Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.misc > #26457 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Retrograde <fungus@amongus.com.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-02-16 16:55 +0000 |
| Last post | 2025-02-26 21:21 -0300 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 290 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.misc
Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Retrograde <fungus@amongus.com.invalid> - 2025-02-16 16:55 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-16 21:23 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-16 23:55 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-17 11:40 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Dave Yeo <dave.r.yeo@gmail.com> - 2025-02-17 09:26 -0800
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-17 22:42 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-17 22:23 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-18 10:20 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-02-19 07:32 +1000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2025-02-18 23:47 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-19 09:42 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> - 2025-03-06 07:10 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-07 20:44 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-08 23:44 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-02-20 08:23 +1000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-19 22:22 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 15:55 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 17:59 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 18:01 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 22:51 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 22:01 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-21 10:29 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-23 22:55 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-24 05:19 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-24 13:28 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-24 10:55 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-24 13:34 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-24 23:15 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-24 23:06 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-25 11:10 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-25 10:08 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-25 23:12 +0100
OT: walking and exercising (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-26 21:31 -0300
Re: OT: walking and exercising (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 14:52 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-02-27 21:40 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-01 11:48 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-03-05 06:40 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-05 13:39 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-03-05 20:00 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-05 22:12 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-24 17:54 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-24 23:41 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-24 23:19 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-25 11:16 +0100
education Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> - 2025-03-06 07:55 +0000
Re: education Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-07 22:00 -0300
Re: education Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-03-08 03:47 +0000
Re: education Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-08 18:27 -0300
Re: education Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2025-03-09 02:08 +0000
Re: education Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-10 02:58 -0300
Re: education Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2025-03-10 18:38 +0000
Re: education cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-03-10 19:13 +0000
Re: education Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> - 2025-03-11 13:30 +0000
Re: education Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-14 11:17 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-25 19:12 -0500
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-26 02:08 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D Finnigan <dog_cow@macgui.com> - 2025-02-26 09:06 -0600
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2025-02-26 18:09 -0400
the command line is language (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-26 21:46 -0300
Re: the command line is language (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2025-02-27 03:31 -0400
Re: the command line is language Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-27 08:10 -0300
Re: the command line is language D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 15:41 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 14:47 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-26 13:15 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-26 16:34 -0500
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-26 16:38 -0500
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-26 22:34 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-26 18:50 -0500
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-27 03:11 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-27 08:18 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-27 17:04 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-27 18:53 -0500
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-28 21:41 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-26 22:03 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-27 03:29 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 15:16 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-27 12:36 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-26 21:55 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 14:43 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-27 17:07 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-27 19:05 -0500
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-03-01 15:06 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-01 11:47 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-03-01 16:31 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-26 21:52 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 15:15 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-03-01 16:51 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2025-03-01 17:15 -0400
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-02 12:34 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2025-02-26 12:29 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-26 16:34 -0500
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-26 22:04 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-03-05 20:00 +0000
more on broken schools (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-26 21:38 -0300
Re: more on broken schools (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-26 19:47 -0500
Re: more on broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-27 08:55 -0300
Re: more on broken schools kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-27 19:00 -0500
OT: a personal note to Stefan Ram (Was: Re: more on broken schools) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-27 09:31 -0300
Re: more on broken schools (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 15:03 +0100
Re: more on broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-07 20:30 -0300
Re: more on broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-08 23:43 +0100
Re: more on broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-08 21:33 -0300
Re: more on broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-09 13:30 +0100
Re: more on broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-10 03:00 -0300
Re: more on broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-10 10:50 +0100
Re: more on broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-10 08:46 -0300
Re: more on broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-11 23:05 +0100
Re: more on broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-14 11:31 -0300
Re: more on broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-14 23:46 +0100
Re: more on broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-16 22:43 -0300
Re: more on broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-17 23:44 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 22:50 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 22:21 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-21 17:06 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-23 23:28 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-24 11:12 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-24 14:08 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-24 23:32 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-24 22:22 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-25 11:34 +0100
fdm, paredit and systemd (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-25 13:18 -0300
Re: fdm, paredit and systemd (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-26 13:53 +0100
Re: fdm, paredit and systemd Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-27 06:23 -0300
Re: fdm, paredit and systemd D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 15:31 +0100
Re: fdm, paredit and systemd Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-07 21:10 -0300
Re: fdm, paredit and systemd D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-09 00:09 +0100
Re: fdm, paredit and systemd Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-08 21:41 -0300
Re: fdm, paredit and systemd D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-09 13:32 +0100
UNIX systems (Was: Re: fdm, paredit and systemd) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-10 03:10 -0300
Re: UNIX systems (Was: Re: fdm, paredit and systemd) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-10 10:54 +0100
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-10 09:08 -0300
Re: UNIX systems D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-11 23:09 +0100
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-13 18:17 -0300
Re: UNIX systems D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-16 00:03 +0100
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-16 22:41 -0300
Re: UNIX systems D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-18 10:50 +0100
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-21 16:26 -0300
Re: UNIX systems Matto Fransen <mattof@sdf.org> - 2025-03-21 19:53 +0000
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-24 00:11 -0300
Re: UNIX systems D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-21 23:37 +0100
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-24 00:34 -0300
Re: UNIX systems D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-25 21:49 +0100
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-26 23:24 -0300
Re: UNIX systems D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-29 22:31 +0100
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-29 20:40 -0300
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-22 10:11 -0300
Re: UNIX systems kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-03-25 17:40 -0400
Re: UNIX systems D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-25 23:04 +0100
