RH don't have a great reputation here. Unlike Debian which does proper triage and practices "zero release-critical bugs", RH threw out RHEL7 with loads of critical issues still open.
All high severity bugs against 7.1 which was relased 16 days ago. Check the dates on half of them. They're before the release date and half of them haven't even been assigned or triaged.
When 7.0 came out, datetimectl and systemd didn't even work properly. Enabling ntp threw dbus errors galore. On some kit it didn't even boot. Total lemon.
RHEL doesn't generally work properly until the .2 releases. I've been using it for 10 years so I've got plenty of experience on the matter.
I would go into detail about the CIFS/smb kernel hangs I've had on 6.x but I've had enough of it by now.
The priority fields are set by developers so they know which bugs they should work on first. The two bugs of mine which appear on that list are both new features for RHEL 7.2. I set the priority of those so I know to work on them first. I really think you need a better query than that one.
Update: I think if you wanted to find out which critical bugs affected RHEL 7.0 on release, you'd probably want to look at the list of z-stream packages (RHEL 7.0.z) which subscribers have access to. These are bugs which didn't affect the installer or first boot, but were important enough to need fixing in RHEL 7.0 after it went out. (If a bug was critical enough to affect installation or first boot, it would have delayed the release).
Court appointed bailiffs have been used by myself to recover owed cash on a couple of occasions so they serve a purpose and a good one. If people enter a contract they can't fulfil then there needs to be a method to obtain appropriate compensation.
Every seen those ratings of countries as "Good places to do business"? Part of that is how well contracts are enforced and debts paid.
Countries where it takes 10 years to force a company/person to pay a debt are not highly ranked and thus people are a lot less willing to do business or invest in them.
Eg You little startup won't be able to lease office furniture if the hiring company doesn't think it can at least seize it back..
Please do share. I am nonplussed as to why someone (on HN, the bastion of entrepreneurial culture, nonetheless!) would have problems with a societal framework that is #1 for doing business.
Yes. It was good for me and it was good for the other person too. Why? Because it enforces society's moral standards upon everyone. If there is no common ground it descends into anarchy because if someone owes me £1500 I'm going to pay £200 to smash his kneecaps if there wasn't a court and bailiff option...
I'm sorry, but if you think that is what a state-less society will turn to, then it says more about you than it does about other people. I, for example, don't not smash people's kneecaps because it's "against the law", just like most other individuals that inhabit this society.
On the other hand, you seem to be under the misconception that there can be no "common ground" in a society without a state-mandated "common ground". Here are some links to start you off on:
#Note. Sorry for detracting from the main topic being discussed here. But I sometimes do feel compelled to enlighten individuals that seem to have some very "spoon fed" definitions about the possibility of a state-less society, and how it might look like.
I'm curious, have you ever lived in a country without strong centralized law enforcement? I have. It sucks. Even if 90% of people don't use violence, that just creates an enormous incentive for the other 10% of people to do so. And those 10%, organized into gangs, can terrorize the other 90%.
>"I'm curious, have you ever lived in a country without strong centralized law enforcement? I have. It sucks."
Did that country also have laws against carrying firearms? How about laws that prevent individuals from defending themselves? E.g. Castle-doctrine, self-defense, private security firms, etc. You may hail it as proof that without a state, safety is not ensured. But I see it as an unfortunate limbo position where there is no protection provided by the state to the inhabitants, and there are also legal/state obstacles in place to prevent private individuals from performing that function.
I live in a country that is in the top 40 on the list of per-capita murder rates in the world. Probably much higher up on the list if you take into account violent crimes, etc. South Africa. It also has a huge industry for security services provided by private companies. Not only that, but a huge population of the country has opted to live in little "security" estates that have controlled access, private security guards, security cameras, electric fences, etc. Neighborhoods that spend large amounts of money on aiding the police in securing their neighborhood using cameras, volunteer patrols, paid private security company patrols, etc. In order to take private security any further, laws need to be removed because they are not being implemented effectively (like the rest of the country, but that's a separate debate). E.g. neighborhoods can't currently cordon off access to their streets, even if they had permission from all the land owners in the neighborhood. This is also the main reason why so many are moving to security estates, because they're huge chunks of private land and as such bypass those rules.
>"Even if 90% of people don't use violence, that just creates an enormous incentive for the other 10% of people to do so. And those 10%, organized into gangs, can terrorize the other 90%."
One of us is right in this regard. Perhaps it's also some sort of gray area where everything except X, Y, Z can be provided for privately without the need for a state. But would you at least concede that we can never know the true point in this spectrum without testing it? I.e. By slowly allowing private companies/individuals to take over safety/security. Note, removing state protection/security services in one go would be disastrous, I would never advocate it as I think it would cause total violent anarchy overnight.
> But I see it as an unfortunate limbo position where there is no protection provided by the state to the inhabitants, and there are also legal/state obstacles in place to prevent private individuals from performing that function.
Private security can't replace the state. In South Africa, the rich can hire private security because the state exists as a backstop to prevent security companies from turning on their clients. Without the state, any organization effective enough in the exercise of violence to provide real security has every incentive to simply enslave its clients.
> One of us is right in this regard. Perhaps it's also some sort of gray area where everything except X, Y, Z can be provided for privately without the need for a state. But would you at least concede that we can never know the true point in this spectrum without testing it?
