I do not use that abomination called "systemd."

I use the traditional boot scripts that are still enshrined at
Linux From Scratch.

Gentoo updated the "shadow" package from 4.8 to 4.9.

As a consequence, my system would boot but it would ask
for a password.

What the friggin' fuck?

I could not proceed and faced being locked out of my own
GNU/Linux system.

My inittab file contains the entry for system start:

# Run gettys in standard runlevels
1:2345:respawn:/bin/login -f root

This should automatically log me in as "root" user.

This has worked for many, many years but suddenly it asks
me for a fucking password. What the friggin' fuck???!!!

I solved the issue is less than 40 minutes (I had to first boot
with systemrescue USB).

What is the solution?

If you are a TRUE user of GNU/Linux then you will not have
much difficulty.

However, if you are a fucking dilettante user of Ubuntu/Mint
then you won't have a clue.

Therefore, unless you are a TRUE user of GNU/Linux then
please the get the fuck out.

--

Systemd free. D.E. free.

Always and forever.

(followup to advocacy refused)

On 29/07/2021 01.44, F Russell wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 14:14:12 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>>
>> SOME of us USE linux as a tool, like we use a car to get to places.
>>
>
> A very poor analogy that has been adduced merely to bolster a very
> weak counter-argument.
>
> One cannot effectively USE anything to an effective extent unless one
> understands completely the operation of that thing.
>

Absolutely false.

Millions of efficient drivers know next to nothing about their vehicle's
engines and can not do any repair on them.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 7/29/21 9:57 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>
> (followup to advocacy refused)
>
> On 29/07/2021 01.44, F Russell wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 14:14:12 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> SOME of us USE linux as a tool, like we use a car to get to places.
>>>
>>
>> A very poor analogy that has been adduced merely to bolster a very
>> weak counter-argument.
>>
>> One cannot effectively USE anything to an effective extent unless one
>> understands completely the operation of that thing.
>>
>
> Absolutely false.
>
> Millions of efficient drivers know next to nothing about their vehicle's
> engines and can not do any repair on them.

True. Manuals in the 50's told you how to adjust the valves.

Now they tell you not to drink the battery fluid.

Rinaldi

"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:
> (followup to advocacy refused)

If you just want to argue, take it to the advocacy group. That’s what
it’s for. Don’t bother the rest of us.

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

On 29/07/2021 15:57, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>
> (followup to advocacy refused)
>
> On 29/07/2021 01.44, F Russell wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 14:14:12 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> SOME of us USE linux as a tool, like we use a car to get to places.
>>>
>>
>> A very poor analogy that has been adduced merely to bolster a very
>> weak counter-argument.
>>
>> One cannot effectively USE anything to an effective extent unless one
>> understands completely the operation of that thing.
>>
>
> Absolutely false.
>
> Millions of efficient drivers know next to nothing about their vehicle's
> engines and can not do any repair on them.
>
>
Exactly. Pilots know how to fly. Not how to service engines in flight,.
That's what they have checklists of what to do if engines screw up and
stop,. for example.

I need a platform to browse, write, send emails, construct web sites,
write code, do some video editing and some CAD. ALL I ask is that
whatever lies underneath is stable reasonably bug free and doesn't take
up huge amounts of time to get it to do what I want.
Linux is simply better for me than windows or OS/X. Mint is better than
debian because it has a lot of multimedia support out of the box and its
well put together.

I wouldn't care about that poettering shit except that every time
systemd changes it takes about two months before code works again properly.

No one 'knows' linux. At best some people have quite deep knowledge of
*parts* of it.

--
“it should be clear by now to everyone that activist environmentalism
(or environmental activism) is becoming a general ideology about humans,
about their freedom, about the relationship between the individual and
the state, and about the manipulation of people under the guise of a
'noble' idea. It is not an honest pursuit of 'sustainable development,'
a matter of elementary environmental protection, or a search for
rational mechanisms designed to achieve a healthy environment. Yet
things do occur that make you shake your head and remind yourself that
you live neither in Joseph Stalin’s Communist era, nor in the Orwellian
utopia of 1984.”

