Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

Fork of Systemd Leads To Lightweight Uselessd

Endymion Re:launchd (468 comments)

I'm not talking about *init systems* - systemd was never "just an init system". Remember, it's absorbed stuff like network management and system authentication. That kind of feature often requries linking to (L)GPL code, and you can trigger the GPL's requirements depending on how you do that.

So Poettering wants to move all those function calls to (k)dbus. In his own words, "... the primary interfacing between the executed desktop apps and the rest of the system is via IPC (which is why we work on kdbus and teach it all kinds of sand-boxing features)".

about two weeks ago
top

Fork of Systemd Leads To Lightweight Uselessd

Endymion Re:Not a boycott but a confirmation (468 comments)

That's exactly my point. I'm suggesting the goal is to avoid making a derivative work. The GPL describes various ways to recognise a project as having "derived" from covered code, and linking copyleft and proprietary code together is one of them. (with some variation depending on if we are talking GPL or LGPL).

Remember that one of Poettering's goals is, in his own words, "... the primary interfacing between the executed desktop apps and the rest of the system is via IPC (which is why we work on kdbus and teach it all kinds of sand-boxing features)".

The point is if I want to do (for example) some sort of user authentication, I may have to link against libpam.so. This is something that would be reasonably commoon in embedded systems, and linking covered code into your embedded device (and having to distribute libpam.so with your product) could easily be a derivative work. (details matter, ask your lawyer about specific projecs).

Once absorbed into Poettering's project, you avoid all that risk because you don't interface with the system features directly and instead use "local RPC". This changes the project from being a potentially infringing derivative work into something that merely uses the tool. Merely using a tool that is licenced under the GPL is explicitly excempted, as the GPL only coveres redistribution and not use. ("GPL is not an EULA") This is a major change in legal status for your typical embedded device, which often wants a minimal OS to host their embedded app. They would also really like to avoid having to deal with the handling anything GPL. Changing to "local RPC" for all system interaction neatly fixes that problem.

We don't run across this pattern with traditional RPL tools, because it's bad for performance to needlessly serialize everything when you could simply call a function directly.

about two weeks ago
top

Fork of Systemd Leads To Lightweight Uselessd

Endymion Re:Not a boycott but a confirmation (468 comments)

The traditional RPC tools don't force a chane in API for local requests - they link against the same traditional .so file that any local app would use. That is very different from forcing dbus to be the only exposed API even for local use. Apache may provide features over sockets, but apxs(1) still exists and apr.h still exposes a traditional API.

I'm not a lawyer either, but this is obviously unexplored territory for the GPL (which doesn't have a lot of court precedent regardless of the current issue.

It's not like we'll ever find some smoking gun proof. This is simply the best theory I've heard.

about two weeks ago
top

Fork of Systemd Leads To Lightweight Uselessd

Endymion Re:Not a boycott but a confirmation (468 comments)

You're thinking desktop. GNOME is the leverage to force the change, not the end goal.

There are a very large number of devices out there running Linux in an embedded environment. These devices often have code running right on top of the minimal bootstrap/init tools.

about two weeks ago
top

Fork of Systemd Leads To Lightweight Uselessd

Endymion Re:launchd (468 comments)

systemd is designed to replace APIs based on {static or dynamic} linking with the dbus/kdbus IPC mechanism, as a way to use (L)GPL libraries without being bound by the (L)GPL.

Note that despite uselessd's much saner approach to technical features, the exposed dbus API is still requried. Switching to the uselessd implementation still enables this new type of "tivoizaiton".

about two weeks ago
top

Fork of Systemd Leads To Lightweight Uselessd

Endymion Re:Not a boycott but a confirmation (468 comments)

That's the whole point of all of this mess: {,k}dbus

Neither an init system nor vertical integration are the goal. The one consistent thing in all of the "systemd mess" is to leave the actual implementation officially a moving target where the trditional .so based library APIs are either hidden and undocumented or they are left out entirely. This forces you to use an IPC mechanism (dbus/kdbus) instead of simply linking to the functions you need and calling them directly. Forcing data to be serialized/unserialized so it can be sent over IPC is not nearly as efficient as calling a dynamically loaded local function. The systemd people love fast thing ("boot time!", etc), so why would they require this slow IPC everywhere?

*** if you never need to link to a library to use it, you can "link" to and distribute GPL code without being bound by the GPL. Poettering's cabal and systemd is an attempt to enable a new form of "tivoization" ***

If you are technically only "using" a library (no linking, no modifications to the library), you have not "infected" your proprietary code with the GPL. It's slower, but computers got fast enough that it doesn't really matter.