We have tested it. In Somalia and Yemen and Pakistan. Feudal Europe. States didn't always exist. They arose as defense mechanisms to the power of organized groups to terrorize the majority with violence.
>"We have tested it. In Somalia and Yemen and Pakistan. Feudal Europe. States didn't always exist. They arose as defense mechanisms to the power of organized groups to terrorize the majority with violence."
Oh wow, I didn't know Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan were once, or currently are state-less societies? And yes, casual google searching yielded no fruitful results. Except for Somalia, which is a well-known failed-state that that's recently been in a brutal civil war. To compare it to the mild/incremental ideas that I propose/suggest is intellectually low-belt.
>"Private security can't replace the state. In South Africa, the rich can hire private security[..]"
I know it doesn't suit your preconceived notions about "private security" but security in South Africa is actually very affordable. Not that the poor get much "security" in civilized nations for free from the state, but that's a different discussion. You'd be surprised at how effective money is when a group of like-minded individuals spend it on their little neighborhood or slice of land.
>"In South Africa, the rich can hire private security because the state exists as a backstop to prevent security companies from turning on their clients. Without the state, any organization effective enough in the exercise of violence to provide real security has every incentive to simply enslave its clients."
Again, it's as if you're completely side-stepping what I'm saying/proposing with pre-made knee-jerk responses. Enslaving individuals would never be allowed to exist on a large scale in a digital/connected society. But besides that, I suggest slow, incremental shifts towards "more privatized" security that is not hindered by the state. That is the big problem when discussing these issues with "statists", you don't even make any room for the possibility of attempting these ideas, or trying milder alternatives. Alternatives that could signal individuals that 'hey, maybe we don't need the state'. Almost as if you fear competition.
Oh give me a break. This isn't star trek and you're not Picard.
Three simple words derail all idealism in your post:
Corruption. Power. Poverty.
You don't smash people's knees in because you've never had to so you can solicit a payment that you entered a contract and need to eat for the next couple of weeks and you approach the authorities and they've been paid off or don't give a shit.
Humans don't look after each other very well, even if you do.
I simply admit that smashing kneecaps is a valid recourse in a world with the above concerns.
You might want to live in Brazil or South Africa for a bit.
"You might want to live in Brazil or South Africa for a bit."
I DO live in South Africa, thank you. I have for the last 8 years. So then, how does that affect your point? Are you implying I don't know what it's like living in a dangerous country because I don't live in one?
The often extreme violence of creditors against debtors, and the way that has debt has been used to control (and often enslave) others is another theme of Graeber's books.
In general no. Non-Jews are not required to keep the Shabbat, but Jews can not ask them to do things for them.
There are two exceptions, one is in the case of urgency that is not life threatening (for example a cold baby in a house with the heat off). (If it was life threatening than you just do it yourself.)
The second is you can hint to the non-Jews. For example say: It's so dark in here. Then the non-Jew is doing it for himself and not for you, and it's permitted. However doing this is discouraged except when it's important.
It depends on your interpretation of rabbinic law. In most cases the answer would be no (since you're still causing the effect by your actions), but some frum families used to employ a shabbos goy [0] to light candles, do shopping, cook, etc. Any action is permissible if it was going to happen anyway, but you get into degrees of technicality of the definition of "what was going to happen anyway".
I have never observed correlation between the intended floor and the actual lift travel and floor you end up on so I'd suggest that all lifts probably operate in a similar manor. Either that or its just malicious embedded systems engineers :)
Actually, there's a famous story in the Talmud of a rabbinical debate in which the rabbis argue about whether a certain oven is kosher or not. At the end of the story, one of the rabbis is told that God's reaction to this debate is, "My children have defeated me."
The Jewish attitude is that God wants us to debate these laws, and that if we come up with interpretations that seem counter to the literal verses in the Bible, then that's totally OK. The rules were given to people to interpret, and now it's up to us to do that as accurately as possible.
Ya know, we were always taught about Karaites in school, but I didn't realize that they still existed until about 20 years ago, when a friend mentioned that he knew one.
There is a Karaite community in Israel, and I've read some fascinating newspaper articles about them. Claiming that they only accept the literal word of the Bible, without any interpretation, is a bit far-fetched, given that the Bible is so ambiguous and self-contradictory. But some of their interpretations, such as the date of the Shavuot holiday, are pretty reasonable -- except that Jews have basically voted with their feet to reject those interpretations.
I think that Karaites are pretty cool, even if (or perhaps because) they're not mainstream. And they demonstrate, I think, Judaism's penchant for pluralism.
I still love Gopher. Its for people who give a shit about the content and structure, not oodles of CSS and JS cack wrapped around four square inches of content that looks like my teenage daughter fired up Word and set the font size to 18pt so she didn't have to write so much.
Works fine in VMware ESX and HyperV. Need to run NTP though to combat clock drift. Not tried it on Xen but it has drivers for virtual NICs and storage etc.
Perhaps more worrying, they may have sold them elsewhere first and informed the purchaser that they have until the competition date to use it. Better business if you have to come back after the disclosure date for more holes...
I would imagine it'd be fairly hard to the competition to know and revoke the money. Bad guys are almost certainly exploiting various undisclosed vulnerabilities. The bigger issue, I'd assume, is that by doing this competition, you've now killed that bug you previously sold. So long that was disclosed to the buyer though, I imagine you're all set.
Odds are the black market guys find out. I don't know how the market works, but I'd be pretty pissed if I had bought a hole just for it to be patched soon after.