Vaclav Klaus

On 29/07/2021 19.26, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:
>> (followup to advocacy refused)
>
> If you just want to argue, take it to the advocacy group. That’s what
> it’s for. Don’t bother the rest of us.
>

Tell that to him, he started the thread here, bothering us. /I/ will not
go to the advocacy groups, I'm not interested.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:
> On 29/07/2021 19.26, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:
>>> (followup to advocacy refused)
>>
>> If you just want to argue, take it to the advocacy group. That’s what
>> it’s for. Don’t bother the rest of us.
>
> Tell that to him, he started the thread here, bothering us. /I/ will not
> go to the advocacy groups, I'm not interested.

Then don’t reply to him.

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 10:53:45 -0600, ray wrote:

>
> One need not be a total jackass to be a 'TRUE user of GNU/Linux'. And
> everyone has to start somewhere.
>

I thank you for your sincere response.

However, it remains that GNU/Linux is *not* for the common man.

This obvious fact has inspired the birth of junk projects such as
GNOME, KDE, freedektop.org, etc. that attempt to lessen the pain
of GNU/Linux adoption by providing supposedly intuitive and
certainly M$ Windows-like GUIs. The popular distros adopt these
projects wholeheartedly.

My point of view is that these tactics will NEVER work. The common
man will NEVER choose GNU/Linux in spite of these futile efforts.
This basic fact has been demonstrated time and time again.

My answer is that GNU/Linux developers should just "wise up."
Stop these foolish desktop GUIs and concentrate on the needs
of the hard-core GNU/Linux user -- the user that literally defined
GNU/Linux in the first place.

--

Systemd free. D.E. free.

Always and forever.

On 30/07/2021 00.20, F Russell wrote:

> My answer is that GNU/Linux developers should just "wise up."
> Stop these foolish desktop GUIs and concentrate on the needs
> of the hard-core GNU/Linux user -- the user that literally defined
> GNU/Linux in the first place.
>

No.

You do that if you wish, and stay there, alone. You will not convince
the millions of Linux users to do as you wish.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 7/29/21 3:13 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> Exactly. Pilots know how to fly. Not how to service engines in
> flight,. That's what they have checklists of what to do if engines
> screw up and stop,. for example.

Bullshit, drove airplanes for 24k hours, a thousand jumps
skydiving HaLo, LaLo and LoL but I still don't know how to fly :-(

BTW the AN-2 has an in-flight oil-filling spout IN THE COCKPIT :-)

> I wouldn't care about that poettering shit except that every time
> systemd changes it takes about two months before code works again
> properly.

kill system fucking d, with THAT the OP is on target!
"IT" discourages people form being involved, "IT"
really wants to get rid of involved users.

On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 12:11:18 -0500, Rinaldi wrote:
>
> On 7/29/21 9:57 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> (followup to advocacy refused)
>>>
>>> One cannot effectively USE anything to an effective extent unless one
>>> understands completely the operation of that thing.
>>>
>> Absolutely false.
>> Millions of efficient drivers know next to nothing about their
>> vehicle's
>> engines and can not do any repair on them.

While cars today are more or less computers on wheels some (most?)
drivers today cannot perform the easiest tasks.

Some years ago I helped a neighbor to move something with his can and
noticed a warning on the display (heck, in the old days we had just a
lamp coming on which was probably not even an LED yet) to check the
oil. I asked him if he noticed. He said something that he had but always
forgets to pay a visit to the shop. Later I checked it and the level was
low indeed. Checked the manual (amazing cars today have them not just a
single page leaflet telling you to check Google for something [1]) what oil
the car needed. We filled up at the gas station and the warning
vanished. I wonder how much it would had cost him to have the shop taken
care of it.

> True. Manuals in the 50's told you how to adjust the valves.
>
> Now they tell you not to drink the battery fluid.

Yes, first adjust the valves, then it's safe to drink the battery fluid. ;-)

X'post and F'up2 comp.os.linux.advocacy.

