On Saturday, March 30, 2024, hahahahacker2009 <[email protected]> wrote:
> Vào Th 7, 30 thg 3, 2024 vào lúc 11:19 Dan <[email protected]> đã > viết: > > >> > >> > >> > I've looked at the > >> > source code and issue tracker of upstream Firefox in the past and it > has > >> > upstream support for pledge(2) and unveil(2). > >> > >> Great, you figured it out: if you want to know if a given piece of > >> software uses pledge, grep its source code for pledge. > > > > > > Sounds very tiresome and cumbersome to check. You failed to point at any > rule according to which I'm not permitted to ask a general question about > such software without resorting to tiresome and cumbersome manual methods > like what you're suggesting here, and you consistently ignore this by > bringing the same manual grep/find suggestion again and again with no > sensible reason given what I explained now. > > Even "friendly" linux communities would tell you to check yourself. There's no problem in being told to do that, just as there's no problem in asking if people know about such programs without me having to tiresomely check everything. Perhaps there's a website somewhere that lists all pledged/unveiled apps and I'd be duplicating the effort needlessly? > You are wasting people's time. Subjective. > And before spamming in the list can you make your message > fit 72 character per line and disable HTML? First, I'm not spamming. Second, no, I can't. The Gmail web interface for mobile (which I'm using) doesn't let me disable HTML, and I don't see how I could limit line length except by manually counting characters and breaking lines, and I'm obviously not gonna do that. Sorry. I may switch to a different email client/interface in the future, this Gmail interface seems to not be paid much attention to by Google. > > > > > >> > >> You really need to shut the fuck up now. > >> > >> Please note that I am replying to you directly, off-list. > >> Hint: there is a reason for that. > > > > > > I am deliberately shaming you on a public mailing list because you're a > troll. I may also block you in my Gmail settings if I'll find the setting > in mobile. I'm giving you a middle finger. > > > > ~ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ~ > > > > (Note for everyone: This message is intended to shame a troll; if you're > here to follow the technical discussion only, feel free to skip reading > this message.) > > Dan, I see you are a troll too. False. I asked legitimate questions and I answer honestly and precisely. > You are sending HTML emails and it doesn't fit 72 char per line. Ditto. > It is annoying. Your message include a bunch of not needed trash. I answer everything that's brought up as comprehensively as needed, so I don't see what's "not needed". > > You ask the whole list things that you can research yourself, they are Ditto. > not highly advanced topics. These topics are repeatedly asked by people > who will never read man pages or faq. That That doesn't appear in the man pages or FAQ, and in my very first message I've already mentioned how Chromium, Firefox, and Tor Browser are sandboxed, so I obviously did look up things before asking here. So you're wrong here in two aspects. attitude should only exist > on reddit/lemmy and other linux communities which tries to be "friendly". Please elaborate, what attitude are you referring to precisely? That's a vague statement. Also, please explain the reasoning (or point to a rule) whereby the attitude should not exist here. > So please: > > Do your homework before you post. Ditto. > > > I saw Jan Stary's messages > (https://marc.info/?a=108635072100004&r=1&w=2) > are mostly answering people's question. > But your messages are asking people to do research for you. False. I didn't tell anyone to do anything for me. I asked questions. > > If you can't do research yourself, why expecting people to do it for you? Both premises are false. Ditto. > They might think that you don't have any knowledge and thus ignore you > (for example, they think you might not understand what they are writing). I'm not sure what logic follows from asking questions about specific things (specific as they are in the question) to drawing a conclusion that the asker lacks knowledge about things not specified/asked about in the questions. Regarding the things that are specified/asked about in the question, it's obvious that the asker doesn't know about them, because I wasn't presenting a riddle, and this is true universally to everyone. I don't understand how I'm special here from any other people that ask questions here. > Or simply, if you cannot respect yourself, why expect others to respect > you? Excuse me? > > In Viet Nam, you are simply called "animals" (súc vật, very offensive) and > then ignored. > Excuse me? What the fuck did you call me??