Re: UNIX systems Charles Dagny <1800@DEV.NULL> - 2025-03-28 21:41 -0300
Re: UNIX systems onion@anon.invalid (Mr Ön!on) - 2025-03-10 15:06 +0000
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-11 11:58 -0300
Re: UNIX systems yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> - 2025-03-11 15:49 +0042
Re: UNIX systems cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-03-11 15:25 +0000
Re: UNIX systems onion@anon.invalid (Mr Ön!on) - 2025-03-11 16:24 +0000
Re: UNIX systems cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-03-11 17:30 +0000
Re: UNIX systems candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-03-12 22:30 +0000
Re: UNIX systems yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> - 2025-03-12 23:23 +0042
Re: UNIX systems candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-03-13 20:40 +0000
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-13 18:04 -0300
Re: UNIX systems cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-03-13 21:26 +0000
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-14 12:23 -0300
Re: UNIX systems cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-03-13 01:24 +0000
Re: UNIX systems Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2025-03-12 01:38 -0300
Re: UNIX systems snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2025-03-12 14:03 +0000
Re: UNIX systems D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-12 22:19 +0100
Re: UNIX systems kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-03-11 19:09 -0400
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2025-03-04 02:44 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2025-03-04 17:50 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-19 09:40 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-02-20 08:29 +1000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 15:56 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-19 21:45 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 16:01 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 18:22 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 23:02 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 22:44 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-21 10:43 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-23 23:04 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-24 11:01 +0100
broken schools (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-24 13:46 -0300
Re: broken schools (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-24 23:18 +0100
Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-24 22:34 -0300
Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-25 11:38 +0100
Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-25 15:45 -0300
Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-26 14:05 +0100
Re: broken schools Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-26 13:15 +0000
Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-26 23:10 +0100
Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-27 06:49 -0300
Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-27 07:41 -0300
Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 19:52 +0100
Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-07 21:41 -0300
Re: broken schools yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> - 2025-03-08 02:59 +0042
Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-09 00:14 +0100
Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-08 22:26 -0300
Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-09 22:52 +0100
Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-10 08:39 -0300
Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-11 22:59 +0100
Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-14 12:10 -0300
Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-15 23:58 +0100
Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-17 00:02 -0300
Re: broken schools Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-03-18 03:00 +0000
Re: broken schools Eva Lu <evalu@tor.soy> - 2025-03-18 21:20 -0300
Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-18 11:17 +0100
OT: totally off-topic (Was: Re: broken schools) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-19 13:51 -0300
Re: OT: totally off-topic (Was: Re: broken schools) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-19 23:20 +0100
Re: OT: totally off-topic Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-21 11:52 -0300
Re: OT: totally off-topic D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-23 00:31 +0100
Re: OT: totally off-topic Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-29 20:50 -0300
Re: OT: totally off-topic D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-04-01 16:43 +0200
Re: OT: totally off-topic Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-04-04 11:20 -0300
Re: OT: totally off-topic D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-04-06 23:17 +0200
Re: OT: totally off-topic Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-04-10 15:19 -0300
Re: OT: totally off-topic D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-04-12 21:05 +0200
Re: OT: totally off-topic Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-04-13 13:10 -0300
lifestyles Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> - 2025-03-11 20:20 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-19 21:40 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 15:57 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Adrian <bulleid@ku.gro.lioff> - 2025-02-17 18:30 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-17 22:44 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Adrian <bulleid@ku.gro.lioff> - 2025-02-18 00:08 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2025-02-18 00:30 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-18 10:23 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-19 21:52 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2025-02-20 01:09 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-19 22:27 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-20 21:51 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 23:22 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-21 10:23 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 16:07 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 18:35 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 23:31 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 23:06 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-21 11:01 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Adrian <bulleid@ku.gro.lioff> - 2025-02-18 13:48 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-19 21:56 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-18 10:22 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Adrian <bulleid@ku.gro.lioff> - 2025-02-18 14:05 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-19 22:03 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 16:14 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 18:47 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2025-02-20 22:12 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 23:15 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-21 11:04 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-21 10:21 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-23 22:46 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-24 10:43 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2025-02-25 14:20 +0300
small communities, nntp server (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-25 15:20 -0300
Re: small communities, nntp server (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-26 13:57 +0100
Re: small communities, nntp server Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-26 21:20 -0300
Re: small communities, nntp server D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 14:49 +0100
Re: small communities, nntp server yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> - 2025-02-26 13:50 +0042
Re: small communities, nntp server D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-26 23:08 +0100
Re: small communities, nntp server D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-26 23:08 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-19 21:59 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 16:13 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 18:41 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 23:33 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 23:12 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-21 11:03 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-19 21:51 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-20 21:49 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 23:21 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-21 10:22 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-22 17:09 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-23 00:23 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-19 21:49 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 16:05 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 18:24 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 23:05 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 22:56 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-21 10:51 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-23 23:21 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-24 11:10 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-24 14:04 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-24 23:28 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-24 21:58 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-25 11:26 +0100
OT: personal stories (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-25 11:58 -0300
Re: OT: personal stories (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-26 13:21 +0100
Re: OT: personal stories Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-27 06:04 -0300
Re: OT: personal stories D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 15:21 +0100
Re: OT: personal stories Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-07 20:49 -0300
Re: OT: personal stories yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> - 2025-03-08 00:43 +0042
Re: OT: personal stories D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-08 23:46 +0100
Re: OT: personal stories D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-08 23:45 +0100
Re: OT: personal stories Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-08 21:37 -0300
Re: OT: personal stories D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-09 13:30 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D Finnigan <dog_cow@macgui.com> - 2025-02-25 13:17 -0600
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-26 21:21 -0300
Page 7 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 15 Next page →
| From | Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-25 13:18 -0300 |
| Subject | fdm, paredit and systemd (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) |
| Message-ID | <87r03mq9po.fsf_-_@example.com> |
| In reply to | #26669 |