The nasty part is that by forcing arbitrary incompatable interface with systemd, to run stuff like GNOME you have to provide the key dbus features even if you don't use systemd. The end-run around the GPL still works with uselessd or any other "systemd replacement".

Unfortunatley, Lennart's cabal has everybody discussing technical features so this obvious goal isn't even addressed.

about two weeks ago
top

Torvalds: No Opinion On Systemd

Endymion Re:So what's wrong with systemd, really? (385 comments)

Flamebait? I thought this is the new standard for discourse with the systemd cabal. *sigh*

Applogies if it seems harsh; consider this Linus style "strong opinions". When you've used linux all the way back to kernel 1.2.13, watching coup to turn linux into windows hits hard.

about two weeks ago
top

Torvalds: No Opinion On Systemd

Endymion So what's wrong with systemd, really? (385 comments)

(paraphrasing a previous post of mine, becuase more people should see this)

It breaks existing promises, and makes few new promises in return.

There has been a lot of talk about the various technical problems with systemd and its developers inexperience-betraying design decisions. As bad as those are, they miss the larger point. There has also been a lot of very important talk about philosophy of design ("the unix way") that again shows how little experience the developers have and their disregard for the work people have already done and will have to do to fix the systemd mess.

These topics are valid, but miss the larger problem that systemd represents and the threat it is to Free Software in the Linux ecosystem.

## The problem with systemd's design: embrace and extend ##

As an excuse for all the vertical integration Poettering's cabal have been busy aglutenating into what they still sometimes claim is "justs an init system" has been the laughable claim that systemd is in any way "modular". They claim that "modular" is a *compile time* feature, or some property related to the fact that they build several ELF binaries. This is not modular, because it does not represent some form of stable, well-defined API.

What is an API (Application Programming Interface)? It's not a technical feature. It is not documentation that describes how to use some set of features. It is not a calling convention. So what is it?

An API is a PROMISE .

It is a social feature, not a technical one.

The functions and documentation are just a particular implementation of that promise. The key attribute that makes an API an API is that it is a promise by the developer: "If you want to interact with some feature, this is the way to do so, because while other internal stuff may change at any time, I promise this set of functions will be stable and reliable".

Binding previously-separate features into one project is bad design, by itself, the problem with systemd. The problem came when Poettering stripped down the barriers betwen features with the specific goal of removing established APIs (and breaking existing promises that developers relied on). His stuff may compile into various separate programs, but Pottering is very careful to keep various key interfaces "unstable" (despite being good enough for RHEL), specifically to not make any promise about how those interfaces will work in the future. He likes to call this hididng of interfaces "efficency" or "removing complexity". What he never mentions is that many of us used those promises, and by removing them he has at best forced others to do a lot of work to fix the breakage, or at worse made various features impossible.

A good example is logind, which was absorbed into systemd just so promises about its behaviuor in the future ("stable APIs") could be removed.

The reason many of us that have been watching Poettering's cabal for many years now suggest these changes are intentional and malicious are based on this. Occasionally removing features because of a technical need or bug or security requirement is understandable. Purposfully stripping out entire sets of features - that is, the features that allow other groups to develop with confidence that some feature they won't simply vanish - is something entirely different.

If MS acted like Poettering's cabal and removed a formerly-public API that competetors used - while promoting their own product that happens to use internal, not-publicly-promised APIs, the world would be screaming "monopoly". This happened, and resulted in several high-profile court cases.

## systemd threatens the GPL ##

It goes without saying that many people would like to distribute various GPL licenced software and not be bound by the terms it requires. The fact that some of these same people use the courts to threaten people who do the same to their software is noted, but off topic for now. The problem is the linking clauses in the GPL. Link the wrong way with GPL software, and the so-called "viral" nature kicks in.

Systemd (via kdbus) are an end-run around this. By calling function calls "IPC", you don't have to link to the GPL licenced code. A lot of players are willing to take the loss in performance for the benefit of distributing GPL software "unmodified".

You may have noticed the "systemd way" (and to some extend, the "gnome way") has been to ONLY provide access across dbus (soon, kdbus) instead of providing a local library .so and .h you can use directly. When the "local" forms even exist, they are often poorly documented and usually unstable. You may have also noticed that for "compatability" (by fiat), the "not-systemd" replacements tend to talk over dbus, as that is the mandated "correct" interface.