[1] If the car runs on Linux it might instead point to the man page - to
get a little more ontopic. ;-)
--
Andreas

PGP fingerprint 952B0A9F12C2FD6C9F7E68DAA9C2EA89D1A370E0

On 30/07/2021 08.12, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 12:11:18 -0500, Rinaldi wrote:
>>
>> On 7/29/21 9:57 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>> (followup to advocacy refused)
>>>>
>>>> One cannot effectively USE anything to an effective extent unless one
>>>> understands completely the operation of that thing.
>>>>
>>> Absolutely false.
>>> Millions of efficient drivers know next to nothing about their
>>> vehicle's engines and can not do any repair on them.
>
> While cars today are more or less computers on wheels some (most?)
> drivers today cannot perform the easiest tasks.
>
> Some years ago I helped a neighbor to move something with his can and
> noticed a warning on the display (heck, in the old days we had just a
> lamp coming on which was probably not even an LED yet) to check the
> oil. I asked him if he noticed. He said something that he had but always
> forgets to pay a visit to the shop. Later I checked it and the level was
> low indeed. Checked the manual (amazing cars today have them not just a
> single page leaflet telling you to check Google for something [1]) what oil
> the car needed. We filled up at the gas station and the warning
> vanished. I wonder how much it would had cost him to have the shop taken
> care of it.

I have a dear friend that had a small car (just a few warning lamps,
like oil pressure warning, not level), and brought it to us at the
student residence, after she commented that the car would barely climb a
street and one of us, the son of a mechanic, said he would have a look.

The car was running on three cylinders "or less", and the stick to test
the oil level came out dry.

She did not know she had to check the oil level.

>
>> True. Manuals in the 50's told you how to adjust the valves.
>>
>> Now they tell you not to drink the battery fluid.
>
> Yes, first adjust the valves, then it's safe to drink the battery fluid. ;-)
>
> X'post and F'up2 comp.os.linux.advocacy.

and removed. I will not subscribe there.

> [1] If the car runs on Linux it might instead point to the man page - to
> get a little more ontopic. ;-)

My current car (an Opel Corsa) has a thickish paper manual that is
almost useless, as it contains instructions for about every Corsa with
every variant, making it a mess. When I need to know something, I go to
the garage and ask for advice rather than dig in that horrible manual. I
commented to the seller that with computers nowdays you can print on the
spot a manual that contains only the exact features the car has, but he
said that would be too complex. Of course, he sells cars, not computer
services, he knows not what marvels are possible with computers.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 2021-07-27, F Russell <fr@random.info> wrote:
>
> Therefore, unless you are a TRUE user of GNU/Linux then
> please the get the fuck out.

You, sir, are a twat.

J

On 30/07/2021 13:31, John Dow wrote:
> On 2021-07-27, F Russell <fr@random.info> wrote:
>>
>> Therefore, unless you are a TRUE user of GNU/Linux then
>> please the get the fuck out.
>
> You, sir, are a twat.
>
> J
>
+1

--
"First, find out who are the people you can not criticise. They are your
oppressors."
- George Orwell

On 7/30/21 5:31 AM, John Dow wrote:
> On 2021-07-27, F Russell <fr@random.info> wrote:
>>
>> Therefore, unless you are a TRUE user of GNU/Linux then
>> please the get the fuck out.
>
> You, sir, are a twat.
>
> J
>
And your choice of words is quite sad.
That is a Troll and responding to a Troll
is the only thing that s/he wants you to do. S/he
won't be reading your reply and you are just
giving the Troll validation by further annoying the
rest of the c.o.l.misc readers.

Selah

bliss-lost in SpaceTime about 13.8 Billion from the BANG!

On 2021-07-30, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 12:11:18 -0500, Rinaldi wrote:
>>
>> On 7/29/21 9:57 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>> (followup to advocacy refused)
>>>
>>>> One cannot effectively USE anything to an effective extent unless one
>>>> understands completely the operation of that thing.
>>>
>>> Absolutely false.
>>> Millions of efficient drivers know next to nothing about their
>>> vehicle's
>>> engines and can not do any repair on them.
>
> While cars today are more or less computers on wheels some (most?)
> drivers today cannot perform the easiest tasks.
>
> Some years ago I helped a neighbor to move something with his can and
> noticed a warning on the display (heck, in the old days we had just a
> lamp coming on which was probably not even an LED yet) to check the
> oil. I asked him if he noticed. He said something that he had but always
> forgets to pay a visit to the shop. Later I checked it and the level was
> low indeed. Checked the manual (amazing cars today have them not just a
> single page leaflet telling you to check Google for something [1]) what
> oil the car needed. We filled up at the gas station and the warning
> vanished. I wonder how much it would had cost him to have the shop taken
> care of it.