D <nospam@example.net> writes: > On Mon, 24 Feb 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote: > >>> So if fdm can download the files in a nice spool folder format, I >>> might even be able to apply my small python script to copy the news >>> posting into Maildir folders, and there I can read, and alpine then >>> posts. >> >> I'm sure fdm can download and write them to a Maildir: it's how I use >> it. > > Oh, that might even make my python script redundant! This gets more interesting > by the minute! It will surely do. (It is also a powerful filter, so you can organize your NNTP articles into various different Maildir, essentially being your NNTP client from the downloading perspective. For uploading, we will need another program.) >>> Go is the next on my list. What is it that makes you like lisp so >>> much? I have never considered it, so I am curious. Doesn't it wear out >>> the () keys on your keyboard? ;) >> >> Lol. [L]ots of [S]tupid, [I]rritating [P]arenthesis. >> >> Have you ever used paredit-mode in the GNU EMACS? It makes you love the >> parenthesis. You're a vim user, so you likely never heard of paredit. >> If you have the energy, the time and the curiosity, you could watch a >> 3-minute demo at >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6h5dFyyUX0 >> >> A few seconds will be enough to get the spirit, but I don't care if you >> watch it---just skip it. > > Never heard of. It was a bit too quick, so I'm still not quite sure what it > does. Some of that jumping around can be achieved in vim, but since I'm not > familiar with lisp nor with exactly what he was doing, it is difficult > to say. I'd bet vim can do the same. It's not important. But the illustration there is that Lisp programmers don't worry about parentheses; it's all managed by them by editors such as the GNU EMACS (with its various packages for handling these specialized operations). >> It's a pleasure to use paredit-mode. Let me quote Donald Norman. I'm >> gonna show a larger quote, but my point here is on pleasure of use and a >> ``feeling of control''. > > This is true. I like the idea that everything is a file, and that log files are > plain text. It increases my feeling of control over the system. Good illustration! > That is why I do not like systemd. It moves away from this philosophy > and frankly, I still have not experienced anything that I need systemd > for, that could not have been solved without it. One thing I liked about systemd is that regular users can have their own daemons. But it turns out that's the only thing about systemd that I ever liked. And even then I changed my opinion. Daemons are not really meant to be managed by regular users; if there's any user that should have the right to run a daemon, then they should have sysadmin powers, even if specifically just for the task at hand. Bottom line: it's a neat thing that it does, but it might not quite be a real need. Let's take daemontools by djb, say. You can let regular users run their own daemons with a simple UNIX command of letting the directory where daemon lives have the adequate permissions for regular users to manage their own daemons. Now let's take the dependency management of systemd. Is that neat and cool? It is. But a competent sysadmin knows exactly what's needed in his start-up scripts---he doesn't need something complex to handle it. If he doesn't, he would want to learn. Once he learns, I can't quite see much of a point in having those things be completely managed by a monolithic subsystem that's trying to hide details from the sysadmin. > Sad! It's alright. As long as there are systems that don't buy the Microsoft way of things, we're good. And there will always be because hackers never buy into the nonsense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-26 13:53 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: fdm, paredit and systemd (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) |
| Message-ID | <2f52e086-7adf-663a-2bd7-0e328bdba87c@example.net> |
| In reply to | #26678 |
On Tue, 25 Feb 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote: >> Oh, that might even make my python script redundant! This gets more interesting >> by the minute! > > It will surely do. (It is also a powerful filter, so you can organize > your NNTP articles into various different Maildir, essentially being > your NNTP client from the downloading perspective. For uploading, we > will need another program.) Excellent! I wonder if it can replace mbsync nicely as well? Would be nice to have fdm handle both my mbsync (so sync imap folders to local laptop) _and_ to take care of news posts! I can easily see how the filters would take care of sorting the posts from various newsgroups into their respective folders in my mail client. As for posting, my mail client, alpine, has that covered! =) >> Never heard of. It was a bit too quick, so I'm still not quite sure what it >> does. Some of that jumping around can be achieved in vim, but since I'm not >> familiar with lisp nor with exactly what he was doing, it is difficult >> to say. > > I'd bet vim can do the same. > > It's not important. But the illustration there is that Lisp programmers > don't worry about parentheses; it's all managed by them by editors such > as the GNU EMACS (with its various packages for handling these > specialized operations). Yes, that makes a lot more sense. Manually typing all of those parentheses would be horrible! ;) It reminds me of an old xkcd comic... there were your father parenthesis, a more civilized weapon for a more civilized age. ;) >>> It's a pleasure to use paredit-mode. Let me quote Donald Norman. I'm >>> gonna show a larger quote, but my point here is on pleasure of use and a >>> ``feeling of control''. >> >> This is true. I like the idea that everything is a file, and that log files are >> plain text. It increases my feeling of control over the system. > > Good illustration! > >> That is why I do not like systemd. It moves away from this philosophy >> and frankly, I still have not experienced anything that I need systemd >> for, that could not have been solved without it. > > One thing I liked about systemd is that regular users can have their own > daemons. But it turns out that's the only thing about systemd that I > ever liked. And even then I changed my opinion. Daemons are not really > meant to be managed by regular users; if there's any user that should > have the right to run a daemon, then they should have sysadmin powers, > even if specifically just for the task at hand. Bottom line: it's a > neat thing that it does, but it might not quite be a real need. I agree! That's the problem, it tries to be too neat, and to do too much. In the end you have this horrible monolithic kludge that will probably crash due to its complexity, and take the system with it. Another thing I intensely dislike with it is the long and convoluted syntax of the commands. I mean just look at "ls"... it's beautiful! And "l" followed by an "s"! =D Now look at this horrible mess: "systemctl list-timers" Yuck! > Let's take daemontools by djb, say. You can let regular users run their > own daemons with a simple UNIX command of letting the directory where > daemon lives have the adequate permissions for regular users to manage > their own daemons. > > Now let's take the dependency management of systemd. Is that neat and > cool? It is. But a competent sysadmin knows exactly what's needed in > his start-up scripts---he doesn't need something complex to handle it. > If he doesn't, he would want to learn. Once he learns, I can't quite > see much of a point in having those things be completely managed by a > monolithic subsystem that's trying to hide details from the sysadmin. > >> Sad! > > It's alright. As long as there are systems that don't buy the Microsoft > way of things, we're good. And there will always be because hackers > never buy into the nonsense. That's good! After all, if I don't want systemd, there are distributions without it. =) The only annoying thing is that since I teach linux I am forced to teach the most common tools, and sadly that means systemd.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-27 06:23 -0300 |
| Subject | Re: fdm, paredit and systemd |
| Message-ID | <87a5a7hhbd.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #26707 |
D <nospam@example.net> writes: > On Tue, 25 Feb 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote: > >>> Oh, that might even make my python script redundant! This gets more >>> interesting by the minute! >> >> It will surely do. (It is also a powerful filter, so you can organize >> your NNTP articles into various different Maildir, essentially being >> your NNTP client from the downloading perspective. For uploading, we >> will need another program.) > > Excellent! I wonder if it can replace mbsync nicely as well? Would be nice to > have fdm handle both my mbsync (so sync imap folders to local laptop) _and_ to > take care of news posts! I can easily see how the filters would take care of > sorting the posts from various newsgroups into their respective folders in my > mail client. I'm not a user of mbsync, but if you use mbsync just to download mail from an IMAP server, then certainly fdm can replace it. > As for posting, my mail client, alpine, has that covered! =) You should be good then. :) >>> Never heard of. It was a bit too quick, so I'm still not quite sure what it >>> does. Some of that jumping around can be achieved in vim, but since I'm not >>> familiar with lisp nor with exactly what he was doing, it is difficult >>> to say. >> >> I'd bet vim can do the same. >> >> It's not important. But the illustration there is that Lisp programmers >> don't worry about parentheses; it's all managed by them by editors such >> as the GNU EMACS (with its various packages for handling these >> specialized operations). > > Yes, that makes a lot more sense. Manually typing all of those parentheses would > be horrible! ;) It reminds me of an old xkcd comic... there were your father > parenthesis, a more civilized weapon for a more civilized age. ;) Lol. I remember that one. >> One thing I liked about systemd is that regular users can have their own >> daemons. But it turns out that's the only thing about systemd that I >> ever liked. And even then I changed my opinion. Daemons are not really >> meant to be managed by regular users; if there's any user that should >> have the right to run a daemon, then they should have sysadmin powers, >> even if specifically just for the task at hand. Bottom line: it's a >> neat thing that it does, but it might not quite be a real need. > > I agree! That's the problem, it tries to be too neat, and to do too much. In the > end you have this horrible monolithic kludge that will probably crash due to its > complexity, and take the system with it. > > Another thing I intensely dislike with it is the long and convoluted syntax of > the commands. I mean just look at "ls"... it's beautiful! And "l" followed by an > "s"! =D > > Now look at this horrible mess: "systemctl list-timers" Yuck! Yeah---there's a fine line between incrementing language and sticking with the previous, well-established vocabulary. That's particularly important for hackers because they have an imense amount of vocabulary to manage and great fluency is essential to their day-to-day operations. >> It's alright. As long as there are systems that don't buy the Microsoft >> way of things, we're good. And there will always be because hackers >> never buy into the nonsense. > > That's good! After all, if I don't want systemd, there are distributions without > it. =) The only annoying thing is that since I teach linux I am forced to teach > the most common tools, and sadly that means systemd. No intention to question you here, but