It’s unlikely to cause anything to outright fail, but it will certainly be creating bottlenecks and inefficiencies

Hey now, some of us have standards.

We have shitty python scripts

No, I’m arguing that the extra complexity is something to avoid because it creates new attack surfaces, new opportunities for bugs, and is very unlikely to accurately deal with all of the edge cases.

Especially when you consider that the behaviour we have was established way before there even was a unicode standard which could have been applied, and when the alternative you want isn’t unambiguously better than what it does now.

“What is language” is a far more insightful question than you clearly intended, because our collective best answer to that question right now is the unicode standard, and even that’s not perfect. Making the very core of the filesystem have to deal with that is a can of worms which a competent engineer wouldn’t open without very good reason, and at best I’m seeing a weak and subjective reason here.

The reason, I suspect, is fundamentally because there’s no relationship between the uppercase and lowercase characters unless someone goes out of their way to create it. That requires that the filesystem contain knowledge of the alphabet, which might work if all you wanted was to handle ASCII in American English, but isn’t good for a system which needs to support the whole world.

In fact, the UNIX filesystem isn’t ASCII. It’s also not unicode. UNIX uses arbitrary byte strings, with special significance given to a very small number of bytes (just ‘/’ and ‘\0’, I think). That means people are free to label files in whatever way they like, and their terminals or other applications are free to render them in whatever way seems appropriate, without the filesystem having to understand unicode.

Adding case insensitivity would therefore actually be significant and unnecessary complexity to add to the filesystem drivers, and we’d probably take a big step backwards in support for other languages

Fair enough, I didn’t consider compute resources

The actual length of the password isn’t the problem. If they were “doing stuff right” then it would make no difference to them whether the password was 20 characters or 200, because once it was hashed both would be stored in the same amount of space.

The fact that they’ve specified a limit is strong evidence that they’renot doing it right

The crew of Apollo 13 weren’t really stranded, as such. They were far from home and not sure if they had the means to get home before the supplies ran out, which is a different problem

Because you might accidentally do something which breaks the system, or you might run a program which does something malicious without your knowledge.

By gating dangerous (or protected for any other reason) commands behind sudo, you create a barrier which is difficult to accidentally cross

While that sort of analysis probably isn’t impossible, it is computationally unrealistic to do in realtime on a language which wasn’t designed for it.

It’s the sort of thing which is simple in 99% of cases, but the last 1% might well be impossible. Sadly it’s the last 1% you need to worry about, because anyone trying to defeat your system is going to find them

It’s a matter of perspective. To someone who’s job is to write the system which interprets ASM, ASM is high level

You declaring a debt isn’t meaningful because you don’t have legal authority to do so.

A licence statement is describing in what way you’re granting permission for something you do have the right to control, which makes it meaningful

Nah, we’re alright. I don’t think anyone has clearly defined the requirements of earth citizenship, we can assume it’s like Ireland who hand it out like candy

No it wouldn’t. Whoever touched it last is responsible for it, that’s entirely consistent with the metaphore

I’m pretty sure it means exactly what it says, but you lot are all misreading it.

I interpret it as “all rights, except the right to commit, are reserved” (which doesn’t mean you surrender the right to commit, but rather that it’s the only right you aren’t depriving everyone else of)

The Artemis 1 launch was also staggeringly expensive, and yet to be repeated.

In the time it’s taken to develop that rocket, SpaceX has gone from it’s very first real flight (by which I mean actually achieving something, rather than a pure test flight) to launching far more every year than the entire rest of the world combined. Note that by that definition, Artemis hasn’t had a single “real” flight yet.

The default is as long as it is because most people value not losing data, or avoiding corruption, or generally preserving the proper functioning of software on their machine, over 90 seconds during which they could simply walk away.

Especially when those 90 seconds only even come up when something isn’t right.

If you feel that strongly that you’d rather let something malfunction, then you’re entirely at liberty to change the configuration. You don’t have to accept the design decisions of the package maintainers if you really want to do something differently.

Also, if you’re that set against investigating why your system isn’t behaving the way you expect, then what the hell are you doing running arch? Half the point of that distro is that you get the bleeding edge of everything, and you’re expected to maintain your own damn system

The question you should be asking is what’s wrong with that job which is causing it to run for long enough that the timeout has to kill it.

Systemd isn’t the problem here, all it’s doing is making it easy to find out what process is slowing down your shutdown, and making sure it doesn’t stall forever

Also, it’s probably possible to fix the partition so that it’s as big as it used to be. It’s likely that some of your data is corrupted already, but the repartitioning won’t have erased the old data except here or there where it’s written things like new file tables in space it now considers unused

What they’re suggesting is to back up the whole disk, rather than any single partition. Anything you do to the partition to try and recover it has the potential to make a rescuable situation hopeless. If you have a copy of the exact state of every single bit on the drive, then you can try and fix it safe in the knowledge that you can always get back to exactly where you are now if you make it worse

It depends on what exactly gets cut or punctured, of course, but my understanding is that without proper surgical intervention it can be an exceptionally slow and painful way to die.

The organs in the gut are mostly intestines. You’re not going to die just because they’ve spilled out, but you’re going to be bleeding pretty badly and if whatever caused them to spill out is still around then you’re pretty screwed.

The bigger problem is that it’s unlikely they’ve just spilled out, they’re probably also sliced open. Now you’re in serious trouble, because there’s lots of blood in there so now you’re bleeding really badly. You’ve also got blood and the content of your digestives system mixing together, and that means some very nasty bacteria which are normally safely contained now have access to your blood.

I suspect the most likely dangerous situation is a stab wound. In that case you’ll probably experience internal bleeding. There are no shortage of places for blood to go inside your body around there, including into your digestive system. I don’t think there’s anything much to stop blood from flowing endlessly into there, and you could bleed to death even if the external wound doesn’t look like it’s bleeding all that badly.

In summary, getting stabbed in the gut will contaminate your blood and lead to potentially endless bleeding which can’t be treated with bandages because it’s inside. Even if you avoid bleeding to death, you’re probably going to die from a massive infection