Probably less than they'd charge if he ran it until it seized...

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | They don't understand Microsoft
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | has stolen their car and parked
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | a taxi in their driveway.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Mayayana

On 2021-07-30, bad sector <forgetski@postit_INVALID_.gov> wrote:

> On 7/29/21 3:13 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> Exactly. Pilots know how to fly. Not how to service engines in
>> flight,. That's what they have checklists of what to do if engines
>> screw up and stop,. for example.
>
> Bullshit, drove airplanes for 24k hours, a thousand jumps
> skydiving HaLo, LaLo and LoL but I still don't know how to fly :-(

With my paltry 2800 hours (and 2400 jumps) I don't stand a chance,
then. :-)

But at least we learn enough about how an engine works that we know
how - and why - to not do things that might make it screw up and stop.

> BTW the AN-2 has an in-flight oil-filling spout IN THE COCKPIT :-)

So does the Beaver.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | They don't understand Microsoft
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | has stolen their car and parked
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | a taxi in their driveway.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Mayayana

On 7/30/21 2:26 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2021-07-30, bad sector <forgetski@postit_INVALID_.gov> wrote:
>
>> On 7/29/21 3:13 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> Exactly. Pilots know how to fly. Not how to service engines in
>>> flight,. That's what they have checklists of what to do if engines
>>> screw up and stop,. for example.
>>
>> Bullshit, drove airplanes for 24k hours, a thousand jumps
>> skydiving HaLo, LaLo and LoL but I still don't know how to fly :-(
>
> With my paltry 2800 hours (and 2400 jumps) I don't stand a chance,
> then. :-)

At least you kept them in step!

I quit to protect my career from possible even
minor injuries. But I got on TV once with my
demo partner for an interview. The host tried
to put us on the spot with the question "what
do you do if the parachute don't open?" to which
I replied "you think positively and plan your 30
remaining seconds to learn how to fly" (there
wasn't much point in telling him about the reserve)

> But at least we learn enough about how an engine works that we know
> how - and why - to not do things that might make it screw up and stop.
>
>> BTW the AN-2 has an in-flight oil-filling spout IN THE COCKPIT :-)
>
> So does the Beaver.

That's right, it does, it's just that I kneel whenever an
An-2 goes by. The manual says that in the event of an
engine failure in IMC you just "pull the column into your
gut and wait", scarebus don't make'em like that no more.
There's also a multi-engine machine on which I think
significant engine maintenance was possible in-flight.
Nothing like that though on the oldest still-flying
Norseman I flew circa 1970 in the artic, it was serial #13,
had been the property of everyone from the RCMP to
the US or German army, and a huge MOT stamp on
the front page said "Time since new: UNKNOWN" :-)

Back on topic, I love Linux, and WANT to do some
cLi now and then but if I'm forced to do so on every
update then forget it. It's supposed to be a luxury
and not a necessity, it's supposed to give you freedom
and not slavery-d.

> --
> /~\ Charlie Gibbs | They don't understand Microsoft
> \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | has stolen their car and parked
> X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | a taxi in their driveway.
> / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Mayayana

On 2021-07-30, bad sector <forgetski@postit_INVALID_.gov> wrote:

> On 7/30/21 2:26 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> On 2021-07-30, bad sector <forgetski@postit_INVALID_.gov> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/29/21 3:13 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>>> Exactly. Pilots know how to fly. Not how to service engines in
>>>> flight,. That's what they have checklists of what to do if engines
>>>> screw up and stop,. for example.
>>>
>>> Bullshit, drove airplanes for 24k hours, a thousand jumps
>>> skydiving HaLo, LaLo and LoL but I still don't know how to fly :-(
>>
>> With my paltry 2800 hours (and 2400 jumps) I don't stand a chance,
>> then. :-)
>
> At least you kept them in step!
>
> I quit to protect my career from possible even
> minor injuries. But I got on TV once with my
> demo partner for an interview. The host tried
> to put us on the spot with the question "what
> do you do if the parachute don't open?" to which
> I replied "you think positively and plan your 30
> remaining seconds to learn how to fly" (there
> wasn't much point in telling him about the reserve)

That sounds like the definition of flying that Douglas Adams
put forth in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series:
it's the art of throwing yourself at the ground and missing.

