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 apfelstr�del 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@...
To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@...
Web mail archive available at https://mail.trinitydesktop.org/mailman3/hyperkitty/list/users@...