I believe in this discussion the context is specifically rabies.

> and why is it called vaccination not treatment?

It's both, really. You get a shot of rabies immunoglobulin (at the site of potential infection, i.e., bite) _and_ an extended course of vaccine at the same time.

Yes, I absolutely would. Because this statement is neutral, specific, and technical (if unfounded, so I'd feel even better if such a statement would have been supplemented with justifications), therefore it can be attacked, argued, and refuted point-by-point on a technical basis. No such thing is possible when technical concerns are replaced with emotionally loaded metaphors.

So yes, I stand by my belief that saying "$thing is a cancer" when talking to someone who is good-faith committed to doing $thing is 1) unreasonable (because it cannot be reasoned with), and 2) an insult (because it is designed to appeal to emotions rather than facts).

If I actively participate in and align myself with a community that is committed to doing the $thing, and you come and say to me that "$thing is cancer", or that "the fact of doing of $thing is cancer", then it's functionally equivalent to insulting this community, and by extension to insulting me. In other words, it's clearly supposed to make _me_ feel bad (for pushing $thing, or participating in the doing of $thing), regardless of the precise wording.

It's still an unprofessional, uncooperative, and _unreasonable_ thing to do.

Proves the GP's point exactly.

Besides, none of this was said. Hellwig did not say "I do not trust you enough". He said "you are cancer, go away". First is harsh, but at least somewhat reasonable (in the sense that it _can be reasoned with_); second is not reasonable at all. Your interpretation is excessively charitable to an obvious bad-faith actor.

Surprise, this is probably the primary architectural feature of Matrix. This is precisely what it's designed to do.

What you are saying is basically "why automate things if you can just do them manually". But worse is not better; there is value in having the P2P transport layer work _transparently_. If you intend to force user to manually (or semi-automatically) juggle remotes for every single device on the network, you have already lost.

TL;DR What you describe is just Git on top of a generic P2P overlay network. I'm sure it can be done (and I might even believe it could be enough for some limited use-cases), but it is not Radicle.

[citation needed]

I don't think there is one. systemd-networkd is explicitly not for dynamic environments like personal laptops or workstations; it has a scope and NetworkManager is largely outside it.

It does and we don't. The only "we" who are "hating it so much" is a tiny vocal minority.

(Same goes for "unpolished and flaky".)

Incorrect, because nowhere in the IPC dance are these components exposed to the same untrusted environment as they are with sudo.

What is being announced is merely a thin layer of cmdline syntactic sugar over an existing feature, to make it closer to sudo in usage.

So I'm not sure what exactly you were missing?

"You don't know the story, we won't tell any of the events leading up to this point, but you better be sure that these people on the core team are wrong!"

Would you mind expanding on this? Or maybe some general links as to what "keto" is about.

kdbus is NOT ONLY about performance. It's about the lifetimes, the availiability in the early userspace, the new marshalling format, the new user bus concept, and so on, and so forth. It's about separating the transport (in the kernel) and the policy (in the userspace).

Most of these points can be achieved without putting the transport in the kernel, but some can not.