"There I was at 2500 feet with nothing but a silkworm and a
sewing machine..."

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | They don't understand Microsoft
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | has stolen their car and parked
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | a taxi in their driveway.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Mayayana

On 30/07/2021 19:26, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2021-07-30, bad sector <forgetski@postit_INVALID_.gov> wrote:
>
>> On 7/29/21 3:13 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> Exactly. Pilots know how to fly. Not how to service engines in
>>> flight,. That's what they have checklists of what to do if engines
>>> screw up and stop,. for example.
>>
>> Bullshit, drove airplanes for 24k hours, a thousand jumps
>> skydiving HaLo, LaLo and LoL but I still don't know how to fly :-(
>
> With my paltry 2800 hours (and 2400 jumps) I don't stand a chance,
> then. :-)
>
> But at least we learn enough about how an engine works that we know
> how - and why - to not do things that might make it screw up and stop.

Or not. The Bristol Mercury WWII aircraft engine was well known for
pausing for several seconds with no power at all if you rammed the
throttles open.
An airbus crashed at an airshow because the pilots didnt realise how
long it takes to spool an engine up from idle ...because mostly you
don't - landing is normally done in medium power high drag. Response is
fairly fast. From idle it takes something like 15 seconds to get go
around power.

Pilots have to deal with stuff specific to flying te aircraft, not
debugging its internal systems.

I recommend te you tube 'Mentour pilot' channel where an airline pilot
explains exactly what they do in emergencies of one kind or another, and
mostly it boils down to 'RTFM on thaat fault and get the aircraft down
on the ground (or in a river!) ASAP where qualified engineers can fix it

>
>> BTW the AN-2 has an in-flight oil-filling spout IN THE COCKPIT :-)
>
> So does the Beaver.
>
I am impressed.

Cf the Ercoupe which had so little elevator control that it couldn't be
spun.
Or trimmed properly :-)

--
"What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
"I don't."
"Don't what?"
"Think about Gay Marriage."

On 30/07/2021 20:12, bad sector wrote:
>>> BTW the AN-2 has an in-flight oil-filling spout IN THE COCKPIT :-)
>>
>> So does the Beaver.
>
> That's right, it does, it's just that I kneel whenever an
> An-2 goes by. The manual says that in the event of an
> engine failure in IMC you just "pull the column into your
> gut and wait", scarebus don't make'em like that no more.
> There's also a multi-engine machine on which I think
> significant engine maintenance was possible in-flight.

Isn't there a story of a guy who crawled out in a bombers wing in WW2 to
save the aircraft?

"Having bombed the target, Jackson's Lancaster (serial ME669) was
attacked by a German night fighter and a fuel tank in the starboard wing
caught fire. Jackson, already wounded from shell splinters, strapped on
a parachute and equipped himself with a fire extinguisher before
climbing out of the aircraft and onto the wing, whilst the aeroplane was
flying at 140 miles per hour (230 km/h), in order to put out the fire.
He gripped the air intake on the leading edge of the wing with one hand,
and fought the fire with the other. The flames seared his hands, face,
and clothes. The fighter returned and hit the bomber with a burst of
gunfire that sent two bullets into his legs. The burst also swept him
off the wing.

He fell 20,000 feet (6,100 m), but his smouldering and holed parachute
worked well enough to save his life. He suffered further injuries upon
landing, including a broken ankle, but managed to crawl to a nearby
German village the next morning, where he was paraded through the street.

He spent 10 months recovering in hospital before being transferred to
the Stalag IX-C prisoner-of-war camp."

and...

