No, they're to point out your parroting of the echo chamber makes for a pretty worthless opinion.
So you can't read, or you're so blinded by your prejudices that you won't read.
No wonder they never let you manage more than kiddie servers that need no such things as hotplugging.
servers where hot plugging is not an issue
Here's a nickel kid. Go buy yourself a real server
guy that throws bug reports back in people's faces
He doesn't. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid and depending on secondary sources. Go read the actual bugreports and discussion.
Yeah, you really are a fucking coward, aren't you? Quickly checking that box so you can sockpuppet your own thread.
As has been pointed out to you multiple times: Lennart was right, and Linus agrees. Using the overall debug variable was the correct way to go about it, and the real bug in systemd (overly verbose assertions) was acknowledged and fixed.
The whole point of fast-food chains is that they sell a uniform product through all their chains. If this was an aberration, then Subway has to prove that. In the meantime, due to public expectations, the result should stand.
The real matter is that a comission set up to do rigorous scientific research on investigative methods, instead of allowing just any railroad the DA wants, is being dismantled. It's here now, it won't be next month.
Your complaints show your bias.
First, they do not "dismantle" the commission, they just don't renew its mandate.
Semantics. The end result is the same: no commission.
If the bar is something like "Brietbart has a long history of publishing fake news and not issuing corrections so let's just mark everything from that site", I'm less keen on it.
You know, if the land around is brown and dead for miles, it is in fact reasonable to presuppose the well is poisoned.
If you like policing women's sexual behaviour so much, why don't you fuck off to Iraq? I believe there's a bunch of like-minded folk there, what were they called again? Oh yeah, ISIS.
"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." -- Anatole France
As I said, you're a coward. Your hiding behind 'authority' figures makes that abundantly clear. Befehl ist Befehl, after all.
they think it's acceptable behavior
They think that because cowards like you keep letting them getting away with it.
Furthermore, why would you believe that is must be other men that must assert it's unacceptable? Women aren't invalids incapable of asserting themselves.
Because the very essence of their sexism means that they will take other men more seriously. Really, its not that hard.
there are some men that actually are cowardly, what good does shaming them for not being "manly" enough accomplish?
Since I was nowhere imputing cowardliness with a lack of manliness, I think we have the nub of the situation here: you are not a coward for not speaking out about sexism, you are a coward because you agree and just don't have the courage to speak out openly, instead just letting the douchebros do the hard work for you.
As the start of this subthread quoted: "The standard you walk past is the standard you accept".
Do you honestly believe that's all it take to curb that type of behavior?
Point out where I said that.
It would definitely be helpful if more men spoke out, because that would give a strong signal that sexist behaviour is socially unacceptable. If that is so hard for you that you feel the need to deflect when you are asked to do so, I stand by my assessment: you're a coward.
1. The belief that one sex is much better at something than the other by nature of their sex. [...] I'm pretty sure the first one is mostly dead and buried in the western world,
Dude, on this very thread we see people argue that women just aren't as interested in tech as men. Are you blind?
Riches cover a multitude of woes. -- Menander