Embracing and extending linux with systemd is only a tool. The goal here is a new form of "tivoization" - to let proprietary business use GPL code while never opening up their part.

Is this really what you want to support by using systemd?

//now that you know this, guess what the point of systemd's control of cgroups is really about

//hint: think proprietary/GPL isolation

about two weeks ago
top

NSA Director Says Agency Is Still Trying To Figure Out Cyber Operations

Endymion Re:They are pretending that they do not know (103 comments)

Admiral Rogers,

The anonymous letter above has some good ideas about respecting the Constitution. You swore an oath to defend that social contract, and that oath is one of the most respectible American values I know. i know nothing about you and your history, so I respectfully - and hopefully - give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that has an American Admiral, you understand words such as "oath", "honor" and "duty" better than most.

  The duty to defend the Constitution is not an easy one at times, but it is something your fellow citizens will respect. The would even come to aid you if you should need them; you only have to ask. Open up the whole problem, without the usual spy-talk filled with obfuscation and dissembling, and ask the many intelligent men and women - your friends and neighbors. The internet seems help us solve even complex problem when we work together. Yes, this might require retreating from some current investigations; the investment you would gain by having support by working with your fellow citizens will more than make up for any short-term losses. Call if a "strategic retreat", if you want.

The previous anonymous letter mentioned a key point:

if You've already hinted at part of the solution -- differentiate between a cheeto-stained guy in a Guy Fawkes mask, versus a PLA, FSB, or NSA operative who's actually trying to do economic harm to America...

This is a key idea, and the NSA - or, possibly, this country - cannot last if the intelligence community is undermining the rest of the country. We have already seen billions of dollars in damage over this, and cannot take much more. As a suggestion on how to address the problem targeting your collections, you may want to consider re-hiring William Binney and Thomas Drake. Their original program known as THINTHREAD may not be the ultimate solution to this situation, but the ideas it had about encrypting all captured until an individual warrant is provided seems like a good place to start.

This country, more than ever, needs people to defend the Constitution. It's a simple document, with good ideas. Now, more than any time in the last two hundred years, has our founding document and highest law needed defending. It has threats that are foreign, and even larger threats that are domestic.

Admiral, I do not envy your position and the hard challenges ahead of you. Fortunately, your oath makes the path ahead clear. Good luck and godspeed.

/not posting anonymously, because I stand behind my words

//just like I stand behind the right to post anonymously by anybody who so desires

about two weeks ago
top

GSOC Project Works To Emulate Systemd For OpenBSD

Endymion Re:Oh well ... (314 comments)

This would be hilarious if it didn't imply such a terrible future for Debian. In the infamous debian-ctte arguments, one of the big reasons the systemd advocates insisted it was so important to only use systemd was their claim that maintaining multiple options would be far too much work.

I think it was only Ian Jackson that truly recognized that this wasn't a complaint about workload - it was a threat that systemd would become a moving target should Debian fail to conform.

about three weeks ago
top

GSOC Project Works To Emulate Systemd For OpenBSD

Endymion Re:Oh well ... (314 comments)

The thing the inexperienced systemd developers (but I repeat myself) do not understand is that "modular" isn't about some technical detail such as how you compile various features. For example, busybox intentionally compiles everything into one big binary. The features it provides, on the other hand, are still very modular in the UNIX sense. The key difference is that the tools busybox provides ("cat", "wc", "mkdir", "dd", and many others) all implement well defined APIs.

What is an Application Programming Interface (API)? It's not some function you can call, or the fact that a program understands some option ("--foo"). It is not even the documentation that may or may not be provided that describes how to use some feature. So what is it?

An API is a PROMISE .

It is a social feature, not a technical one. The functions, options, and documentation are just the technical implementation of that promise. The key part of an API is that it is a promise by the developer that if you want to interact with some feature, this is the way to do so, because while other internal stuff may change at any time, the promised API will be stable and reliable.

The problem with systemd is exactly this. Pulling a n00b move and agglutinating various features into one project is annoying and not recommended, but it is not, on its ownn, a reason to avoid systemd. The problem came when Poettering stripped down the barriers betwen features with the specific goal of removing established APIs. His stuff may compile into various separate programs, but Pottering is very careful to keep various key interfaces "unstable", specifically to not make any promise about how those interfaces will work in the future. He likes to call this hididng of interfaces "efficency" or "removing complexity". What he never mentions is that many of us used those promises, and by removing them he has at best forced others to do a lot of work to fix the breakage, or at worse made various features impossible.

