intelfx

> post exposure vaccination is a thing?? does it work for everything

I believe in this discussion the context is specifically rabies.

> and why is it called vaccination not treatment?

It's both, really. You get a shot of rabies immunoglobulin (at the site of potential infection, i.e., bite) _and_ an extended course of vaccine at the same time.

> Would you really feel better if he said, "I think a multi-language approach is a very bad idea, it will inevitably spread, and it will end up causing systemic problems far away from this initial usage, and make the kernel increasingly frail and unhealthy over time" ?

Yes, I absolutely would. Because this statement is neutral, specific, and technical (if unfounded, so I'd feel even better if such a statement would have been supplemented with justifications), therefore it can be attacked, argued, and refuted point-by-point on a technical basis. No such thing is possible when technical concerns are replaced with emotionally loaded metaphors.

So yes, I stand by my belief that saying "$thing is a cancer" when talking to someone who is good-faith committed to doing $thing is 1) unreasonable (because it cannot be reasoned with), and 2) an insult (because it is designed to appeal to emotions rather than facts).

Echoing @steveklabnik's words, you're just hanging up on the semantics of how a particular insult has been made. This does not refute or diminish the fact of an insult.

If I actively participate in and align myself with a community that is committed to doing the $thing, and you come and say to me that "$thing is cancer", or that "the fact of doing of $thing is cancer", then it's functionally equivalent to insulting this community, and by extension to insulting me. In other words, it's clearly supposed to make _me_ feel bad (for pushing $thing, or participating in the doing of $thing), regardless of the precise wording.

It's still an unprofessional, uncooperative, and _unreasonable_ thing to do.

> And nuclear power is judged, fairly or unfairly, by Chernobyl

Proves the GP's point exactly.

Saying "I do not trust you, so I'm going to stonewall your entire work with which you could have built that trust" is not viable either.

Besides, none of this was said. Hellwig did not say "I do not trust you enough". He said "you are cancer, go away". First is harsh, but at least somewhat reasonable (in the sense that it _can be reasoned with_); second is not reasonable at all. Your interpretation is excessively charitable to an obvious bad-faith actor.

> somehow my matrix room continued to run without me hosting it, and without an admin running it

Surprise, this is probably the primary architectural feature of Matrix. This is precisely what it's designed to do.

This strikes me as entirely missing the idea of Radicle.

What you are saying is basically "why automate things if you can just do them manually". But worse is not better; there is value in having the P2P transport layer work _transparently_. If you intend to force user to manually (or semi-automatically) juggle remotes for every single device on the network, you have already lost.

TL;DR What you describe is just Git on top of a generic P2P overlay network. I'm sure it can be done (and I might even believe it could be enough for some limited use-cases), but it is not Radicle.

run0 does not send any signal to polkit, systemd does.

> The problem with systemd is that it's a mediocre solution to many problems

[citation needed]

> I admit I haven't really seen a huge advantage to using systemd-networkd over NetworkManager yet

I don't think there is one. systemd-networkd is explicitly not for dynamic environments like personal laptops or workstations; it has a scope and NetworkManager is largely outside it.

> If it actively solved problems for the majority of users we wouldn't hate it so much

It does and we don't. The only "we" who are "hating it so much" is a tiny vocal minority.

In the same vein, sorry it doesn't work for you, but that has not been the prevailing experience ;)

(Same goes for "unpolished and flaky".)

> There's like 3 components involved in making setuid safe (the kernel, the dynamic loader, and your exec), and at least one of them wasn't doing its job correctly (the dynamic loader). IPC by definition involves a superset of these components

Incorrect, because nowhere in the IPC dance are these components exposed to the same untrusted environment as they are with sudo.

I mean, systemd-run could do privilege escalation from day one. It's even the default (otherwise overridable by systemd-run -pUser=<user>). I have used systemd-run --shell on countless occasions when I needed a clean root shell without any traces of the current environment.

What is being announced is merely a thin layer of cmdline syntactic sugar over an existing feature, to make it closer to sudo in usage.

So I'm not sure what exactly you were missing?

Ironically, that's exactly what the moderation team seems to insinuate with their "extreme skepticism" claim.

"You don't know the story, we won't tell any of the events leading up to this point, but you better be sure that these people on the core team are wrong!"

Fast compiling isn't really compatible with reproducible builds, is it?

The downside of the "true history" approach, besides obvious aesthetic reasons, is that it precludes the use of such tools as `git bisect` and `git blame`.

> but you'd be more efficient at it if you develop the full metabolic machinery for it by specifically targeting it

Would you mind expanding on this? Or maybe some general links as to what "keto" is about.

Did you hear about "hybrid MBR"?

Goddamn, guys, stop repeating the same absurd.

kdbus is NOT ONLY about performance. It's about the lifetimes, the availiability in the early userspace, the new marshalling format, the new user bus concept, and so on, and so forth. It's about separating the transport (in the kernel) and the policy (in the userspace).

Most of these points can be achieved without putting the transport in the kernel, but some can not.

Just as a side note to side note (preemptive strike against accusations of systemd for using gotos) — the Linux kernel has many of them either. This is idiomatic C-style error handling.

Also note that systemd employs gcc's __attribute__((cleanup(...))) logic to improve code clarity.