I'm sure you know how questionable this might be. I would think it's not really important to teach about systemd, specially if you don't find it beautiful. The principles and their concrete illustrations are much more interesting. The ``everything is a file'' is an example, and you can illustrate with countless examples. Modularity is another relevant word and can be seen at its prime in UNIX systems (and extremely in software such as qmail), with opposite examples in sendmail and also in systemd. On the other hand, I'm thinking here that you'd remark that your courses are highly practical, involved with system administration per se. I'm aware of that. But, still, I really don't see system administration very different from software writing. I would not find it too important to discuss the operational details of a specific system or software. Certainly a UNIX system has its own particularties in their rc scripts, but I would spend more time looking at POSIX-sh semantics, style, philosophy and history because it's primarily sh scripts that engineer the start-up schemes of UNIX systems. Because then every hacker can use that kind of culture to investigate whatever system he's interested in. In other words, I'd go for depth, not immediate working knowledge. Every system administrator will have to grind through the manuals anyway. Knowing how to start or stop daemons, say, in a particular system would not be terribly useful in a classroom. Of course, we would see how run the commands in whatever system we're using for the illustrations at the black board or at the computer lab, but merely to see things in motion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-27 15:31 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: fdm, paredit and systemd |
| Message-ID | <1e0008ef-b322-6a14-5842-d1f10eac4b58@example.net> |
| In reply to | #26749 |
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote: >> Excellent! I wonder if it can replace mbsync nicely as well? Would be nice to >> have fdm handle both my mbsync (so sync imap folders to local laptop) _and_ to >> take care of news posts! I can easily see how the filters would take care of >> sorting the posts from various newsgroups into their respective folders in my >> mail client. > > I'm not a user of mbsync, but if you use mbsync just to download mail > from an IMAP server, then certainly fdm can replace it. Excellent! As an added bonus, I would then get off mbsync. I think the creator of mbsync was woke, and changed master/slave to something I no longer remember in the code, in order not to offend people. Complete nonsense! >> As for posting, my mail client, alpine, has that covered! =) > > You should be good then. :) Excellent! >>> daemons. But it turns out that's the only thing about systemd that I >>> ever liked. And even then I changed my opinion. Daemons are not really >>> meant to be managed by regular users; if there's any user that should >>> have the right to run a daemon, then they should have sysadmin powers, >>> even if specifically just for the task at hand. Bottom line: it's a >>> neat thing that it does, but it might not quite be a real need. >> >> I agree! That's the problem, it tries to be too neat, and to do too much. In the >> end you have this horrible monolithic kludge that will probably crash due to its >> complexity, and take the system with it. >> >> Another thing I intensely dislike with it is the long and convoluted syntax of >> the commands. I mean just look at "ls"... it's beautiful! And "l" followed by an >> "s"! =D >> >> Now look at this horrible mess: "systemctl list-timers" Yuck! > > Yeah---there's a fine line between incrementing language and sticking > with the previous, well-established vocabulary. That's particularly > important for hackers because they have an imense amount of vocabulary > to manage and great fluency is essential to their day-to-day operations. Another example from hell for me is powershell. I've never seen such long command! Microsoft powershell gurus must really enjoy typing! >> That's good! After all, if I don't want systemd, there are distributions without >> it. =) The only annoying thing is that since I teach linux I am forced to teach >> the most common tools, and sadly that means systemd. > > No intention to question you here, but I'm sure you know how > questionable this might be. I would think it's not really important to > teach about systemd, specially if you don't find it beautiful. The Sadly I have to. Every course is governed by a governance document that specifies what must be taught. If a concept in that document is not taught, students can complain to the government, and the school gets a mark in their naughtiness register, and if too many accumulate, they can get fines. The work around is, of course, (and I do this to some extent) that it is not specified how deep one has to go into it. So a classic example was an intro to linux course, where the governance document said that the students must be taught how to compile their own software with configure/make/make install. So I cover that in about 20 minutes, since it is completely out of place in a short introduction to linux course. > principles and their concrete illustrations are much more interesting. > The ``everything is a file'' is an example, and you can illustrate with > countless examples. Modularity is another relevant word and can be seen > at its prime in UNIX systems (and extremely in software such as qmail), > with opposite examples in sendmail and also in systemd. Very much true. > On the other hand, I'm thinking here that you'd remark that your courses > are highly practical, involved with system administration per se. I'm > aware of that. But, still, I really don't see system administration > very different from software writing. I would not find it too important Yes... that's the vocational school style. Short courses 4 - 12 weeks depending on the subject, to get people barely up and running, and the idea is that they will then learn the finer details on the job or during their job training. When it comes to system administration in the modern sense, yes, there is an overlap with being a kind of programmer. But before that stage in their training, they learn how to do everything by hand, and only in a later course (the cloud course) do the students get to try their hand at scripting deployment of containers, VM:s, and finally... the live cloud with publicly accessible machines. > to discuss the operational details of a specific system or software. > Certainly a UNIX system has its own particularties in their rc scripts, > but I would spend more time looking at POSIX-sh semantics, style, > philosophy and history because it's primarily sh scripts that engineer > the start-up schemes of UNIX systems. Because then every hacker can use > that kind of culture to investigate whatever system he's interested in. Oh believe me... I've had to _fight_ to keep any resemblance of teaching basic bash scripting in the linux course. At first students hate it, but the brilliant ones later on tell me that they actually picked up a lot of linux while bash scripting, instead of if we used python or something else. This makes me happy and works as intended! ;) > In other words, I'd go for depth, not immediate working knowledge. > Every system administrator will have to grind through the manuals > anyway. Knowing how to start or stop daemons, say, in a particular > system would not be terribly useful in a classroom. Of course, we would > see how run the commands in whatever system we're using for the > illustrations at the black board or at the computer lab, but merely to > see things in motion. I wish we could do that... but the amount of teaching hours and focus on the vocation schools make that very difficult. =(
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-07 21:10 -0300 |
| Subject | Re: fdm, paredit and systemd |
| Message-ID | <87h644gz5i.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #26768 |
D <nospam@example.net> writes: > On Thu, 27 Feb 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote: > >>> Excellent! I wonder if it can replace mbsync nicely as well? Would be nice to >>> have fdm handle both my mbsync (so sync imap folders to local >>> laptop) _and_ to >>> take care of news posts! I can easily see how the filters would take care of >>> sorting the posts from various newsgroups into their respective folders in my >>> mail client. >> >> I'm not a user of mbsync, but if you use mbsync just to download mail >> from an IMAP server, then certainly fdm can replace it. > > Excellent! As an added bonus, I would then get off mbsync. I think the creator > of mbsync was woke, and changed master/slave to something I no longer remember > in the code, in order not to offend people. Complete nonsense! Lol. >>>> daemons. But it turns out that's the only thing about systemd that I >>>> ever liked. And even then I changed my opinion. Daemons are not really >>>> meant to be managed by regular users; if there's any user that should >>>> have the right to run a daemon, then they should have sysadmin powers, >>>> even if specifically just for the task at hand. Bottom line: it's a >>>> neat thing that it does, but it might not quite be a real need. >>> >>> I agree! That's the problem, it tries to be too neat, and to do too >>> much. In the >>> end you have this horrible monolithic kludge that will probably >>> crash due to its >>> complexity, and take the system with it. >>> >>> Another thing I intensely dislike with it is the long and >>> convoluted syntax of >>> the commands. I mean just look at "ls"... it's beautiful! And "l" >>> followed by an >>> "s"! =D >>> >>> Now look at this horrible mess: "systemctl list-timers" Yuck! >> >> Yeah---there's a fine line between incrementing language and sticking >> with the previous, well-established vocabulary. That's particularly >> important for hackers because they have an imense amount of vocabulary >> to manage and great fluency is essential to their day-to-day operations. > > Another example from hell for me is powershell. I've never seen such long > command! Microsoft powershell gurus must really enjoy typing! Besides, it's yet another shell. Even if it were really great... Have you seen Plan9's rc? It's a very neat shell. But it's not Bourne's sh. It's hard to overcome the inertia of a large body moving at high speed. >> to discuss the operational details of a specific system or software. >> Certainly a UNIX system has its own particularties in their rc scripts, >> but I would spend more time looking at POSIX-sh semantics, style, >> philosophy and history because it's primarily sh scripts that engineer >> the start-up schemes of UNIX systems. Because then every hacker can use >> that kind of culture to investigate whatever system he's interested in. > > Oh believe me... I've had to _fight_ to keep any resemblance of > teaching basic bash scripting in the linux course. At first students > hate it, but the brilliant ones later on tell me that they actually > picked up a lot of linux while bash scripting, instead of if we used > python or something else. This makes me happy and works as intended! > ;) No shell scripting? Okay---let's investigate a bit how the system works. ``What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.'' That's from a teacher I had called Juliet---she was pretty old, born in 1597. Her father was a famous play writer, whose name was William Shakespeare if I recall correctly. >> In other words, I'd go for depth, not immediate working knowledge. >> Every system administrator will have to grind through the manuals >> anyway. Knowing how to start or stop daemons, say, in a particular >> system would not be terribly useful in a classroom. Of course, we would >> see how run the commands in whatever system we're using for the >> illustrations at the black board or at the computer lab, but merely to >> see things in motion. > > I wish we could do that... but the amount of teaching hours and focus > on the vocation schools make that very difficult. =( I know. I also think that we shouldn't interfere so much with nature's course. It's not that we don't care---it's that we respect the group. Let's let the group follow its ``natural'' course. It's different when we're the captain; we then steer as we like. You can be the captain And I'll draw the chart Sailing into destiny Closer to the heart -- Neil Peart, Peter Talbot, 1977
