Re: ICO enforcement action? Or police?
"It'd be hard (well, impossible) for the ICO to go after them if they're not actively trading in the UK"
The first three words of TFA: "A Brit biz"
40485 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"It's a hard problem of technology: they can only build for what they can see, and trying to future proof is like trying to predict the weather: fair chance of missing."
Building in a faster processor and more memory than currently needed would be a good start but it would cut out a new sale a few years down the line.
"designing for backward compatibility was a basic goal of analog television broadcasters, one that has clearly been abandoned in the transition to digital."
I don't suppose the set manufacturers were happy about that. The new business model is much better. Sell a smart set that can report back whatever they want to the mother ships with vague offers of updates. Forget about the updates; save money and speed up the replacement cycle at the same time.
A dumb TV and a cheap and/or updateable smart box feeding it is much better - for viewers..
"Since there are no Linux distros that ship with default credentials."
Embedded distros (including those for the Raspberry Pi) often do. The nature of these devices is that the device ships with a pre-built image rather than as an installation disk that requires a password to be entered at install time. In these situation of best practice should be to require the user to enter a password at first boot and again after a factory reset.
"You'd complete a preferences questionnaire about which private data about yourself you are willing to share"
That's nothing to do with the internet per se, it's to do with all the wide boys setting up businesses and taking advantage of the stupidity of the numpties who use it. The only way of preventing that by re-inventing the internet is to make it too difficult for the numpties to use.
"And if tomorrow becomes today and it hasnt happened then I will say the same then too. Because its coming... tomorrow."
I guess you've never been involved in a company move.
At former employer - I'm not quite sure how long the management decided to move out of central London to just outside. Then they announced the move and that they'd found a site. A few weeks later the property deal fell through. After a few more months looking round they found premises in the north. The office started to "move" which meant offering relocation or redundancy. They also started recruiting new staff in temporary offices. A few of the London staff who relocated might have moved at this point. After a good few months the new premises were ready and the already recruited new staff moved in and the relocations started over the spring and summer.
I was one of the later tranche to move; I had a daughter at GCSE stage. I'd noted that particular summer as one that would be suitable for a move years ago - it was only the second suitable moving window in several years due to schooling. I think the office move was completed about a year after the first new recruiting, about 18 months after the initial site fell through and there were still other parts of the business to move. It must have taken well over 2 years for the relocation to complete, probably more like 3 from the initial planning. And that was within the same country.
Bootnote. About a fortnight after I moved I got called by a head-hunter about a job about 10 miles from where I used to live.
" But the lack of exodus is not a shock."
Of course it isn't. Moving a business across a city is one thing. Moving it from city to city within a country isn't always straightforward. Moving to a different country with a different language, sorting out schooling for key employees' children, working out how many employees will move and how many will dig their heels in - it's all going to take time. What you see now isn't necessarily going to be what you see in another year or eighteen months.
"And I had some sympathy for the arguments of Julian Assange with his claims of all too easy charges for rape that may have just been a front to expedite his extradition to the US, even if Assange never seems like a personable figure."
How do you work that out? He was in custody in the UK and released on bail. If it had been a plot to extradite him he'd never have got as far as the Ecuadorian embassy.
"How about change details of the SMB protocol and thus mounting of SMB shares no longer works."
As part of their getting out from under a monopoly investigation they had to make undertakings about publishing that to Samba will be able to track it easily.
"I doubt very much a lot of non technical users would welcome it's arrival on their desktop/laptop unless it's skinned."
There are quite a few Linux desktops which can be - and are - skinned to look pretty Windows-like depending on which Windows you want them to look like.
What's better, once you've got it looking like you want it to look you don't have to worry about MS coming along in a year or two & making it look like something else although to be fair I understand MS have finally caught up with multiple workspaces.
So on the whole, that's one up to Linux.
"it's a brand name. but you could also say 'Unix-like' or 'POSIX' - but '*nix' is shorter."
It's owned by the Open Group and is a registered trade mark in upper case. Here's what they say on their site: "Over twenty years ago, a number of companies came together to acknowledge the value of the UNIX® platform, but more importantly, the need for all UNIX® implementations to be interoperable." So it's a platform with multiple implementations which fits the way in which Bazza was using it: CAD running on Unix workstations.
BTW I'd not rate any systemd equipped Linux as Unix-like.
systemd-free Devuan Linux hits version 1.0.0
It's a "five nine's" service that's gone down, and because it's a holiday or whatever, no one's around to verify its state if it goes down, so you're caught in a dilemma. You need it back up ASAP because it costs you real money otherwise,
If you're putting five nines before everything else you're worshipping at the wrong altar. Consider the following:
Maintaining integrity of the data you've got.
Being sure that new data gets added properly.
Being available to add new data.
Availability is a poor third there. Of course five nines availability is something manglement is able to understand and get fixated on. But if you have a big data loss you'll probably lose your five nines whilst you recover it and if you don't recover it all your five nines during the time you were acquiring it turn out to have been a bit pointless. I'm sure there are a few people round KCL who could give you chapter and verse on that.
TL;DR Five nines is nice to have, no more than that.
"It's really not _that_ hard to discover that the command 'journalctl' will spew out the contents of those log files, as text, with the added bonus of having the opportunity to add options that give you the logs from this boot"
One of the times when you really need to see logs is when the sodding thing won't boot cleanly. At least with a text log you can take the disk out and mount it on something else to see if you've got anything.
But basically, a binary log is hiding things from me. I have to trust the folk who are hiding things from me to grant me a view of what they're hiding. And I have a fundamental distrust of people who hide things.
"The expectation is that over time, unless Debian sees sense, that Debian will slowly diverge from Devuan as it allows the SystemD crap to spread."
My fear is that as the crap spreads it will become impossible to build a Linux system without it. I hope this fear is misplaced.
"I can't remember if Upstart can monitor processes or not, but that's something the init system should be able to do that sysvinit can't"
If a major service goes down I'd want to know why in case trying to bring it up could do something nasty - nasty as in corrupt or destroy data. An init running round like a hyperactive child trying to restart it would be the last thing I'd need. Init needs to start stuff up at boot time and then restart or stop stuff when it's told to and otherwise keep out of the way.
"it's a collection of small binaries developed and maintained as a project that can form the next step (after a bootloader and kernel) of a complete operating system."
There were already binaries doing those jobs and doing them well. One of the key things about them was that although they worked together they had well defined boundaries and interfaces between themselves. They did not need to be replaced by an interdependent mess.
One statement made early in the invasion concerned the new systemdified udev. It could be run without systemd but it couldn't be compiled without it. WHAT?????!!!!! This shower couldn't - or wouldn't - structure their code so that common libraries went into one or more source files and the individual programs could be compiled against those without needing to delve into each other's code. Were they really that ignorant of good practice or were they deliberately flouting it? I don't know and frankly I don't care; to know was enough.