On 2020-09-15 11:53:52 William Morder via tde-users wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 September 2020 09:08:23 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 apfelstr�ust 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.
>
> I agree, lots of thread drift here. We really ought to start a new thread
> once we get into philosophy and politics and stuff.
>
> For me, the jury is still out on homed, at least as a concept. All those
> benefits do seem double-plus good and all. What I don't like is systemd,
> because it was thrust upon us without consent, over the objections of many
> developers themselves, and goes directly against the philosophy of Debian
> (too much explanation required here).
>
> Maybe it is a good thing; some seem to think so, but systemd takes control
> away from users themselves, in many small ways. I don't like it myself
> mainly because my system doesn't run so well with systemd.
>
> And, if I read correctly, you can't get homed without systemd. But homed,
> which does sound good in so many ways, will somehow (I suspect) be used to
> get people using systemd.
>
> Maybe there is somebody who is already thinking of a systemd-free homed
> system? Is it possible?
>
> Again, if you are content with what you have, then it's hard for me to
> argue that you [the universal you] ought to be doing something different,
> just because, in my opinion, it's better or more secure or whatever. If you
> like what you have, and don't want to change, then just keep shining on.
>
> Bill
Hopefully, homed will not be so deeply intertwined into other things that one
cannot simply delete it from the system if one so chooses.
Leslie
____________________________________________________
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
