a slightly more serious reply Show more
@onethousandtwentyfour (They're all source control systems. `hg` is "Mercurial" and `svn` is Subversion.)
If you're looking for lesser-used-but-well-liked-by-their-users ones, Mercurial and Fossil seem to fit the bill, although both have slightly-more-than-stub Wikipedia pages. Fossil seems a bit more up your alley, but I could be wrong.
not a serious reply, but i had fun writing it Show more
@onethousandtwentyfour Well `dat`'s just a `bzr` view, but maybe it's just `hg` and attempting `svn` of `fossil`ized tools you could find at your local `cvs`. I could at least make a ClearCase you shouldn't use VSS though.
@codesections Is the drive removable? If so, ideally back it up, if nothing else. Also check to see if there's a BIOS setting for USB keyboards. Usually the OS sets those up, but I don't know if it would do that before the FDE passphrase entry or not.
Also try a USB 2.0 hub before the keyboard, in case it's trying to negotiate a higher speed and failing. (Haven't seen that on a keyboard, but I have on other devices. USB 1.1 may also be worth a try if a hub is handy.)
really long, eff, re: Another non-profit I realised really shouldn't be trusted Show more
There are legitimate reasons to dislike things the EFF has done (their "secure messaging scorecard" is bad-to-harmful, sometimes their work can seem misguided or like a waste of resources, etc.), but I feel like a lot of that article is disingenuous.
The EFF's main goal appears to be to reduce *US government* intrusion in tech freedoms or privacy. They are not perfect, and while they do dabble in complaining about privacy issues from other companies, it's not their bread and butter, and you shouldn't expect them to do it. (Someone should! Maybe they should! But they haven't meaningfully done it, so complaining that they don't is odd.) Sure, they defend the occasional person or company from a frivolous lawsuit or claim, but mostly they do legislative and precedent stuff (much like the ACLU).
To pick just a few things that stuck out to me from the article:
* The Apple protest that starts off the piece was in the end a protest against the government being able to compel someone to sign malicious firmware. Was that favorable to Apple? Sure. Was it because the EFF feels it owes something to Apple? Highly doubtful. The nature of precedents in the US legal system means you defend the cases you get, not the ones you want.
* The complaint about Privacy Badger being "for Chrome—a browser made by Google, a Silicon Valley surveillance giant" is clearly antagonistically framed: from the first version in the Wayback Machine, it was available for Firefox. (And at the time described in the article, it was also available for Opera.)
* The attack on protests against SOPA: one of the main points discussed was that it (w/c)ould require website operators to monitor for improperly posted copyrighted content. Sure, large companies didn't want to do that, but it would be more problematic for *small* operators who *don't* have the resources, and would be competing with Facebook/etc. who can throw millions of dollars at it and not blink.
There were a bunch of other things I flagged on, but that's at least a vague sampling.
Anyway, if you decide to support some other group doing personal privacy stuff, cool, I'd be interested in knowing what it is so I can do so too. If you decide you don't like the EFF after reading that, that's up to you. But that article feels like it has a very strong slant, and I feel like I should point that out.
(Disclaimer: I donate to the EFF. I have not received direct support from them, although they did write a stern letter on behalf of a group I was peripherally involved with over a decade ago. I know people who are anti-EFF, and that's okay too.)
This is a personal Mastodon instance.