On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 12:13 AM, Dale <rdalek1...@gmail.com> wrote: > Mark David Dumlao wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 4:42 AM, Dale <rdalek1...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Mark David Dumlao wrote: >>>> On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Dale <rdalek1...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Feel free to set me straight tho. As long as you don't tell me my >>>>> system is broken and has not been able to boot for the last 9 years >>>>> without one of those things. ROFL >>>> Nobody's telling you _your_ system, as in the collection of programs >>>> you use for your productivity, is broken. What we're saying is that >>>> _the_ system, as in the general practice as compared to the >>>> specification, is broken. Those are two _very_ different things. >>> From what I have read, they are saying what has worked for decades has >>> been broken the whole time. Doesn't matter that it works for millions >>> of users, its broken. >> Yes, that is exactly what they are saying. What I am pointing out, >> however, is that there is, informally, a _technical meaning_ for the >> word "broken", which is that "the specs don't match the >> implementation". And in the case of /usr, the specs don't match the >> implementation. For like, maybe all of the Linuxen. >> >>> They say it is broken so they can "fix it" with a >>> init thingy for EVERYONE. Sorry, that's like telling me my car has been >>> broken for the last ten years when I have been driving it to town and it >>> runs just fine. >> NOBODY is telling you your system or that the systems of millions of >> users out there aren't booting. You're assigning emotional baggage to >> technical language. >> >> To push your analogy, oh, your car is working just fine. Now anyone >> with a pair of spark plugs and a few tools may be able to start it >> without you, but your startup _works_. Now imagine some German >> engineer caring nothing about you lowly driver, and caring more about >> the car as a system, and he goes using fancy words like >> "authentication systems" and declaring that "all cars have a flaw", or >> more incensingly, "car security is fundamentally broken" (Cue angry >> hordes of owners pitchfork and torching his house). >> >> Thing is, he's right, and if he worked out some way for software to >> verify that machine startup was done using the keys rather than spark >> plugs, he'd be doing future generations a favor in a dramatic >> reduction of carjackings. And if somehow it became mandated for future >> cars to have this added in addition to airbags and whatnot, it'd annoy >> the hell out of car makers but overall still be a good thing. > > I think your analogy actually proves my point. Instead of just getting > in the car and turning the key, they want to reinvent the engine and how > it works. It doesn't matter that it is and has been working for decades,
I think your reaction proves my point about angry mobs torching his home without understanding what's being proposed. Your fine reading comprehension once again failed to catch the notion that in my analogy, all he invented was a mechanism that makes sure it was a key, not a spark plug, that did the starting. i.e., you're asking literally for a turnkey system, and that's literally what he invented, except that the system guarantees that it's a key that was turned. You have not said a THING about your misunderstanding of the use of the word _broken_ and you're continuing to peddle your hate-boner even after it's been shown that you're confused. -- This email is: [ ] actionable [ ] fyi [x] social Response needed: [ ] yes [x] up to you [ ] no Time-sensitive: [ ] immediate [ ] soon [x] none