"On the return flight, while over the Zuider Zee on the Dutch coast,
Ward's Wellington was attacked by a German Bf 110 night fighter. The
attack opened a fuel tank in the starboard wing, and caused a fire
around the rear of the starboard engine. After initial attempts to put
out the flames using fire extinguishers directed through a hole made in
the fuselage of the Wellington failed, Widdowson ordered the crew to
bail out. However, Ward proposed that he climb out and try and smother
the fire using an engine cover. He crawled out through the astrodome on
the top of the fuselage, secured by a rope. Making his way down the side
and along the wing of the aircraft, he kicked or tore holes in the
fuselage's covering fabric with a fire axe to give himself hand-and
foot-holes.[2][6][7][8]

He soon reached the engine and attempted to smother the flames with a
canvas cover. With the fire out, he stuffed the cover into the hole from
which fuel from a petrol line, damaged in the night fighter attack, had
leaked and exacerbated the fire. Ward, now exhausted, gingerly made his
way back to the astrodome with the navigator, Sergeant Joe Lawson of the
RNZAF, keeping tension on the rope tethered to Ward and assisting him
back into the aircraft. Although the cover shortly blew away by the
slipstream, the remnants of the fire had burnt itself out and the plane
was now safe. Instead of the crew having to bail out, the aircraft made
an emergency landing, without flaps or brakes, at Newmarket. The
Wellington ran into a hedge and fence at the end of the runway and was
written off"

That's a bit like patching the kernel on a live running multiuser
system....

--
"Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social
conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the
windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) "

Alan Sokal

On 30/07/2021 19:26, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2021-07-30, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 12:11:18 -0500, Rinaldi wrote:
>>>
>>> On 7/29/21 9:57 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>>> (followup to advocacy refused)
>>>>
>>>>> One cannot effectively USE anything to an effective extent unless one
>>>>> understands completely the operation of that thing.
>>>>
>>>> Absolutely false.
>>>> Millions of efficient drivers know next to nothing about their
>>>> vehicle's
>>>> engines and can not do any repair on them.
>>
>> While cars today are more or less computers on wheels some (most?)
>> drivers today cannot perform the easiest tasks.
>>
>> Some years ago I helped a neighbor to move something with his can and
>> noticed a warning on the display (heck, in the old days we had just a
>> lamp coming on which was probably not even an LED yet) to check the
>> oil. I asked him if he noticed. He said something that he had but always
>> forgets to pay a visit to the shop. Later I checked it and the level was
>> low indeed. Checked the manual (amazing cars today have them not just a
>> single page leaflet telling you to check Google for something [1]) what
>> oil the car needed. We filled up at the gas station and the warning
>> vanished. I wonder how much it would had cost him to have the shop taken
>> care of it.
>
> Probably less than they'd charge if he ran it until it seized...
>
some companies used to run their car fleets by buying new, and selling a
year later - with 100,000 miles on the clock and no service record
whatsoever. They didn't even bother to check the oil.

--
"What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
"I don't."
"Don't what?"
"Think about Gay Marriage."

On 7/30/21 4:13 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2021-07-30, bad sector <forgetski@postit_INVALID_.gov> wrote:
>
>> On 7/30/21 2:26 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> On 2021-07-30, bad sector <forgetski@postit_INVALID_.gov> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/29/21 3:13 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Exactly. Pilots know how to fly. Not how to service engines in
>>>>> flight,. That's what they have checklists of what to do if engines
>>>>> screw up and stop,. for example.
>>>>
>>>> Bullshit, drove airplanes for 24k hours, a thousand jumps
>>>> skydiving HaLo, LaLo and LoL but I still don't know how to fly :-(
>>>
>>> With my paltry 2800 hours (and 2400 jumps) I don't stand a chance,
>>> then. :-)
>>
>> At least you kept them in step!
>>
>> I quit to protect my career from possible even
>> minor injuries. But I got on TV once with my
>> demo partner for an interview. The host tried
>> to put us on the spot with the question "what
>> do you do if the parachute don't open?" to which
>> I replied "you think positively and plan your 30
>> remaining seconds to learn how to fly" (there
>> wasn't much point in telling him about the reserve)
>
> That sounds like the definition of flying that Douglas Adams
> put forth in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series:
> it's the art of throwing yourself at the ground and missing.

I can tell you that the An-2 and the DC-3 are two
airplanes with which you can do whatever you
like and on which you have to work bloody hard
to cause an accident. An OS should be similar :-)

> "There I was at 2500 feet with nothing but a silkworm and a
> sewing machine..."

And I thought that extreme-ironing took the cake!

