Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Go back in time 5 years (Score 1) 558

by mvdwege (#48460709) Attached to: Debian Votes Against Mandating Non-systemd Compatibility

So you specifically installed it. Unless you go about your business installing tasks without knowing what's in them.

And you couldn't be bothered to RTFM. Instead you rant on Slashdot. And when called upon it, you get defensive. You are not an admin, you're a script kiddie living in Mommy and Daddy's basement.

Comment: Re:Go back in time 5 years (Score 1) 558

by mvdwege (#48455601) Attached to: Debian Votes Against Mandating Non-systemd Compatibility

apt-cache show resolvconf

Let's snip some output, and then we see: Priority: optional

So, it only installs by default if you select tasks. What sane admin complains about a package that they selected themselves? And besides, it is only an apt-get --purge remove away.

For all your bragging that you have used Linux for so long, you sure make the impression of a script kiddie who thinks he's l33t for having successfully installed Ubuntu. Assuming you speak the truth, all it proves is that it took you ages to improve to merely incompetent.

The way to manage a Debian system is to set up a boot server with a netinst image, ideally with some preseeded packages and config, and then pull in the rest of the packages and config using a management system like cfengine or puppet. Either way, if you're an experienced Debian admin, you should know about the existence of resolvconf, and when it is useful or not. Installing it on a server and then complaining about it managing your resolv.conf file makes you a luser.

Comment: Re:Of course not! (Score 1) 125

by mvdwege (#48447365) Attached to: 2014 Hour of Code: Do Ends Justify Disney Product Placement Means?

I know it is popular these days in our little nerd bubble to hate on positive portrayals of girls, but when the highest-grossing film of 2013 gets called poorly-performing, I think it is time you turn in your geek card and search for a forum more appropriate to your intelligence.

Comment: Re:Capitalism does not reward morality (Score 1) 197

by mvdwege (#48447237) Attached to: Is a Moral Compass a Hindrance Or a Help For Startups?

So, given your admiration for an economy driven by government land grants and the US army genociding the inhabitants of such lands, coupled with an other aspect of fascism, reverence of power, how does this not apply to you?

The question was rhetorical, by the way. There is no way you can come up with a rational answer to deny it, you'll probably just come up with another deluded rant.

Calling government led genocide of natives "winning in the marketplace". Dear God, I knew you were mad, but you get worse by the day.

Comment: Re:Capitalism does not reward morality (Score 1) 197

by mvdwege (#48425297) Attached to: Is a Moral Compass a Hindrance Or a Help For Startups?

You specified the 19th century US economy as ideal. Since westward expansion was a large driver of that, you don't get to shift the goalposts: your ideal economy was built on force of arms.

Of course you try to shift the attention to my slavery quip, because that draws attention away from the real meat.

Comment: Re:Capitalism does not reward morality (Score 1) 197

by mvdwege (#48424253) Attached to: Is a Moral Compass a Hindrance Or a Help For Startups?

My 'beloved' free market created the USA economy of 19th century

Wait, that economy that was based upon forcibly (as in, using Armed Forces) taking land from the natives and the government redistributing it to settlers in the form of land grants? That 19th century USA economy?

Or do you mean the other one, built on trade in goods farmed by slaves?

Comment: Re:Go back in time 5 years (Score 1) 558

by mvdwege (#48424189) Attached to: Debian Votes Against Mandating Non-systemd Compatibility

Yes, but as GP proves, the haters don't want to make any effort to understand systemd, because that would mean they would actually have to put some effort into maintaining their systems.

Putting badly-founded rants on the Internet just looks more impressive to a certain mind.

And to be fair, when I read about the boot-time mount behaviour of systemd, my first thought was "WTF?". I understand the logic, so I can live with it, but ideal it is not, IMO.

Comment: Re:Go back in time 5 years (Score 1) 558

by mvdwege (#48419565) Attached to: Debian Votes Against Mandating Non-systemd Compatibility

It would help if you stuck to the facts, instead of selling more BS, like all the other anti-systemd merchants.

Mount works the way it always does, it does not invoke systemd. Automatic mounting at boot and on other system events is handled by systemd, but the mount command is what it always has been.

Again, another hater shows that they haven't even done the barest minimal testing on systemd to see what it actually does.

"Why can't we ever attempt to solve a problem in this country without having a 'War' on it?" -- Rich Thomson, talk.politics.misc

Working...