because you carefully photoshopped the silhouette of a prone person into the bar graph

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supine_position

(disclaimer: this information might be years out of date but i think it is still accurate?)

SSH doesn’t have a null cipher, and if it did, using it still wouldn’t make an SSH tunnel as fast as a TCP connection because SSH has its own windowing mechanism which is actually what is slowing you down. Doing the cryptography at line speed should not be a problem on a modern CPU.

Even though SSH tunnels on your LAN are probably faster than your internet connection (albeit slower than LAN TCP connections), SSH’s windowing overhead will also make for slower internet connections (vs rsync or something else over TCP) due to more latency exacerbating the problem. (Whenever the window is full, it is sitting there not transmitting anything…)

So, to answer OP’s question:

• if you want to rsync over SSH, you usually don’t need a daemon (or to specify --rsh=ssh as that is the default).
• if you the reason you want to use the rsync daemon is performance, then you don’t want to use SSH. you’ll need to open a port for it.
• besides performance, there are also some rsync features which are only available in “daemon mode”. if you want to use those, you have at least 3 options:
  • open a port for your rsync daemon, and don’t use SSH (bonus: you also get the performance benefit. downside, no encryption.)
  • setup an SSH tunnel and tell the rsync client it is connecting to a daemon on localhost
  • look at man rsync and read the section referred to by this:

    • The remote-shell transport is used whenever the source or destination path contains a single colon (:) separator after a host specification. Contacting an rsync daemon directly happens when the source or destination path contains a double colon (::) separator after a host specification, OR when an rsync:// URL is specified (see also the USING RSYNC-DAEMON FEATURES VIA A REMOTE-SHELL CONNECTION section for an exception to this latter rule).

HTH.

deleted by creator

meme culture is arguably a subset of that thing called “remix culture”, but, the guy who coined that term and created Creative Commons to support it was tragicomically mistaken about the viability (not to mention actual utility) of his efforts to get participants in it to care about engaging with copyright law via copyleft licenses.

so, i think the answer to your question is: probably not.

“hmm, i should find an appropriately licensed image to use” is not something most practitioners of applied memeography have ever said or will ever say (at least until general-purpose computers are actually outlawed, such that casual copyright infringement becomes non-trivial). imo. 🤡

I don’t want to access the Sun, what’s the TLDR?

The TLDR is that the article doesn’t explain that the reason it is circular (not to mention “invincible”) is because that is the defined boundary of a national park:

A LONELY volcano surrounded by a dark green forest dubbed the “goblin forest” has left explorers baffled by its perfectly circular appearance.

Published: 18:54, 19 Nov 2024
Updated: 1:26, 20 Nov 2024

or, possibly: d) all of the above

Hikarunix

RedHat was a major military contractor with job postings like this current one [archive] long before they were bought by another older and larger military contractor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_World_War_II

https://web.archive.org/web/20240530005438/https://www.redhat.com/en/resources/israeli-defense-forces-case-study (original is 404 for some reason)

them: fedora is the lesser evil

me: but why do they have job listings like this [archive] with requirements like “This position requires daily on-site work at Fort Meade and an active Top Secret/SCI clearance with Polygraph” ? 🤔

only hobbyists and artisans still use the standalone carrot.py that depends on peeler.

in enterprise environments everyone uses the pymixedveggies package (created using pip freeze of course) which helpfully vendors the latest peeled carrot along with many other things. just unpack it into a clean container and go on your way.

The canonical documentation is https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/filesystems/proc.rst (ctrl-f oom) but if you search a bit you’ll find various guides that might be easier to digest.

https://www.baeldung.com/linux/memory-overcommitment-oom-killer looks like an informative recent article on the subject, and reminds me that my knowledge is a bit outdated. (TIL about the choom(1) command which was added to util-linux in 2018 as an alternative to manipulating things in /proc directly…)

https://dev.to/rrampage/surviving-the-linux-oom-killer-2ki9 from 2018 might also be worth reading.

How to make your adjustments persist for a given desktop application is left as an exercise to the reader :)

I’m not sure what this comic is trying to say but in my recent experience a single misbehaving website can still consume all available swap at which point Linux will sometimes completely lock up for many minutes before the out-of-memory killer decides what to kill - and then sometimes it still kills the desktop environment instead of the browser.

(I do know how to use oom_adj; I’m talking about the default configuration on popular desktop distros.)

I think it depends which side of the debate one is on?

$ systemd-analyze calendar tomorrow
Failed to parse calendar specification 'tomorrow': Invalid argument
Hint: this expression is a valid timestamp. Use 'systemd-analyze timestamp "tomorrow"' instead?
$ systemd-analyze timestamp tuesday
Failed to parse "tuesday": Invalid argument
Hint: this expression is a valid calendar specification. Use 'systemd-analyze calendar "tuesday"' instead?

ಠ_ಠ

$ for day in Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun; do TZ=UTC systemd-analyze calendar "$day 02-29"|tail -2; done
    Next elapse: Mon 2044-02-29 00:00:00 UTC
       From now: 19 years 4 months left
    Next elapse: Tue 2028-02-29 00:00:00 UTC
       From now: 3 years 4 months left
    Next elapse: Wed 2040-02-29 00:00:00 UTC
       From now: 15 years 4 months left
    Next elapse: Thu 2052-02-29 00:00:00 UTC
       From now: 27 years 4 months left
    Next elapse: Fri 2036-02-29 00:00:00 UTC
       From now: 11 years 4 months left
    Next elapse: Sat 2048-02-29 00:00:00 UTC
       From now: 23 years 4 months left
    Next elapse: Sun 2032-02-29 00:00:00 UTC
       From now: 7 years 4 months left

(It checks out.)

Surprisingly its calendar specification parser actually allows for 31 days in every month:

$ TZ=UTC systemd-analyze calendar '02-29' && echo OK || echo not OK
  Original form: 02-29
Normalized form: *-02-29 00:00:00
    Next elapse: Tue 2028-02-29 00:00:00 UTC
       From now: 3 years 4 months left
OK
$ TZ=UTC systemd-analyze calendar '02-30' && echo OK || echo not OK
  Original form: 02-30
Normalized form: *-02-30 00:00:00
    Next elapse: never           
OK
$ TZ=UTC systemd-analyze calendar '02-31' && echo OK || echo not OK
  Original form: 02-31
Normalized form: *-02-31 00:00:00
    Next elapse: never           
OK
$ TZ=UTC systemd-analyze calendar '02-32' && echo OK || echo not OK
Failed to parse calendar specification '02-32': Invalid argument
not OK

Funny that blog calls it a “failed attempt at a backdoor” while neglecting to mention that the grsec post (which it does link to and acknowledges is the source of the story) had been updated months prior to explicitly refute that characterization:

5/22/2020 Update: This kind of update should not have been necessary, but due to irresponsible journalists and the nature of social media, it is important to make some things perfectly clear:

Nowhere did we claim this was anything more than a trivially exploitable vulnerability. It is not a backdoor or an attempted backdoor, the term does not appear elsewhere in this blog at all; any suggestion of the sort was fabricated by irresponsible journalists who did not contact us and do not speak for us.

There is no chance this code would have passed review and be merged. No one can push or force code upstream.

This code is not characteristic of the quality of other code contributed upstream by Huawei. Contrary to baseless assertions from some journalists, this is not Huawei’s first attempt at contributing to the kernel, in fact they’ve been a frequent contributor for some time.

Wasn’t Huawei trying to put a Backdoor into linux?

as far as i know, that has not happened.

what makes you think it did?