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-09 00:09 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: fdm, paredit and systemd |
| Message-ID | <9f05f9e2-c7cd-4d03-0e32-44dc9537e2f0@example.net> |
| In reply to | #26829 |
On Fri, 7 Mar 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote: >>> Yeah---there's a fine line between incrementing language and sticking >>> with the previous, well-established vocabulary. That's particularly >>> important for hackers because they have an imense amount of vocabulary >>> to manage and great fluency is essential to their day-to-day operations. >> >> Another example from hell for me is powershell. I've never seen such long >> command! Microsoft powershell gurus must really enjoy typing! > > Besides, it's yet another shell. Even if it were really great... Have > you seen Plan9's rc? It's a very neat shell. But it's not Bourne's sh. > It's hard to overcome the inertia of a large body moving at high speed. Never seen. How does it differ from plain old bash? Inertia is a problem. Many young children I think use zsh on Macs, somehow, bash was what I had when I was young, and it stuck. ;) >> Oh believe me... I've had to _fight_ to keep any resemblance of >> teaching basic bash scripting in the linux course. At first students >> hate it, but the brilliant ones later on tell me that they actually >> picked up a lot of linux while bash scripting, instead of if we used >> python or something else. This makes me happy and works as intended! >> ;) > > No shell scripting? Okay---let's investigate a bit how the system > works. ``What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as > sweet.'' That's from a teacher I had called Juliet---she was pretty True. I'm currently discussing the course plans for the autumn, I think I have a good chance at sneaking in some good old shell through the backdoor. Keep your fingers crossed! =D >>> In other words, I'd go for depth, not immediate working knowledge. >>> Every system administrator will have to grind through the manuals >>> anyway. Knowing how to start or stop daemons, say, in a particular >>> system would not be terribly useful in a classroom. Of course, we would >>> see how run the commands in whatever system we're using for the >>> illustrations at the black board or at the computer lab, but merely to >>> see things in motion. >> >> I wish we could do that... but the amount of teaching hours and focus >> on the vocation schools make that very difficult. =( > > I know. > > I also think that we shouldn't interfere so much with nature's course. > It's not that we don't care---it's that we respect the group. Let's let > the group follow its ``natural'' course. It's different when we're the > captain; we then steer as we like. True! > You can be the captain > And I'll draw the chart > Sailing into destiny > Closer to the heart > -- Neil Peart, Peter Talbot, 1977 >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-08 21:41 -0300 |
| Subject | Re: fdm, paredit and systemd |
| Message-ID | <87v7sj8284.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #26840 |
D <nospam@example.net> writes: > On Fri, 7 Mar 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote: > >>>> Yeah---there's a fine line between incrementing language and sticking >>>> with the previous, well-established vocabulary. That's particularly >>>> important for hackers because they have an imense amount of vocabulary >>>> to manage and great fluency is essential to their day-to-day operations. >>> >>> Another example from hell for me is powershell. I've never seen such long >>> command! Microsoft powershell gurus must really enjoy typing! >> >> Besides, it's yet another shell. Even if it were really great... Have >> you seen Plan9's rc? It's a very neat shell. But it's not Bourne's sh. >> It's hard to overcome the inertia of a large body moving at high speed. > > Never seen. How does it differ from plain old bash? The thing I recall was that rc had a native list data structure. I don't recall much more than that; the feeling was that it was neat, tidy, more concise, more elegant. It felt closer to a general-purpose programming language, while still supporting the loved Bourne syntax. >>> Oh believe me... I've had to _fight_ to keep any resemblance of >>> teaching basic bash scripting in the linux course. At first students >>> hate it, but the brilliant ones later on tell me that they actually >>> picked up a lot of linux while bash scripting, instead of if we used >>> python or something else. This makes me happy and works as intended! >>> ;) >> >> No shell scripting? Okay---let's investigate a bit how the system >> works. ``What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as >> sweet.'' That's from a teacher I had called Juliet---she was pretty > > True. I'm currently discussing the course plans for the autumn, I think I have a > good chance at sneaking in some good old shell through the backdoor. Keep your > fingers crossed! =D Fingers crossed. :D
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-09 13:32 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: fdm, paredit and systemd |
| Message-ID | <842580d0-aceb-b942-2043-4908be386f97@example.net> |
| In reply to | #26846 |
On Sat, 8 Mar 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote: > D <nospam@example.net> writes: > >> On Fri, 7 Mar 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote: >> >>>>> Yeah---there's a fine line between incrementing language and sticking >>>>> with the previous, well-established vocabulary. That's particularly >>>>> important for hackers because they have an imense amount of vocabulary >>>>> to manage and great fluency is essential to their day-to-day operations. >>>> >>>> Another example from hell for me is powershell. I've never seen such long >>>> command! Microsoft powershell gurus must really enjoy typing! >>> >>> Besides, it's yet another shell. Even if it were really great... Have >>> you seen Plan9's rc? It's a very neat shell. But it's not Bourne's sh. >>> It's hard to overcome the inertia of a large body moving at high speed. >> >> Never seen. How does it differ from plain old bash? > > The thing I recall was that rc had a native list data structure. I > don't recall much more than that; the feeling was that it was neat, > tidy, more concise, more elegant. It felt closer to a general-purpose > programming language, while still supporting the loved Bourne syntax. It's a shame it died. =( Wasn't the idea to refine the good, old, Unix ideas, and improve on lessons learned? To take the idea of everything as a file, to the extreme? I often fantasize if I will see another OS revolution like Linux in my lifetime. That would be awesome! >>>> Oh believe me... I've had to _fight_ to keep any resemblance of >>>> teaching basic bash scripting in the linux course. At first students >>>> hate it, but the brilliant ones later on tell me that they actually >>>> picked up a lot of linux while bash scripting, instead of if we used >>>> python or something else. This makes me happy and works as intended! >>>> ;) >>> >>> No shell scripting? Okay---let's investigate a bit how the system >>> works. ``What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as >>> sweet.'' That's from a teacher I had called Juliet---she was pretty >> >> True. I'm currently discussing the course plans for the autumn, I think I have a >> good chance at sneaking in some good old shell through the backdoor. Keep your >> fingers crossed! =D > > Fingers crossed. :D >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-10 03:10 -0300 |
| Subject | UNIX systems (Was: Re: fdm, paredit and systemd) |
| Message-ID | <87wmcx4drc.fsf_-_@example.com> |
| In reply to | #26851 |
D <nospam@example.net> writes: > On Sat, 8 Mar 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote: > >> D <nospam@example.net> writes: >> >>> On Fri, 7 Mar 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote: >>> >>>>>> Yeah---there's a fine line between incrementing language and sticking >>>>>> with the previous, well-established vocabulary. That's particularly >>>>>> important for hackers because they have an imense amount of vocabulary >>>>>> to manage and great fluency is essential to their day-to-day operations. >>>>> >>>>> Another example from hell for me is powershell. I've never seen such long >>>>> command! Microsoft powershell gurus must really enjoy typing! >>>> >>>> Besides, it's yet another shell. Even if it were really great... Have >>>> you seen Plan9's rc? It's a very neat shell. But it's not Bourne's sh. >>>> It's hard to overcome the inertia of a large body moving at high speed. >>> >>> Never seen. How does it differ from plain old bash? >> >> The thing I recall was that rc had a native list data structure. I >> don't recall much more than that; the feeling was that it was neat, >> tidy, more concise, more elegant. It felt closer to a general-purpose >> programming language, while still supporting the loved Bourne syntax. > > It's a shame it died. =( Wasn't the idea to refine the good, old, Unix > ideas, and improve on lessons learned? I wouldn't say it died. I believe Plan 9 is doing pretty well, but I don't think they're trying to compete with popular systems. It's a research system, I'd say. OpenBSD is a research system, even though it's totally usable. In fact, it's the one I like to use. > To take the idea of everything as a file, to the extreme? I think Plan 9 is the most UNIX system ever. I think it takes everything-is-a-file to as far as it has been. > I often fantasize if I will see another OS revolution like Linux in my > lifetime. That would be awesome! I feel the revolution is not Linux per se. Surely Linux is sound---no doubt there. But it's also quite clear that Richard Stallman had the *whole* idea in mind easily before Linux. Without Linux, for example, the GNU project could have taken the FreeBSD kernel and made a complete system out of it. In fact, they did. So, the revolution OS is not quite Linux. Even because Linux did not bring anything really new back in the 90s. Perhaps the novelty of the GNU project was that it was Free Software. What I think it's hard to do even today is to think of an operating system for microcomputers that's really different from UNIX. It's UNIX that's the revolution. And now it's stuck in system developers' mind so much that I think they hard time coming up with something new.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-10 10:54 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: UNIX systems (Was: Re: fdm, paredit and systemd) |