A good example is logind, which was absorbed into systemd just so promises about its behaviuor in the future ("stable APIs") could be removed.

The reason many of us that have been watching Poettering's cabal for many years now suggest these changes are intentional and malicious are based on this. Occasionally removing features because of a technical need or bug or security requirement is understandable. Purposfully stripping out entire sets of features - that is, the features that allow other groups to develop with confidence that some feature they won't simply vanish - is something entirely different.

If MS acted like Poettering's cabal and removed a formerly-public API that competetors used - while promoting their own product that happens to use internal, not-publicly-promised APIs, the world would be screaming "monopoly". This happened, and resulted in several high-profile court cases.

So go ahead an prove that you don't know what you're talking about and assert that systemd is in any way "modular", when non-modularity was an explicit goal behind systemd. The rest of us are choosing to not go along with Poettering's attempt to embrace and extend Linux into a cheap, buggy, feature-free windows clone.

about three weeks ago
top

You Got Your Windows In My Linux

Endymion Re:What's wrong with Windows Server? (613 comments)

Ahh, and here comes the shill, with the usual personal attacks and strawmen. Yes, go ahead and praise Poettering's cult of personality and ignore the many people in this very thread who rebutted the nonsense that there was a need to replace "init scripts". By focusing on that point alone you get to pretend that systemd is "just an in init system", and hasn't embraced and extended a long list of other tools.

Evidence? LOL. More evidence that you are either lying to push propaganda, or shockingly ignorant of what Poettering himself has said about the state and future of systemd. Or do you not consider the creator and manager of systemd to be a reliable source? Do you want to still pretend this issue is about "just an init system"? Because that would essentially be calling Poettering a liar.

I'm sure you won't bother properly understanding this... at least in public. Obviously, the goal is to simply bully the people who disagree with you. Sorry, no, we aren't going to simply shut up, and stop pointing out how Linux worked just fine, despite your unsubstantiated assertions.

You want a suggestion on how to fix things? Stop breaking everybody else's code! Any minor problem that sysvinit had has been vastly overshadowed by the breakage systemd has caused.

about a month ago
top

You Got Your Windows In My Linux

Endymion Re:What do we need systemd for? (613 comments)

While the obvious answer is that Poetternig/RedHat wants a windows alternative they can sell to "big" software developers, a more cynical (and mildly speculative) answer is that systemd is an outstanding way to shoehord into linux all the things that linux users would never normally allow. PID 0 is an important spot to control; if it wants to, it can control what programs are started and under what permissions. There are a few groups that really want this capability, or at least the capability to add something optional that can later be a forced dependency in GNOME or some other popular package.

The first group that comes to mind are the people who want DRM and a protected media path. A monoculture that forces features on users whever it wants to change things is the only way you'd get around the problem of having distributions simply compiling out or otherwise ignoring your DRM. Systemd has effectively raised the costs of not using whatever future "upgrade" is mandated, because the tight integration means you have to replace all the other software you now use as well.

Another group that would really like it if a buggy, alpha-quality, horribly overcomplicated, uncommented, unproven, monolithic black-box of software was a required to use Linux is... the NSA. Simplicity is important when it comes to key services like PID 0. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the NSA is one of RedHat's larger customers, and that the NSA - while suberting NIST, Cisco, etc - submitted various pateches through redhat. I have no proof, of course, but you don't get security by assuming eveybody is being "nice". I strongly suggest listening to PHK's talk on this subject.

Finally, I'll link a post I just made over at HN. The reason systemd is causing emotions to run high is because it is trying to do to linux what has been done to many other tools: dumb it down and hide how it works. There are a lot of people trying to do that right now, because the idea of open computing that *cannot be limited* (see: "turing complete"). Welcome to the Civil-War On General Purpose Computing.

about a month ago
top

You Got Your Windows In My Linux

Endymion Re:The Future! (613 comments)

The fact that systemd is causing fragmentation - arguably worse fragmentation than any previous disagreement in the Linux community - is a valid (though not particualrly interesting) argument, because a primary design goal of systemd is conformity. Poettering has stated many times that his goal is to force distirbutions to use his one-true-way, and he often uses the supposed complexity of having to write portable code as an argument for why systemd and nobody else should be the software that manages the "core system".

This fragmentation means systemd is failing at it's own goals.

about a month ago
top

You Got Your Windows In My Linux

Endymion Re:What's wrong with Windows Server? (613 comments)

The SystemD developers are self-described unix-haters, who have very strong feeling against ever having to use a "shell script".

