Think harder, I know you can. Maybe reread the comment. Maybe compare those lines with that one line change.
Maybe notice that I specifically said to install a system without systemd if you don’t like it, instead of fighting the tool you installed and then complaining.
Honestly, one of the worst parts of the Linux community is people trying to force 30 years old tools in systems built around systemd. If you want to use that old stuff then don’t install the modern replacement, find a different distro built around that ideal instead.
I remember a post on serverfault or askubuntu about disabling DHCP default gateway but keeping DHCP address assignment on a tap interface, and bring it up at boot, and the accepted answers was “configuring DHCP in networkd/NetworkManager systems is almost impossible, here’s how I did it” and it’s three pages of cobbling together ifconfig and netplan with startup scripts, that work by pure chance.
Wanna see the actual full networkd configuration for that?
# /etc/systemd/network/tap0.network
[Match]
Name=tap0
[Network]
DHCP=ipv4
[DHCPv4]
UseRoutes=false
That’s it, all that the post asked for is handled by six lines. “How do I discover that?” you may ask, because if it’s three lines, but I have to dig for hours before finding it than it’s not that useful. Simple, I go on the systemd documentation for .network files and search for DHCP. And this is a niche use case, the basic usage is readily available on the arch wiki as with anything else. Note, this does nothing for IPv6, and the interface will have IPv6 route configured, but this wasn’t relevant to the post, and my home’s IPv6 layout is “peculiar” so I have omitted it here.
Hmmm, I’m pretty sure you just need to systemctl disable sshd.socket and then configure it how you like. Don’t trust every “solution” you see online, they are often full of bullshit written by people trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. I bet that kernel parameter thing is something to disable it on the first boot, before you get the chance to configure the thing properly.
Edit: @[email protected] wrote a comment about that option here, go to the thread if you are interested.
Can you sink in slurry? Isn’t it like super dense. I remember a veritasium video where he tries to get submerged in cement but he just floats up to his waist because a human is not dense enough to sink in cement.
What if you are just delaying dinner? I often have dinner after 22:00
He will be remembered
Thanks to the ram
You are a worm through time
Because a browser doesn’t just needs to keep working, it needs to evolve to adapt to the evolving web. New technologies get developed (webgpu, csp, cors, http3, etc…, some would add AI to the list but I wouldn’t) and browsers need to implement them, and old technologies get improved (faster more secure JavaScript engines, faster document renderers).
These are all things an actively developed browser engine will have to do, and things that a 2009 fork of Firefox receiving less than 10 commits per month by a single developer won’t achieve without getting them from upstream Firefox. But if you need to rely on upstream Firefox then once again you won’t survive meaningfully without Firefox.
Or you can just do the hipster and keep on using a 15 year old browser. Maybe use lynx or w3m to cut on the bloat. Or switch to gopher. You do you, it’s not my job to convince you.
I’m pretty sure no Italian ever said Garibaldi is coming, except in 1860 when he actually was coming. But you could say there weren’t any Italian at the time, as Italy was just made
Nah, you just want feet pics
Yes, but you can think for yourself and you and Amy product manager know how much they would benefit (just as much as Google and Apple, other for profit companies of the same caliber) and you know they would have the means to produce such software (just like Apple and Google). So, knowing that they still decided it’s not worth the investment, you can infer that the cost would be immense.
Also, all the other points still stand.
Right, let me rephrase “no Firefox fork worth using has any chance to maintain meaningful existence without upstream Firefox”
I’m sure many forks will go on surviving from scraps if Firefox disappeared tomorrow. But they wouldn’t get anything useful done.
Let me put this into perspective, Microsoft (a trillion dollar company that would benefit enormously from rolling their own browser engine) didn’t have the resources for maintaining a browser engine.
Stupid argument. None of the various Firefox forks has any chance to keep existing without Firefox. You should still cheer for Firefox
Well, mixed with coffee It will lower the alcohol. Also it doesn’t matter the percentage if you are only drinking a little amount. In some regions of Italy in the past many people used to drink coffee with grappa, which has 37% alcohol.
What’s that?
The one in the picture is pandoro
A third display server would probably be either useless (as in it would not be adopted or development would not takeoff) or just Wayland but without the committee. As such it would only cause more fragmentation. Plus, not anyone has the skills and availability required to make a good display server, and as of now, most of the ones that do are working on Wayland.
P.s. if instead of Wayland like it were x11 like it would stop being “de-facto useless” and become “useless by definition”
The comment said that people that install systemd based systems and then fight systemd tools are stupid. In that instance a guy is dead set on using netplan and shell scripts on a system with networkd, when using just networkd would have been extremely simple. Maybe in a system without systemd it would have been easier to use netplan, but the guy decided to install systemd and then fight it, and then suggested other people do the same.