| Message-ID | <41920ba9-0dfe-1d5f-a6ed-804e20b6e548@example.net> |
| In reply to | #26858 |
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote: >> It's a shame it died. =( Wasn't the idea to refine the good, old, Unix >> ideas, and improve on lessons learned? > > I wouldn't say it died. I believe Plan 9 is doing pretty well, but I > don't think they're trying to compete with popular systems. It's a > research system, I'd say. OpenBSD is a research system, even though > it's totally usable. In fact, it's the one I like to use. Would be nice if someone took Plan 9 and managed to get it to run natively on servers and laptops, or even one brand of server and one brand of laptop. I would definitely try it! How is openbsd as a daily driver? I've been close to replacing my opensuse with freebsd. It wasn't quite there in terms of hardware support (it lacked anything beyond G wifi, which is too slow). Maybe openbsd is better than freebsd? >> I often fantasize if I will see another OS revolution like Linux in my >> lifetime. That would be awesome! > > I feel the revolution is not Linux per se. Surely Linux is sound---no > doubt there. But it's also quite clear that Richard Stallman had the > *whole* idea in mind easily before Linux. Without Linux, for example, > the GNU project could have taken the FreeBSD kernel and made a complete > system out of it. In fact, they did. So, the revolution OS is not > quite Linux. Even because Linux did not bring anything really new back > in the 90s. > > Perhaps the novelty of the GNU project was that it was Free Software. > > What I think it's hard to do even today is to think of an operating > system for microcomputers that's really different from UNIX. It's UNIX > that's the revolution. And now it's stuck in system developers' mind so > much that I think they hard time coming up with something new. That's why I think it would be awesome! If someone would be able to come up with a complete paradigm shift in operating systems. Unix won, windows is getting closer and closer to unix every year, and I would expect them to just drop windows in a few years when WSL has taken over "ship of theseus" style.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-10 09:08 -0300 |
| Subject | Re: UNIX systems |
| Message-ID | <87ikoh2in3.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #26865 |
D <nospam@example.net> writes: > On Mon, 10 Mar 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote: > >>> It's a shame it died. =( Wasn't the idea to refine the good, old, Unix >>> ideas, and improve on lessons learned? >> >> I wouldn't say it died. I believe Plan 9 is doing pretty well, but I >> don't think they're trying to compete with popular systems. It's a >> research system, I'd say. OpenBSD is a research system, even though >> it's totally usable. In fact, it's the one I like to use. > > Would be nice if someone took Plan 9 and managed to get it to run natively on > servers and laptops, or even one brand of server and one brand of laptop. I > would definitely try it! I've ran Plan 9 on an x86 virtual machine, which means it will probably install okay on popular hardware. I think some people do run Plan 9 as their daily system. > How is openbsd as a daily driver? I've been close to replacing my > opensuse with freebsd. It wasn't quite there in terms of hardware > support (it lacked anything beyond G wifi, which is too slow). Maybe > openbsd is better than freebsd? I got in the BSD world by way of FreeBSD. What attracted me to FreeBSD was the documentation in the system---manuals in particular---and I also appreciated the ports collection. (It was so much easier to compile and run an application back then than it was to hunt for sources in the GNU systems worlds. That allowed me to make small changes in the software I was running to learn about how it worked.) In more recent years I had switched to Windows due to working with companies that required me to run a Windows system. (Also due to personal reasons: when I was in graduate school, I wanted to keep all my software in a single directory, which was easy on Windows and hard on UNIX. But to use Windows, I needed a GNU EMACS packed with other programs such as cat, grep, find, awk, sed, ...) The work and personal reasons have gone away, so I decided to go FreeBSD again. But ever since hibernation was implemented in Windows XP that I love the feature. It turns out FreeBSD doesn't hibernate, but OpenBSD does (on my amd64 computer). And then I discovered that OpenBSD is as impeccable in the documentation as FreeBSD is. So I went with OpenBSD. I have not found a way to run OpenBSD in a battery-saving mode, though, so my entire battery last about an hour with OpenBSD, while it would likely last the entire day with Windows 10, say. There's probably things I can do that I don't know how to do at the moment. I'm hardly ever in need of a battery, though. So I'm a pretty happy OpenBSD user. I also learned about cwm, the ``calm window manager'', which I think it was built by the OpenBSD people. It's the window manager that has enchanted me the most.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-11 23:09 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: UNIX systems |
| Message-ID | <541183c5-4bd0-6552-ed24-8b6bce3a4ea8@example.net> |
| In reply to | #26868 |
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote: >>> I wouldn't say it died. I believe Plan 9 is doing pretty well, but I >>> don't think they're trying to compete with popular systems. It's a >>> research system, I'd say. OpenBSD is a research system, even though >>> it's totally usable. In fact, it's the one I like to use. >> >> Would be nice if someone took Plan 9 and managed to get it to run natively on >> servers and laptops, or even one brand of server and one brand of laptop. I >> would definitely try it! > > I've ran Plan 9 on an x86 virtual machine, which means it will probably > install okay on popular hardware. I think some people do run Plan 9 as > their daily system. Interesting! I'll have to look into that to see if it would run on an older laptop. That would be awesome! >> How is openbsd as a daily driver? I've been close to replacing my >> opensuse with freebsd. It wasn't quite there in terms of hardware >> support (it lacked anything beyond G wifi, which is too slow). Maybe >> openbsd is better than freebsd? > > I got in the BSD world by way of FreeBSD. What attracted me to FreeBSD > was the documentation in the system---manuals in particular---and I also > appreciated the ports collection. (It was so much easier to compile and I agree! The documentation and the community is outstanding! > run an application back then than it was to hunt for sources in the GNU > systems worlds. That allowed me to make small changes in the software I > was running to learn about how it worked.) In more recent years I had > switched to Windows due to working with companies that required me to > run a Windows system. (Also due to personal reasons: when I was in > graduate school, I wanted to keep all my software in a single directory, > which was easy on Windows and hard on UNIX. But to use Windows, I > needed a GNU EMACS packed with other programs such as cat, grep, find, > awk, sed, ...) The work and personal reasons have gone away, so I > decided to go FreeBSD again. But ever since hibernation was implemented > in Windows XP that I love the feature. It turns out FreeBSD doesn't > hibernate, but OpenBSD does (on my amd64 computer). And then I Hmm, really? I think I got it to work on Freebas 14.x or a snapshot of 15 a long time ago, but I don't quite remember, so could very well be that I tricked myself with suspend. Since I only used it for a week, I didn't check too deeply. > discovered that OpenBSD is as impeccable in the documentation as FreeBSD > is. So I went with OpenBSD. I have not found a way to run OpenBSD in a > battery-saving mode, though, so my entire battery last about an hour > with OpenBSD, while it would likely last the entire day with Windows 10, > say. There's probably things I can do that I don't know how to do at > the moment. I'm hardly ever in need of a battery, though. So I'm a > pretty happy OpenBSD user. Freebsd I got 13-14 hours out of, and my current opensuse running on a 1.5 year old laptop still sits at around 12-14 hours. > I also learned about cwm, the ``calm window manager'', which I think it > was built by the OpenBSD people. It's the window manager that has > enchanted me the most. Yes, I've heard about it. I like the concept! I run XFCE, since it is a nice compromise between batteries included, and some kind of lightness. For business it works great. If I only did development, I'd look at cwm or perhaps dwm.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-13 18:17 -0300 |
| Subject | Re: UNIX systems |
| Message-ID | <87r030tyt9.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #26887 |
D <nospam@example.net> writes: > On Mon, 10 Mar 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote: > >>>> I wouldn't say it died. I believe Plan 9 is doing pretty well, but I >>>> don't think they're trying to compete with popular systems. It's a >>>> research system, I'd say. OpenBSD is a research system, even though >>>> it's totally usable. In fact, it's the one I like to use. >>> >>> Would be nice if someone took Plan 9 and managed to get it to run natively on >>> servers and laptops, or even one brand of server and one brand of laptop. I >>> would definitely try it! >> >> I've ran Plan 9 on an x86 virtual machine, which means it will probably >> install okay on popular hardware. I think some people do run Plan 9 as >> their daily system. > > Interesting! I'll have to look into that to see if it would run on an older > laptop. That would be awesome! Give it a try? I think if it you were to specify the hardware here, someone would tell you what would happen. For instance, Dan Cross. :) >>> How is openbsd as a daily driver? I've been close to replacing my >>> opensuse with freebsd. It wasn't quite there in terms of hardware >>> support (it lacked anything beyond G wifi, which is too slow). Maybe >>> openbsd is better than freebsd? >> >> I got in the BSD world by way of FreeBSD. What attracted me to FreeBSD >> was the documentation in the system---manuals in particular---and I also >> appreciated the ports collection. (It was so much easier to compile and > > I agree! The documentation and the community is outstanding! > >> run an application back then than it was to hunt for sources in the GNU >> systems worlds. That allowed me to make small changes in the software I >> was running to learn about how it worked.) In more recent years I had >> switched to Windows due to working with companies that required me to >> run a Windows system. (Also due to personal reasons: when I was in >> graduate school, I wanted to keep all my software in a single directory, >> which was easy on Windows and hard on UNIX. But to use Windows, I >> needed a GNU EMACS packed with other programs such as cat, grep, find, >> awk, sed, ...) The work and personal reasons have gone away, so I >> decided to go FreeBSD again. But ever since hibernation was implemented >> in Windows XP that I love the feature. It turns out FreeBSD doesn't >> hibernate, but OpenBSD does (on my amd64 computer). And then I > > Hmm, really? I think I got it to work on