On 170715-15:46-0400, zap wrote:
> Oh, that explains it, next time start a new thread and people will be
> more likely to respond... sorry just sayin...
>
>
> On 07/14/2017 09:03 AM, Edward Bartolo wrote:
> > Since forums deal with people, how is it possible to put sociology,
> > psychology and ethics aside as if the present time were a time from
> > several decades ago? Society as a whole, has moved on to the extent,
> > that minorities are given a voice that can easily be felt and heard
> > both in the media and legally. How is the Devuan Distribution going to
> > ethically justify its decision of letting abuse, whatever form that
> > may take, to take place on its infrastructure?
> >
> > Every person should enjoy equal rights, but reading some of the
> > preceding argumentation, gives the ethically questionable message that
> > some people have lesser rights than others. I am using 'lesser rights'
> > to signify the implied message that people with disabilities or with a
> > weak personality are better to stay off public forums. This is
> > discrimination which is hard to ethically justify. Disabled persons,
> > both physically and mentally, should enjoy the same rights. However,
> > without moderation this cannot be achieved. They are simply shooed off
> > like annoying insects that land on a dinner table in the wrong time.
> >
> > Whatever some may say, the world as a whole, is moving towards a
> > better place to live in with more social acceptance and legal rights.
> > Supporting the notion of a forum that is like the 'wild wild west'
> > flies in the face of that reality bringing back ghosts from the past
> > of rejection and intolerance.
> >
> > As I am a Devuan user who has contributed with my own time to the
> > project, I expect the project to adopt policies that respect
> > minorities wholly, irrespective of their characteristics. Other than
> > that, it is a pain to see policy adaptions that contradict what is
> > today so widely accepted as a basic right.
> >

[manually repasting it] zap wrote:
> Oh, that explains it, next time start a new thread and people will be
> more likely to respond... sorry just sayin...
>

No, people. Pls. one thing is important to notice: Edward did not make any
assertion out of any malice.

And I'm not writing for reason any other than to try and make Edward, whom I
sincerely consider a friend, understand.

Pls. try and think about his arguments with deeper feelings. He has made
mistaken claims, but not in the least to hurt anyone.

As Jaromil once wrote in reply to me (and neither am I native English speaker,
so the English won't be so polished... and of course, I have to paraphrase it,
can't remember the exact words, that was two years ago or so): Let the water
run over it... God, I can't remember better... but it was somehing like, may
all the bad feelings be swept away like by some mighty river... That was the
meaning, as I understood it.

It was back when I asked that Devuan accomodates for a non-dbus system,
claiming dbus can not be trusted etc. etc. Some people objected, for right or
for wrong... Some people weren't so nice (I wasn't either). And I was hurt a
little by some replies (and I hurt others some).

But once Jaromil, who may have been, by then, tempted a little to think even
about sanctions on the unruly, looked at it and said something to the effect:
well, could anybody look at this sans-dbus issue, whether that can be done (we
had already had the example of that German from MirBSD OS --Thorsten Glaser,
mirabilos; but nothing to do with my name which is Miro (Miroslav)-- he had
previously made possible to run Debian without dbus, etc. etc.)...

And Jaromil suggested to keep as possibility the sans-dbus as option for new
users.

And I forgot all the hurt, and was so happy...

That was when Jaromil said that may it all be swept like with waters of a
mighty river, all the bad feelings.

Edward, you remember when I found that dbus runs encrypted session in my
system, and wrote that only I am allowed to encrypt things in my system, and no
one else...

That encrypted session, ssh-session or something, that is what dbus needs to
run, say, secure xterm. So I wasn't complete right in my suspicion (oh, no,
neither completely wrong, still).

But I sure don't like dbus nowadays either, all the other arguments of mine
about dbus stand more strongly against it than the above argument which is less
strong.

The most important argument, for me, against dbus, is that really honest
people: Werner Koch and his team whom we owe the GnuPG which is such a blessing
for the world, deem dbus not safe for use in any way whatsoever with their
GnuPG.

And I run the system based on dev1fanboy sans-dbus minimalist Devuan istall
guide(s) that I had for long time previously lurked at from my Gentoo.

And I can really, after all this time, finally tell you: Devuan runs great
sans-dbus! And that is, to me, security-wise, privacy-wise (in prospective,
only in prospective), a beautiful thing. Mirabile dictu! (as Rick Moen in some
of his writing these days reminded me of that Latin saying: it's wonderful to
be able to say all that, wonderful to be able relate this little story!)

Regards!

--
Miroslav Rovis
Zagreb, Croatia
https://www.CroatiaFidelis.hr