On 2020-09-15 11:08:23 Felmon Davis wrote: > On Tue, 15 Sep 2020, William Morder via tde-users wrote: > > Better not to give in to conspiracy-theory thinking here. I believe a > > simpler proportion is at work. > > > > The more money, property or power is involved, the greater the degree of > > corruption. Who was it that said it? Lord Acton? "Power corrupts. > > Absolute power corrupts absolutely." > > > > Corruption creeps in by small degrees. It starts with somebody offering > > front-row seats at some special, exclusive event, or just being given > > "free money" or other unearned bonuses and perks. > > > > In all this technophobic conspiracy thinking, there is a simpler > > principle at work. People who are in business want to know who are their > > customers. (It makes more sense in a small business, where we meet in > > person.) When we move into situations where the people in business never > > actually meet most of their customers, they must find other ways to get > > to "know" them. At first, I'm sure, they mean well, and only want to > > serve the needs and wants of people who buy or use their goods and > > services; but as the company and customer base grows, and as competition > > also increases, then comes the need for greater control. > > > > And now, we the users are not even really exactly "customers" or > > "clients", but just use what we get for free; and because it's free, of > > course, we are taught that we should not complain or make demands, but > > just be grateful. > > > > In the end, we, the customers, users, renters (whatever our situation) > > become the least important part; in fact, an obstacle to doing business. > > What the business person would prefer, really, is just to withdraw money > > directly from our accounts, without any interaction from ourselves. But > > this is only because doing business in person is becoming a rare occasion > > any more. > > > > Bill > > there may be truth in some of this but it seems a bit like > thread-drift - perhaps retraction of apfelstrüdel must be considered; > how does this relate to systemd-homed? > > it seems systemd-homed brings precisely the benefit which Kate > mentioned is lacking in our usual way of moving 'home'; she wrote: > > "I don't understand why this is even needed?! I can already move home > directories without a problem. Been doing it for years. I just make > sure to use the same user on the same distro, same etc. Works > perfectly. Or I save key settings (konq bookmarks, FF bms, etc) it's > so easy after that to just retheme to spec." > > I take it with systemd-homed one doesn't get trapped by shifting UIDs > and such. they write (partial quotation), > > "Linux assigns UIDs in the order usernames are registered on a > machine. you may get UID 1000 if you are the first user on a laptop > and you could get 1001 on another laptop if you are the second user to > be registered there. This poses a problem if you move a home directory > container from machine A where you're UID 1000 to machine B where you > are 1001. systemd-homed solves this by doing a chown -R on the entire > home directory if there is a conflict. [...]" > > I once fell athwart of that! not to mention that 'home' gets encrypted. > > why isn't this a net bonus? > > f. But isn't the UID/GID sync issue handled by other, already existing mechanisms? NIS and LDAP come to mind. _______________________________________________ tde-users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Web mail archive available at https://mail.trinitydesktop.org/mailman3/hyperkitty/list/users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
