Another rant

[Xen]

Liam Proven schreef op 17-11-2017 0:18:

> IWKYM. But rolling-your-own often brings other problems.

> Mine too. I'm investigating it. It can run perfectly well locally; a
> friend uses it for configuring both home (Mac) and work (Lenovo,
> Fedora) laptops. He maintains playbooks just for his own machines,
> used a few times a year. He says it's worth it.

That sounds fine but do not that if you have spent time developing your 
own, you know exactly what you want, which is not something that usually 
arises out of the blue.

So you also develop your "use case" as it were.

Not saying that standard tools can't be good, but they have to be in 
line with who you are.

Which is why the small component tools like grep etc. are so good 
because they don't impose who they are on you.


>> Time spent "deploying" is merely a git clone and I do not have a 
>> central
>> "hub" from which I can "infest" other hosts.
> 
> Easily solved.

I understand that but it doesn't tell me when I read the overview.

>> To capture the configuration of a machine so I won't ever have to do 
>> the
>> manual work again :p.
> 
> Of course the problem with doing that is that you can capture
> mis-config, crap you don't want, etc., as well.

That's something you are present at.

If a file needs changing I copy it back.

(At first I was using symlinked files but properly installed files are a 
bit easier...)

So I usually change the stuff IN THE SOURCE COPY and then rerun the 
installer which makes re-installing my new copy a 1 second exercise.

That is, when it was already done to a sufficient degree.

>> That didn't use to be the case.
>> 
>> I never experienced such a world before.
> 
> Me either.
> 

> 
> I think the real issue is that the soc.nets give /everyone/ online a
> mouthpiece. They let everyone speak. Result, the idiots outnumber the
> sensible. And in masses, we're all stupid and easily manipulated.

I don't think that's the problem.

It's what comes out, which was once put in.

> IKWYM. But I think it was always so, but until cheap ubiquitous
> broadband Internet, they had no way of speaking to the masses. Just
> occasionally electing dangerous madmen.

Yet these - in our case - are supposed to be our educated brethren.

No I suspect culture has more to do with it than individuals, culture 
which is often defended by those who say it is perfectly fine.

Apparently the OpenSUSE chairman has called in emails the opensuse 
members present on said lists "scum and [villains]".

He also calls friendly folk "useless" and "stupid"

because they don't do what he feels is necessary to fix the broken 
parts.

that the current approach of course kinda leaves behind.

I am interjection some interpretation on my behalf that may not be 
entirely accurate, just a colloquial way of phrasing it.

> Now, everyone can speak to the world. Most are only heard by a tiny
> number, but collectively, in our billions, that means that the jumble
> of voices occasionally coaslesces to something coherent... and mostly,
> that is stupid and nasty and mean.

But the ones in charge are no different.


>> The law is broken so many times each day.
>> 
>> And no one seems to notice.
>> 
>> I always say: the corruption always goes deeper than you think.
> 
> Which is the reason for the increasingly surveillance we're all under.

Do you mean that the increasing surveillance == corruption?


>> If you call a government consumer support line or something like that, 
>> you
>> are told falsehoods.
> 
> Yes, but remember Hanlon's Razor. It's a very important rule.

Oh yes. But I will quite a favourite book of mine.

It says that the primary function of every organisation is to guarantee 
its own survival, that is, to survive.

As a result of this conditions that threaten the organisation's 
dissolution are actively fought -- but this can also mean the 
fulfillment of the organisation's goals.



It says then that the organisation doesn't do this because it is evil, 
but because it is scared and before that it says: this is not malevolent 
yet it is _insidious_.


>> Ehm. As a sense of saying something that some people here wouldn't 
>> like.
> 
> :-)
> 
>> That's fine but that doesn't explain the spartanist attitude.
> 
> Well, it does. If it's simple and it can be easily automated and it
> does what you need inside a VM which only contains a single OS, then
> you're good to go.

But I wasn't really talking about dual booting or anything.

But I guess it's true.

>> As in "If something comes across to me as incomprehensible or stupid, 
>> it's
>> probably because the other person is a moron, not because I don't 
>> understand
>> something."
> 
> Sadly, it does happen, yes. It is what used to be said about Debian
> people. Now things have changed there, but it's still a Linux world
> problem.
> 

>> Which also happens in real life.
> 
> Yes, yes and yes.

>> And then these same people say "Bugs are not caused by the language, 
>> they
>> are proportional to lines of code."
> 
> That bit was over my head, but yes, I think you're right.

That the number of bugs in any problem is just going to be a function of 
number of lines.

Instead of other stuff like:

- architectural design
- language

In this way they can ignore the shortcomings of their system by 
pretending it is universal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

Because they do not experience usable software themselves they think 
their own software is not very much below average.

They think other systems or architectures suffer from their flaws just 
as much as they do, which is not true.

So you are trying to argue to someone who has always lived in a desert 
that lush fields also exist.