Freebas 14.x or a snapshot of 15 a long > time ago, but I don't quite remember, so could very well be that I tricked > myself with suspend. Since I only used it for a week, I didn't check too deeply. Yeah, I believe FreeBSD can suspend to RAM, but not to disk. >> discovered that OpenBSD is as impeccable in the documentation as FreeBSD >> is. So I went with OpenBSD. I have not found a way to run OpenBSD in a >> battery-saving mode, though, so my entire battery last about an hour >> with OpenBSD, while it would likely last the entire day with Windows 10, >> say. There's probably things I can do that I don't know how to do at >> the moment. I'm hardly ever in need of a battery, though. So I'm a >> pretty happy OpenBSD user. > > Freebsd I got 13-14 hours out of, and my current opensuse running on a 1.5 year > old laptop still sits at around 12-14 hours. That's impressive. If I could get some 3 hours with OpenBSD, I'd be very happy. But, honestly, I hardly ever need it and when I'm on the go, there's usually an outlet where I need. >> I also learned about cwm, the ``calm window manager'', which I think it >> was built by the OpenBSD people. It's the window manager that has >> enchanted me the most. > > Yes, I've heard about it. I like the concept! I run XFCE, since it is a nice > compromise between batteries included, and some kind of lightness. For business > it works great. If I only did development, I'd look at cwm or perhaps dwm. I remember I thought XFCE was very ``beautiful''. But I think after it went down with GTK, it lost its feeling of new kid on the block. So the definition of ``beautiful'' here is just ``different from the same old''. That's likely a problem I have with graphical interfaces: I get tired of them. Text interfaces, though, don't seem to bother me at all---on the contrary, I tend to get addicted to them. For instance, I love the GNU EMACS and software like slrn, which I don't use anymore (due to Gnus).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-16 00:03 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: UNIX systems |
| Message-ID | <e884ac4e-243e-241d-c753-4181d9a47510@example.net> |
| In reply to | #26898 |
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote: >> Hmm, really? I think I got it to work on Freebas 14.x or a snapshot of 15 a long >> time ago, but I don't quite remember, so could very well be that I tricked >> myself with suspend. Since I only used it for a week, I didn't check too deeply. > > Yeah, I believe FreeBSD can suspend to RAM, but not to disk. That was probably the mistake I made. Not checking if it was to RAM or disk! >> Freebsd I got 13-14 hours out of, and my current opensuse running on a 1.5 year >> old laptop still sits at around 12-14 hours. > > That's impressive. If I could get some 3 hours with OpenBSD, I'd be > very happy. But, honestly, I hardly ever need it and when I'm on the > go, there's usually an outlet where I need. Only 3 hours? How old is your laptop? Sounds like you should at least be able to get 7-8 hours out of a new one, unless you are running enormous amount of VM:s or scientific calculations. >>> I also learned about cwm, the ``calm window manager'', which I think it >>> was built by the OpenBSD people. It's the window manager that has >>> enchanted me the most. >> >> Yes, I've heard about it. I like the concept! I run XFCE, since it is a nice >> compromise between batteries included, and some kind of lightness. For business >> it works great. If I only did development, I'd look at cwm or perhaps dwm. > > I remember I thought XFCE was very ``beautiful''. But I think after it > went down with GTK, it lost its feeling of new kid on the block. So the > definition of ``beautiful'' here is just ``different from the same > old''. That's likely a problem I have with graphical interfaces: I get > tired of them. Text interfaces, though, don't seem to bother me at > all---on the contrary, I tend to get addicted to them. For instance, I > love the GNU EMACS and software like slrn, which I don't use anymore > (due to Gnus). True. I have 4 virtual desktop. On 1 lives the web browser, 2 alpine email (terminal based email client), 3 qpdf a pdf reader with session support and on 4 my neovim with aout 18 buffers saved in a session file. When I was young(er) I fiddled around a lot with GUI:s, but somewhere the past 10 years or so, I just wanted something minimal with all batteries included so that scanning, printing, wifi etc. just work our of the box. Xfce fulfilled that for me, and I have never bothered to change it. I did have a quick look at i3 and dwm, but I would still have to keep xfce around for print/scan/wifi so in the end, what's the point? My latest revelation (a few years back) was alpine email, it probably doubled my email productivity compared with thunderbird, and is a "all in one" solution that comes with a lot of help included. Still flexible and extensible though, but probably not as much as mutt or neomutt, but it strikes a beautiful balance for me. =)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-16 22:41 -0300 |
| Subject | Re: UNIX systems |
| Message-ID | <87wmcojuw3.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #26910 |
D <nospam@example.net> writes: >>> Freebsd I got 13-14 hours out of, and my current opensuse running on >>> a 1.5 year old laptop still sits at around 12-14 hours. >> >> That's impressive. If I could get some 3 hours with OpenBSD, I'd be >> very happy. But, honestly, I hardly ever need it and when I'm on the >> go, there's usually an outlet where I need. > > Only 3 hours? How old is your laptop? Sounds like you should at least be able to > get 7-8 hours out of a new one, unless you are running enormous amount of VM:s > or scientific calculations. Right now I get 1 hour, so 3 is a major upgrade. My notebook is quite new. It's a Lenovo 15IMH05 with 24 GiB of RAM. >>>> I also learned about cwm, the ``calm window manager'', which I think it >>>> was built by the OpenBSD people. It's the window manager that has >>>> enchanted me the most. >>> >>> Yes, I've heard about it. I like the concept! I run XFCE, since it >>> is a nice compromise between batteries included, and some kind of >>> lightness. For business it works great. If I only did development, >>> I'd look at cwm or perhaps dwm. >> >> I remember I thought XFCE was very ``beautiful''. But I think after it >> went down with GTK, it lost its feeling of new kid on the block. So the >> definition of ``beautiful'' here is just ``different from the same >> old''. That's likely a problem I have with graphical interfaces: I get >> tired of them. Text interfaces, though, don't seem to bother me at >> all---on the contrary, I tend to get addicted to them. For instance, I >> love the GNU EMACS and software like slrn, which I don't use anymore >> (due to Gnus). > > True. > > I have 4 virtual desktop. On 1 lives the web browser, 2 alpine email > (terminal based email client), 3 qpdf a pdf reader with session > support and on 4 my neovim with aout 18 buffers saved in a session > file. That's very close to my what I do here. The web on 2. My 1 is work. :) On 3 is USENET and 4 is literature---PDF. I run cwm, which is known as not having a virtual desktop thingies, but it's actually does. When I press super-1 I go to desktop 1. I created 4 virtual desktops (which is enough), but I think I could have at least 9 of them. > When I was young(er) I fiddled around a lot with GUI:s, but somewhere > the past 10 years or so, I just wanted something minimal with all > batteries included so that scanning, printing, wifi etc. just work our > of the box. Xfce fulfilled that for me, and I have never bothered to > change it. I did have a quick look at i3 and dwm, but I would still > have to keep xfce around for print/scan/wifi so in the end, what's the > point? Yeah, these things are important---printer, scanner and wifi. Although I think wifi is a lot less important than it seems. I've read this article yesterday called ``the computer built to last 50 years'' and offline mode is quite an important part of it. I agree with that. The system would be designed to usually function offline. It's when you connect to the Internet that it does its pull and pushes. With a system like that, wifi is less important---you connect your system to the router once a day, say, and, just like pumping gas into a vehicle, you get everything you need. Now you can go back to your desk, after unplugging the cable from your router. I like that. Clearly, these are people trying to work without distractions and interruptions. I am one of them. > My latest revelation (a few years back) was alpine email, it probably > doubled my email productivity compared with thunderbird, and is a "all > in one" solution that comes with a lot of help included. Still > flexible and extensible though, but probably not as much as mutt or > neomutt, but it strikes a beautiful balance for me. =) Now I would really look into alpine, but I'm a Gnus user, so I'm forbidden from performing heretic research.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-18 10:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: UNIX systems |
| Message-ID | <5085869c-628a-949d-7bea-f058a2a0b450@example.net> |
| In reply to | #26922 |
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote: >> Only 3 hours? How old is your laptop? Sounds like you should at least be able to >> get 7-8 hours out of a new one, unless you are running enormous amount of VM:s >> or scientific calculations. > > Right now I get 1 hour, so 3 is a major upgrade. My notebook is quite > new. It's a Lenovo 15IMH05 with 24 GiB of RAM. Hmm, sounds like something is wrong somewhere. I'd install powertop and/or tlp and also make sure to disable Intel VMD in case it is enabled in your bios. With those three, you should be able to double your battery time at least. For me, the biggest difference was disabling intel VMD in the bios, that made a huge difference. >> True. >> >> I have 4 virtual desktop. On 1 lives the web browser, 2 alpine email >> (terminal based email client), 3 qpdf a pdf reader with session >> support and on 4 my neovim with aout 18 buffers saved in a session >> file. > > That's very close to my what I do here. The web on 2. My 1 is work. :) > On 3 is USENET and 4 is literature---PDF. You are a wise man! > I run cwm, which is known as not having a virtual desktop thingies, but > it's actually does. When I press super-1 I go to desktop 1. I created > 4 virtual desktops (which is enough), but I think I could have at least > 9 of them. ... > Yeah, these things are important---printer, scanner and wifi. Although I wonder if it is easy to get p/s/w on cwm without having to pull in all of xfce under the hood? That would be awesome! > I think wifi is a lot less important than it seems. I've read this > article yesterday called ``the computer built to last 50 years'' and > offline mode is quite an important part of it. I agree with that. > > The system would be designed to usually function offline. It's when you > connect to the Internet that it does its pull and pushes. With a system > like that, wifi is less important---you connect your system to the > router once a day, say, and, just like pumping gas into a vehicle, you > get everything you need. Now you can go back to your desk, after > unplugging the cable from your router. > > I like that. True. But it would not be convenient for me. The wife would be angry with network cables everywhere. ;) > Clearly, these are people trying to work without distractions and > interruptions. I am one of them. > >> My latest revelation (a few years back) was alpine email, it probably >> doubled my email productivity compared with thunderbird, and is a "all >> in one" solution that comes with a lot of help included. Still >> flexible and extensible though, but probably not as much as mutt or >> neomutt, but it strikes a beautiful balance for me. =) > > Now I would really look into alpine, but I'm a Gnus user, so I'm > forbidden from performing heretic research. Haha... true. Well, if you are already into tui email, I think the gains will be less. I suspect that alpine is not the most efficient one. But I think it is perhaps a bit easier to get started with.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-21 16:26 -0300 |