Aside from that, this is one of the big problems with the systemd evangelists: they assert that there was some set of missing features that "nobody was willing to implement" outside of Poettering's cabal. They never mention that they were the ones to make up most of those problems, and the few they didn't make up were already solved by existing tools.

(auto-restart was solved ages ago with DJB's daemontools)

about a month ago
top

You Got Your Windows In My Linux

Endymion Re:What's wrong with Windows Server? (613 comments)

I've used it and could list SystemD's various technical issues, but that isn't and never has been the point.

The complaints we have about SystemD - and the Poettering cabal in geneal - is not about any technical issues. Bugs can be fixed; bad design, antisocial not-invented-here attitudes, and disregard/blindness to any use case outside their experience are what we have been complaining about. After about 2 years of arguing the topic, we've had to add rudeness, blatant propaganda, and attempts to bully opposing views to the list of complaints.

Typically, SystemD defenders - such as yourself - spend a lot of time and effort disrupting forums and discussion threads by posting strawmen, non-sequiters, or simply praising SystemD as it applies to very narrow use-cases. Recently, the tactic has bene what you are doing right now: accuse the opposition of being "old" or "luddite" or "hating change". It is quite telling, actually: a big complaint against SystemD's development style (as mentioned in this article if you bothered to RTFA) is that they don't bother to understand how people outside their immediate group actually use their computers, or what their needs are. Comments like this are exactly what we're talking about.

Nobody has been saying systemd should be banned or that you wanting to use it is bad. Nobody has said OpenRC or sysvinit should be the only option. If some tool solves problems for you or make your life easier - or even if you just like the tool's style/asthetics - then use it. What we're complaining about, more than anything else, is the tight coupling that SystemD has been doing, as it prevents everbody else from having that same freedom of choice.

Once, a very long time ago (internet years) when an image of a certain borg-ified CEO was common, there was a phrase that was commonly used to describe Microsoft's monopolistic actions against competing technologies: embrace, extend and extinguish. Many discussions on slashdot warned about how Microsoft was trying to "embrace and extend" various standards such as Kerberos.

So instult us if you like - it makes our arguments against SystemD's attitude for us. You can even sit in ignorance, if you desire, while Poettering embraces and extends linux so he can remove all the useful parts form it. The rest of us that have watched this happen before will continue using Free Software that preserves freedoms such as the freedom to choose your init system. We have been marginalized and a social outcast in the past and are used to crap like this. Just remember that it was that same freedom of choice that provided a place for SystemD to be developed in the first place.

about a month ago
top

When Spies and Crime-Fighters Squabble Over How They Spy On You

Endymion Re:So why aren't they proposiing an Amendment? (120 comments)

You may want to read that last line again...

I'm not actually advocating an amendment; I'm suggesting that if powers were *actually needed* (then the public would likely be willing to work with the intelligence and law-enforcement communities. The fact that it's so obviously NOT an "actual need", that these unamerican cowards don't even TRY the lawful route and instead jump straight to dissembling and obfuscation betrays their guilty mind. A "proof-by-contradiction", more or less.

about 2 months ago
top

When Spies and Crime-Fighters Squabble Over How They Spy On You

Endymion So why aren't they proposiing an Amendment? (120 comments)

A law enforcement agency invented or discovered a new technique, that can help them in their job? Great! It's good to hear that they are exercising their creatived talents and advancing their field. As long as the new methods are legal and constitutional, there is no problem. If, on the other hand, it croses the constitutional limits in small ways, that's understandable - time change, and if the proposal is reaonable, the constitution can change with it.

So the simple solution is to see if an Amendment can be passed to allow it. Worries about criminals finding out aren't relevant - you can' t use it in a court anyway. As for worries about the NSA or CIA flying in to classify it, well, it's a LOT harder to put that geenie back in the bottle once amendment debates start happening. Even in the worse case where this particular case is ruined from the public disclosure, the investment towards free use of a new category of tools in the future could easly be worth the setback.

Now, I'm sure a lot of you are thinking I'm being sarcastic (or delusional). It's not like such an amendment would ever have a chance at passing, right? Well... that's hard to say. I would probably be against it as initially proposed, but that's not relevant - by making the proposal, and opening up the topic for public discussion and public input, instead of working in secret, maybe we - the citizens - can negotiatiate with our neighbors and figure out a way to allow this new law-enforcement technique. How can we know how such a debate would go? Yes, it's a risk, but so is working in secret, hoping nobody finds out about some new technique.

