Devuan is another Linux without systemd. I've been using it for a couple years.

A tea bag has about 2 grams of tea. THAT's pretty obviously what they're talking about, not about the several hundred grams of water you poured into your tea cup. (If you want to consider the mass of the resulting cup of tea when you compare with the salt measurement, then you should similarly consider the resulting mass of the food onto which you sprinkle your salt, not just the mass of the salt itself...)

Yes, I agree that the bogus charges against him are a Bad Thing. But they have nothing to do with online harassment, i.e. the point of this article.

If Weev had sometime been hit by a drunk driver, would we derail the thread talking about how important the dangers of drunk driving are in society?

If Weev had sometime learned a foreign language, would we derail the thread talking about important and useful it is to learn a foreign language?

If Weev got sick from spoiled food at a restaurant, would we derail the thread talking about the failures of food inspection and how it affects us all?

...I suppose not. So why is it so worth derailing the thread to talk about how he was arrested for something which has nothing to do with the original article? It simply comes off as a way of belittling and minimizing online harassment. "Sure he did this evil shit, but look over here at this other unrelated incident: something bad happened to HIM, so that's more important!"

http://www.wikiart.org/en/fran...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Marie-Louis O'Murphy was 14 when this nude portrait of her was painted by Francois Boucher in 1752. It seems pretty obviously erotic. (A nude portrait of her caused her to come to the king's attention, and he took her on as another of his lovers.)

I guess anyone in the UK who views this famous painting (which currently hangs in a German art gallery) and thus has the image in their browser cache might get in legal trouble.

I'm not sure I get your point. It sounds like you think shellshock is a security risk only during system init...?

The shellshock exploits I've read about are not related to system init.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shellshock_%28software_bug%29

Or are you suggesting that people with systemd don't even have bash on their systems?

Or are you arguing that because bash has (had) a serious bug, it means we shouldn't be concerned about other software like systemd having bugs?

That Gimp (and more and more other programs) require systemd (which is supposedly merely "an init system") is the really evil thing. Poettering & Red hat are explicitly trying to force all Linuxes to have systemd.

I don't trust Poettering & Co's track record, nor competence, nor intentions (e.g. seeing him use sleazy manipulative rhetoric in a conference video where he accused a systemd opponent of not caring about handicapped people), and I sure don't want their unnecessary huge mass of dubious code on my machine. (Though I'm sure the NSA will be happy for the increased opportunities of exploits in such a huge messy mass of code.) And even if this "init system" were somehow really necessary for Gnome, I don't use Gnome.

They have lied, e.g. claiming that systemd is just an init system, or that it is not a big monolithic chunk of code, yet it becomes more and more monolithic. E.g. I just watched a week or two ago as several libsystemd packages in debian became merged into a single package while one user was trying to create a stub for one of them to satisfy some needless systemd dependencies by some applications.

I am becoming increasingly convinced that Ignorant Guru is right, and Linux is being manipulated for corporate interests, not users' interests. http://igurublog.wordpress.com...

If you're worried that your computer is unsafe and surreptitiously keylogging, then you shouldn't even read your email from that computer anyway, since your email account will typically give access to all that other stuff too.

Interesting; sounds like that was a different phenomenon if all list messages were being marked as spam, because all the other list members' emails come to my inbox fine. It's just one member's emails who always get flagged as spam. (And other list members report having the same problem with that one guy.) We hypothesize it might be due to his having a yahoo.com email address, but I dunno.

I (and most gmail users I know) almost never get spam in my gmail inbox. Dunno why your experience is so different. The only complaint I have is one particular sender on on particular email list whose emails are consistently misclassed as spam. I always mark them as not spam, and have even sent them to google's spam team for analysis when offered that dialog, but gmail every time misclasses his emails as spam. That is annoying and weird, but it's the only problem I have with gmail spam filtering.

Why would you believe that all men are bad people?

Noting that a lot of women get harassed by stupid trolls who are men in no way implies that all men are that way. I've seen a LOT of comments about this subject, especially lately, and I don't recall anyone ever claiming all men are bad. I just see lots of anti-feminists CLAIMING that women think all men are bad.

This persistent meme that women talking about this issue are man-haters trying to build a matriarchy is just paranoid conspiracy theory, if not outright trolling.

There's more than one big picture.

Extreme harassment by sociopathic trolls and anonymous internet lynch mobs is also a big picture problem that's getting worse and worse. And it is the subject of the article, unlike the derailing subject of his trial for something unrelated to the article.

Sure, I know why companies want to control the use of language. But in the end, speakers, not corporate lawyers, determine language use. And most speakers don't really feel a strong obligation to protect the trademark of some multimillion dollar company. There aren't usually outraged comments when someone says kleenex or xerox or google or any of zillions of other trademarks "inappropriately", so why the outrage about using "lego" to refer to the brick instead of the company that makes the brick? It seems oddly inconsistent.

Setting aside the question of whether Greenpeace's tactics are right or wrong, there shouldn't be Shell logos in Lego blocks.

Lego are children's toys, leave your goddamn advertisements and product placements out of them.

Sure, just like there are not 2 Fords in the parking lot, but 2 Ford automobiles, and not 3 Pepsis on the table, but 3 Pepsi drinks, and not 4 Dells in the marketing department, but 4 Dell computers.

Speakers, not corporate lawyers, determine language use, even if corporations wish it were otherwise.

Heh, fair point! :)