| Subject | Re: UNIX systems |
| Message-ID | <874izmi3ri.fsf@antartida.xyz> |
| In reply to | #26939 |
D <nospam@example.net> writes: > On Sun, 16 Mar 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote: > >>> Only 3 hours? How old is your laptop? Sounds like you should at >>> least be able to get 7-8 hours out of a new one, unless you are >>> running enormous amount of VM:s or scientific calculations. >> >> Right now I get 1 hour, so 3 is a major upgrade. My notebook is quite >> new. It's a Lenovo 15IMH05 with 24 GiB of RAM. > > Hmm, sounds like something is wrong somewhere. I'd install powertop > and/or tlp and also make sure to disable Intel VMD in case it is > enabled in your bios. I run OpenBSD and I believe we don't have programs such as powertop or tlp around here. I'm going to look into the BIOS. There are some Intel features there that I could disable. Some virtualization technology. I have enabled them and I saw that the OpenBSD kernel notices them. But I doubt I use any of that. > With those three, you should be able to double your battery time at least. > > For me, the biggest difference was disabling intel VMD in the bios, > that made a huge difference. You give me hopes. :) >> I run cwm, which is known as not having a virtual desktop thingies, but >> it's actually does. When I press super-1 I go to desktop 1. I created >> 4 virtual desktops (which is enough), but I think I could have at least >> 9 of them. > ... >> Yeah, these things are important---printer, scanner and wifi. Although > > I wonder if it is easy to get p/s/w on cwm without having to pull in > all of xfce under the hood? That would be awesome! What's p/s/w? >> I think wifi is a lot less important than it seems. I've read this >> article yesterday called ``the computer built to last 50 years'' and >> offline mode is quite an important part of it. I agree with that. >> >> The system would be designed to usually function offline. It's when you >> connect to the Internet that it does its pull and pushes. With a system >> like that, wifi is less important---you connect your system to the >> router once a day, say, and, just like pumping gas into a vehicle, you >> get everything you need. Now you can go back to your desk, after >> unplugging the cable from your router. >> >> I like that. > > True. But it would not be convenient for me. The wife would be angry with > network cables everywhere. ;) That was not the image I had in mind. I had in mind plugging an appliance into the outlet on a wall. I could perhaps take my computer from my desk and lay on the couch with it while I plug it to the outlet near the couch. Then it downloads and uploads stuff (like, automatically) and then I watch a little TV, say. It would take a little while because with my new offline-designed system, the downloads wouldn't take just a few seconds for USENET and community messages and e-mails; it would also download a few websites (up to a certain depth) and videos [interviews, conversations, lectures] and also songs (so that now I'd have them offline). So after, say, half an hour, I'd unplug it and get back to my desk to continue work. So maybe I'd only connect again the next day or whenever. I really enjoyed this picture. The author used words like connecting your computer to an outlet like a vehicle that stops by a gas station to pump fuel. >> Clearly, these are people trying to work without distractions and >> interruptions. I am one of them. >> >>> My latest revelation (a few years back) was alpine email, it probably >>> doubled my email productivity compared with thunderbird, and is a "all >>> in one" solution that comes with a lot of help included. Still >>> flexible and extensible though, but probably not as much as mutt or >>> neomutt, but it strikes a beautiful balance for me. =) >> >> Now I would really look into alpine, but I'm a Gnus user, so I'm >> forbidden from performing heretic research. > > Haha... true. Well, if you are already into tui email, I think the > gains will be less. I suspect that alpine is not the most efficient > one. But I think it is perhaps a bit easier to get started with. It's probably easier than Gnus, but in my case I think investing even more into Gnus is the way to go. I wish it were easier to use. The best thing about Gnus is not actually Gnus itself, but the fact that it's well integrated with the most pleasurable text editor ever.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Matto Fransen <mattof@sdf.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-21 19:53 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: UNIX systems |
| Message-ID | <865xk2b1ot.fsf@matto.nl> |
| In reply to | #26999 |
On 21 March 2025 16:26 Salvador Mirzo, wrote: >>> Right now I get 1 hour, so 3 is a major upgrade. My notebook is quite >>> new. It's a Lenovo 15IMH05 with 24 GiB of RAM. >> >> Hmm, sounds like something is wrong somewhere. I'd install powertop >> and/or tlp and also make sure to disable Intel VMD in case it is >> enabled in your bios. > > I run OpenBSD and I believe we don't have programs such as powertop or > tlp around here. Perhaps you could take a look at `obsdfreqd'. It is available as package. Put the following in your /etc/rc.conf.local: apmd_flags=-L pkg_scripts=obsdfreqd Best regards, Matto
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-24 00:11 -0300 |
| Subject | Re: UNIX systems |
| Message-ID | <87tt7ji0lr.fsf@DEV.NULL> |
| In reply to | #27000 |
Matto Fransen <mattof@sdf.org> writes: > On 21 March 2025 16:26 Salvador Mirzo, wrote: > >>>> Right now I get 1 hour, so 3 is a major upgrade. My notebook is quite >>>> new. It's a Lenovo 15IMH05 with 24 GiB of RAM. >>> >>> Hmm, sounds like something is wrong somewhere. I'd install powertop >>> and/or tlp and also make sure to disable Intel VMD in case it is >>> enabled in your bios. >> >> I run OpenBSD and I believe we don't have programs such as powertop or >> tlp around here. > > Perhaps you could take a look at `obsdfreqd'. > It is available as package. > > Put the following in your /etc/rc.conf.local: > > apmd_flags=-L > pkg_scripts=obsdfreqd Thanks a lot. I'm trying it out. My apmd_flags were -A -Z 6. It seems adding -L didn't play well together, but, instead of figuring it out what's exactly wrong, I just added -L alone to let obsdfreqd run in peace. I'm using the battery right now. It used to last an hour. Let's see how much it lasts now. With the naked eye, it seems we got a slight improvement, but it could be an illusion. $ sysctl hw | grep perf hw.setperf=0 hw.perfpolicy=manual $ ps ax | egrep apmd'|'obsdfreqd 31819 ?? SU 0:00.00 /usr/sbin/apmd -L 60082 p2 R+/4 0:00.00 egrep apmd|obsdfreqd 68196 C0- S<U 0:00.12 /usr/local/sbin/obsdfreqd Thanks!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-21 23:37 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: UNIX systems |
| Message-ID | <e0024bcb-0007-22ef-275e-8fbefbe1163b@example.net> |
| In reply to | #26999 |
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote: >>> Right now I get 1 hour, so 3 is a major upgrade. My notebook is quite >>> new. It's a Lenovo 15IMH05 with 24 GiB of RAM. >> >> Hmm, sounds like something is wrong somewhere. I'd install powertop >> and/or tlp and also make sure to disable Intel VMD in case it is >> enabled in your bios. > > I run OpenBSD and I believe we don't have programs such as powertop or > tlp around here. I'm going to look into the BIOS. There are some Intel > features there that I could disable. Some virtualization technology. I > have enabled them and I saw that the OpenBSD kernel notices them. But I > doubt I use any of that. Best of luck! OpenBSD is strange. On some things it is far ahead, while on others, it is hopelessly antiquated if things are as you say. =( >> With those three, you should be able to double your battery time at least. >> >> For me, the biggest difference was disabling intel VMD in the bios, >> that made a huge difference. > > You give me hopes. :) Let me know if it makes a difference for you! =) >>> I run cwm, which is known as not having a virtual desktop thingies, but >>> it's actually does. When I press super-1 I go to desktop 1. I created >>> 4 virtual desktops (which is enough), but I think I could have at least >>> 9 of them. >> ... >>> Yeah, these things are important---printer, scanner and wifi. Although >> >> I wonder if it is easy to get p/s/w on cwm without having to pull in >> all of xfce under the hood? That would be awesome! > > What's p/s/w? Print/scan/wireless. >> True. But it would not be convenient for me. The wife would be angry with >> network cables everywhere. ;) > > That was not the image I had in mind. I had in mind plugging an > appliance into the outlet on a wall. I could perhaps take my computer > from my desk and lay on the couch with it while I plug it to the outlet > near the couch. Then it downloads and uploads stuff (like, > automatically) and then I watch a little TV, say. It would take a > little while because with my new offline-designed system, the downloads > wouldn't take just a few seconds for USENET and community messages and > e-mails; it would also download a few websites (up to a certain depth) > and videos [interviews, conversations, lectures] and also songs (so that > now I'd have them offline). So after, say, half an hour, I'd unplug it > and get back to my desk to continue work. So maybe I'd only connect > again the next day or whenever. > > I really enjoyed this picture. Ahh got it! Yes, that makes much more sense. I wrote a script that plugs into my email program that enables me to download any link in an email and get the download as an email itself. It's great! I get an email with a link to an article, then I do not need to leave my email program. I just highlight the link, press a button, and a minute later the article comes in text only mode, as an email. Pure bliss! =D > The author used words like connecting your computer to an outlet like a > vehicle that stops by a gas station to pump fuel. Good analogy! >> Haha... true. Well, if you are already into tui email, I think the >> gains will be less. I suspect that alpine is not the most efficient >> one. But I think it is perhaps a bit easier to get started with. > > It's probably easier than Gnus, but in my case I think investing even > more into Gnus is the way to go. I wish it were easier to use. The > best thing about Gnus is not actually Gnus itself, but the fact that > it's well integrated with the most pleasurable text editor ever. This should not be underestimated! It is a powerful feature indeed!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.misc
csiph-web