deleted by creator

I’m giving them a little empathy because they are frustrated; that’s all. We’ve all been there.

Yeha, but you can ask for help without taking a shit on the effort of thousands of engineers.

I doubt OP thought, ‘I’m going to take a shit on thousands of engineers.’ It’s okay to not know what to do, including asking for help. If they don’t know what to do with “error 2,” they’re obviously lost. This unwelcoming attitude to newcomers is a big problem, and in my opinion, it’s probably best not to contribute to it.

You can rephrase what you’re saying and provide better help to someone who’s completely lost in a much more polite and informative way. It’s better for everyone.

Also, try searching web before crying on social media. If you can’t solve your problems by searching the web then GNU/Linux probably isn’t for you.

Sheesh, let them be frustrated already. Besides, asking for help is totally valid.

deleted by creator

ChaCha20-Poly1305 and CBC with Encrypt-then-MAC ciphers are vulnerable to a MITM attack.

Saved you a click.

Security Rating ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Came here to say this. fwupd is so good, it’s almost magic, and good vendors will actually support it themselves.

Oh interesting! I suppose I have just been very careful with /etc/fstab and I haven’t seen systemd fail this way. TIL! Thanks for letting me know!

That’s just systemd failing to start Switch Root. Have you tried the systemctl status suggestion in the error, or reading the text file it generates?

systemd daemons are configured via /etc/systemd, and systemd itself lives in /usr/lib/systemd/systemd. How can systemd run or start the configured services without the root disk mounted? The initrd (from the boot partition) only contains enough of an environment to call the entrypoint for the init system, not contain the entirety of systemd (or the configured services).

The root filesystem mounted fine. That’s why the init is starting with all the services on the root disk.

That’s not a kernel panic

I wouldn’t be quick to assume that this means a failing disk. There would probably be more sporadic issues if this were the case.

I believe that excellent communication can be had without engineers swearing at each other, and I don’t think there are is any good rationale that warrants such behavior. You believe that there is a time and purpose for the style of conversation that Linus portrayed, and it is warranted and effective behavior.

I’m going to agree to disagree from here. Thanks for the conversation.

Please defend these statements for me. I’m having a hard time understanding how this is language we should strive for in a code review, even with your explanation.

Additionally, if you can give me any pointers on how I can communicate this way, I’m all ears and would appreciate the help.

Oh you mean battery life?

What do you mean by “has a great runtime?”

I almost missed it, but found it thanks to the arrow

I kindly disagree with most of what you said. Linus is brilliant, and I appreciate his contributions not just to technology and freedom but also to society. However, this does not pardon the hardships he has also brought upon others.

It’s important to be honest in code reviews, but his language, while also honest, goes far and beyond that. We’re doing ourselves a disservice defending this behavior as if it’s a standard of communication quality that people should strive for, or learn how to behave like.