> --
> /~\ Charlie Gibbs | They don't understand Microsoft
> \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | has stolen their car and parked
> X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | a taxi in their driveway.
> / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Mayayana
>

On 7/30/21 5:02 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 30/07/2021 20:12, bad sector wrote:
>>>> BTW the AN-2 has an in-flight oil-filling spout IN THE COCKPIT
>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> So does the Beaver.
>>>
>>
>> That's right, it does, it's just that I kneel whenever an An-2 goes
>> by. The manual says that in the event of an engine failure in IMC
>> you just "pull the column into your gut and wait", scarebus don't
>> make'em like that no more. There's also a multi-engine machine on
>> which I think significant engine maintenance was possible
>> in-flight.
>>
>
> Isn't there a story of a guy who crawled out in a bombers wing in WW2
> to save the aircraft?
>
> "Having bombed the target, Jackson's Lancaster (serial ME669) was
> attacked by a German night fighter and a fuel tank in the starboard
> wing caught fire. Jackson, already wounded from shell splinters,
> strapped on a parachute and equipped himself with a fire extinguisher
> before climbing out of the aircraft and onto the wing, whilst the
> aeroplane was flying at 140 miles per hour (230 km/h), in order to
> put out the fire. He gripped the air intake on the leading edge of
> the wing with one hand, and fought the fire with the other. The
> flames seared his hands, face, and clothes. The fighter returned and
> hit the bomber with a burst of gunfire that sent two bullets into his
> legs. The burst also swept him off the wing.
>
> He fell 20,000 feet (6,100 m), but his smouldering and holed
> parachute worked well enough to save his life. He suffered further
> injuries upon landing, including a broken ankle, but managed to crawl
> to a nearby German village the next morning, where he was paraded
> through the street.
>
> He spent 10 months recovering in hospital before being transferred to
> the Stalag IX-C prisoner-of-war camp."
>
> and...
>
> "On the return flight, while over the Zuider Zee on the Dutch coast,
> Ward's Wellington was attacked by a German Bf 110 night fighter. The
> attack opened a fuel tank in the starboard wing, and caused a fire
> around the rear of the starboard engine. After initial attempts to
> put out the flames using fire extinguishers directed through a hole
> made in the fuselage of the Wellington failed, Widdowson ordered the
> crew to bail out. However, Ward proposed that he climb out and try
> and smother the fire using an engine cover. He crawled out through
> the astrodome on the top of the fuselage, secured by a rope. Making
> his way down the side and along the wing of the aircraft, he kicked
> or tore holes in the fuselage's covering fabric with a fire axe to
> give himself hand-and foot-holes.[2][6][7][8]
>
>
> He soon reached the engine and attempted to smother the flames with a
> canvas cover. With the fire out, he stuffed the cover into the hole
> from which fuel from a petrol line, damaged in the night fighter
> attack, had leaked and exacerbated the fire. Ward, now exhausted,
> gingerly made his way back to the astrodome with the navigator,
> Sergeant Joe Lawson of the RNZAF, keeping tension on the rope
> tethered to Ward and assisting him back into the aircraft. Although
> the cover shortly blew away by the slipstream, the remnants of the
> fire had burnt itself out and the plane was now safe. Instead of the
> crew having to bail out, the aircraft made an emergency landing,
> without flaps or brakes, at Newmarket. The Wellington ran into a
> hedge and fence at the end of the runway and was written off"
>
> That's a bit like patching the kernel on a live running multiuser
> system....

hard to believe some of those stories, I mean it's
hard enough to hang onto a c180 in the slipstream,
but then most are supported by plenty of witnesses

On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 18:26:11 +0000, some idiot wrote:

>>>>
>>>> Absolutely false.
>>>> Millions of efficient drivers know next to nothing about their
>>>> vehicle's
>>>> engines and can not do any repair on them.
>>

WTF??!! We are "discussing" computer operating systems here
(I would hope) and not cars.

A computer is a general purpose machine. IOW, it does nothing
until it is programmed to do something.

The issue with GNU/Linux is simple: who the fuck does the
programming?

The popular distros, like M$ Windows, think that it is THEY who
do the programming, i.e. make decisions for the user.

I, and many others, emphasize that it is the USER that does
the programming and makes the decisions.

If the user needs help, then let him go to M$/Apphole.

GNU/Linux was never intended for such an unsophisticated
animal.

All who disagree belong in the stables of M$/Apphole.

--

Systemd free. D.E. free.

Always and forever.