Maybe it just needs some ground rules about when/where it can be used. Maybe we could allow it if it had some sort of oversight/watchdog group. Maybe we can invent some new type of social compromise; after all, it's a new technique - maybe it needs a new way of fitting into our legal system.

On the other hand, maybe...

...it only needs a warrant.

about 2 months ago
top

U.S. Democrats Propose Legislation To Ban Internet Fast Lanes

Endymion Re:Just do SOMETHING (190 comments)

Stop right there.
Some random telecommunications engineer and a lobbyist ain't the same fucking thing.

Ain't no fukcing ballpark neither.
Now, look, maybe your way of judging bias differes from mine, but, you know,
having some personal biases and having a job that literally tries to biasing people
for a 3rd party ain't the same fucking ballpark.

It ain't the same league.
It ain't even the same fucking sport.

about 3 months ago
top

N. Korea Could Face Prosecution For 'Crimes Against Humanity'

Endymion Re:Too many outdated talking points and stereotype (325 comments)

I think there's a slight misscommunication here (probably on my part).

The instability in NK isn't only from a change in attitude, though that HAS been significant in recent years. The instability comes from the fact that it's getting harder and harder to ignore the *starving population* and *rapidly failing "industry"*. Even the strongest True Believer in the Kim family regime has to be doing an increasinly absurd amount of justification. The fact that some (still VERY small, but growing) portion of the population has started to look outside that carefully controlled box is a byproduct of this decay. There are many parts of NK that are really only holding together by the thinest of threads, and that imbalance is harder to support when you run out of natural resources and productiivty to pillage.

Hence the problem for China: if NK went full rebellion, tthat would sugest there's a certain critical mass of people within NK that could handle stuff like rebuilding their infrastructure, at least in principle. After the dust settles, go in with some UN people to offer a bit of financial or industrial help while they bootstarp. As bad as revolutions are, that situation at least has a "reasonable" chance at a stable, not-horribly-expensive-for-China outcome.

Unfortunately, as you note, there ISN'T enough support for a traditional rebellion. It's a big change in attitude for NK, but you can't erase that much indoctroination overnight. They likely will need a nation's worht of "deprogrammers"/exit-councelers or somesuch, which is *not* something China (or anybody) really wants to be suck providing.

about 7 months ago

Submissions

top

Updating Social Sites Requires Member Buy-in

Endymion Endymion writes  |  about 8 months ago

Endymion (12816) writes "In 2007, the forum known as "Fark" suprisd their members with a new site design. This caused a larger portion of their membership to walk away. Many people blame the a staff member's choice to throw gasoline on an already badly-flaming discussion thread and posting the now legendary dismissal "You'll get over it". Years later, though, Fark staffer Joe Peacock gave a talk discussing what went wrong: they scared their members away by not involving them in the upgrade process, disrupting what people saw as their "hang-out spot". The lessons in this talk are something every "social" site needs to understand — the site needs its membes, and the members don't need the site; disrupt their habits at your own peril!"
Link to Original Source
top

Label printer recomendations?

Endymion Endymion writes  |  more than 5 years ago

pdkl95 writes "I have been using some small, simple desktop label printers for quite a while now. Unfortunately, it's rapidly becoming clear that my printing needs are for something far more "industrial strength". Several of the label printers have failed, and they never really had the management features I wanted.
So, does anybody have recommendations on label printers, that can hold up to a quite heavy load? The catch is that I'm printing to them from CUPS under Linux, and it seems like specialty-printers are a windows-centric field."

Journals

top

"Feckless Imbroglio"

Endymion Endymion writes  |  about 8 months ago

Do you remember which person was such a miserable failure? While Google made their search engine a lot more resiliant to the simple tricks such as that Google Bomb, I suspect many of you immediately knew exactly to whom I was refering. The phrase "miserable failure" are not only an amusing technical trick - it is also a powerful sound-bite that served as a useful reminder, social identifying mark, and common rallying cry.

I propose we use a similar "catch-phrase" for the NSA when discussing the mess they have caused: feckless imbroglio. The unusual word-choice is intended as a non-technical discussion point, as far too many people are alienated by the technical nature inherent to any discussion of the NSA. It may not do much, and it's highly unlikely to grab the "I'm feeling lucky" button, but slogans, brand-names, and catch-phrases can reach some of those people that are turned off by spying, computers, or other technical discussions.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?