bit of awareness to realize that fucked up 3d UI was a filesystem wrapper.

fsn (file system navigator) for IRIX was not universally known, but if the girl used IRIX at school, it is not unfeasible that she was familiar with it.

(Most people knowing fsn would have used it to start a real shell, instead of continuing to use the slowest file system navigator in existence, just because it was pretty. But her role in the movie was to be a Barbie, so pretty counts.)

Comment: Re:Telegram (Score 1) 93

by arth1 (#48425753) Attached to: WhatsApp To Offer End-to-End Encryption

Telegram. It's open source, uses end to end encryption, and, unlike whatsapp, supports multiple connected clients at a time - including desktop clients for all platforms.

It's public domain, not open source.
End-to-end encryption is easy - you just need to send a courier with a one time pad.
And yes, there are telegraphs supporting multiple concurrent connections by using pitch shifting and filters so the receiver will only hear one set of beeps. But not more than a few.
Sure, there are desktop clients for all platforms - wooden, metal and marble top desktop can have clients, and there are even keys that mount on tilted desktops.

Of course you'll be hard pressed to find anyone on telegram

Indeed. Even Her Majesty The Queen stopped sending telegrams a few years ago. A shame, really.

Comment: Re:FBI Director James Comey may not care. (Score 2) 93

by arth1 (#48425681) Attached to: WhatsApp To Offer End-to-End Encryption

This is the same company that lied about the capabilities of its photo app, as well as stored the photos insecurely.

Why would they have to? All they need to do is present Whatsapp with a hush order to hand over keys.
When Whatsapp generates and maintains the keys, there's no real security here.
I even think it's not unlikely that they have implemented this in cooperation with the three letter agencies, in order to lure people into thinking it is safe. And the great unwashed masses will be fooled, as always.

Comment: Re:Not really secure (Score 1) 93

by arth1 (#48425629) Attached to: WhatsApp To Offer End-to-End Encryption

This is the same company that lied about the capabilities of its photo app, as well as stored the photos insecurely.

Don't forget storing conversation logs unencrypted.
Or requiring a personally identifiable marker (a phone number) in order to work, even when everything goes over IP and supporting anonymous users would be trivial.

Comment: Re:FBI Director James Comey may not care. (Score 2) 93

by arth1 (#48425591) Attached to: WhatsApp To Offer End-to-End Encryption

If it is really END TO END, then WhatsApp can't see the data either.

True, but anyone sniffing the traffic can, if they have access to a decryption key. Not that we know of anyone who would possibly do that...

In my view, this encryption is not to be trusted unless and until it can accept keys that are generated outside the WhatsApp product. Otherwise, how much would you want to bet that the three letter agencies aren't getting a master key under a hush order?

Comment: Re:Go back in time 5 years (Score 1) 534

by arth1 (#48425425) Attached to: Debian Votes Against Mandating Non-systemd Compatibility

Because you're engaging in a stupid political pissing contest, and you chose not to do your job and learn a new technology that's being adopted by the platform your employer has chosen.

You are so wrong you don't even know. What platform to use is my choice, and it has to be one that supports the software created by the developers working for the company and the environment they need to work in. RHEL7 is not it.
It is not my job to redesign in-house and 3rd party software so it will work with the peculiarities of systemd - it's my job to make sure I provide systems that work and stays working, 24/7, five nines.

Comment: Re:Systemd works OK in Fedora (Score 1) 534

by arth1 (#48421377) Attached to: Debian Votes Against Mandating Non-systemd Compatibility

Yeah, pretty ridiculous then that a Linux distro will start exhibiting that sort of behavior in 2015, don'tcha think?

It's rather telling that systemd introduces and relies on MSDOS .ini files from the 80s-90s era.
In ten years time, the systemd will probably introduce the registry too.

Comment: Re:Go back in time 5 years (Score 1) 534

by arth1 (#48421323) Attached to: Debian Votes Against Mandating Non-systemd Compatibility

I'd say it was more about price point than complexity. Its free and good enough vs expensive and full featured.

I don't think that's entirely true. People switched (and still switch) from Solaris to Red Hat, despite Red Hat not being exactly cheap.

I think compatibility and availability of software are the main reasons. The toolbox approach facilitates that, while the kitchen sink abstractions hinder it.

Comment: Re:Go back in time 5 years (Score 1) 534

by arth1 (#48421257) Attached to: Debian Votes Against Mandating Non-systemd Compatibility

I guarantee you that if I could have gotten a Solaris workstation for $2k while the Linux workstation was $7k no one would have cared about upgrading components on Linux more easily.

You'd be surprised. People bought expensive workstations with IRIX and changed them to run Linux. Primarily for compatibility reasons, but there were also people who did it because they liked Linux and the concept of a larger toolbox instead of larger tools.

Comment: Re:Go back in time 5 years (Score 2) 534

by arth1 (#48418421) Attached to: Debian Votes Against Mandating Non-systemd Compatibility

BS. During the early 2000s the discussion of complex scheduling like existed in Solaris came up again and again. There was general agreement that while Linux was fine for simple Linux servers and workstations that the lack of advanced features made it unsuitable to replace big box Unix. Linux induced a financial collapse in big box Unixes now it needs to replace their complexity and functionality.

What you say doesn't hang on a pitchfork.
If the big commercial unix versions (Solaris, AIX, HPUX, IRIX) failed due to their complexity, the solution for the winner, Linux, is not to increase complexity. It's because of the toolbox approach where you can always upgrade one component without touching others that Linux won. Going back to smit-like administration abstracted five ways from hell and with tentacles into everything and its godmother isn't going to make people flock to Linux.

Splitting sysv init into a couple of even simpler and lower level components might.

Nothing happens.

Working...