A 50-something French dude that's old enough to think blogs are still cool, if not cooler than ever. I also like to write and to sketch.
Situation de départ, le décor et les personnages principaux :
- Deux vieux (surtout moi, qui me charge de tout l’aspect technique) : ma compagne et moi qui vont bientôt emménager dans leur prochain appartement et qui se disent que ce déménagement serait une bonne occasion pour enfin nous installer un serveur de fichiers dans les règles de l’art.
- Moi-même, donc, chauve et pas si geek que ça (je sais écrire un script bash quand j’en ai besoin et parfois même pour le plaisir) mais qui utilise quand même Linux depuis quelques années : Mint, par choix, après avoir utilisé Arch et Debian (dont j’aurais pu me faire tatouer le logo sur la fesse gauche, tant j’en étais fan).
- Le serveur : sera composé de vieux matos de récupération tout à fait correct (i5 avec 16go de DDR3, plus quelques disques durs, et un SSD pour le système), sera connecté au réseau via un câble Ethernet.
Objectifs :
- Un serveur de fichiers sans prise de tête pour stocker nos fichiers perso (fichiers plus musique et video, pour l'essentiel) et y accéder depuis nos autres machines qui tournent toutes sous Linux (sauf une, le PC Windows que doit utiliser ma compagne pour son boulot mais n’est pas si important que ça).
- Pas d’usage pour un serveur ‘multimédia', Plex ou autre. Disons qu’on est assez vieux pour n’avoir besoin que d'un explorateur de fichiers classique dans lequel nous serons heureux de juste pouvoir double-cliquer sur le fichier, le film ou la musique qui nous intéresse.
- Pas besoin de streamer vers notre smart TV non plus : on a pas de TV.
- Les disques seront chiffrés LUKS (en cas de cambriolage, au moins nous serons tranquilles que nos données resteront privées).
- J’aimerais que ce serveur puisse être éteint et rebooté chaque jour (et que les disques chiffrés soient automatiquement montés) car on essaye de gaspiller le moins d’énergie possible et ce serveur ne nous servira à rien pendant que nous, nous dormirons.
- Pour les disques, je voudrais quelque chose en RAID (je ne sais pas encore lequel) pour avoir la sécurité et, là encore, la tranquilité d’esprit.
- Ca m’intéresserait aussi de pouvoir utiliser ce serveur pour y faire les sauvegardes depuis nos autres machines, sauvegardes que je fais actuellement à coups de rsync sur des supports externes en USB.
Comme tout bon citoyen de l’Union en ce début de XXI siècle, j'ai donc regardé quelques videos YT mais, entre celles qui me recommandent des solutions clés en main (ou d’utiliser du hardware assez récent pour disposer du UEFI) et celles qui me proposent de configurer des dockers ou des 'kubernetes' ou je ne sais quoi d'autre encore... je me sens complètement perdu et impuissant car j’ai aucune envie d’apprendre à utiliser des Kubernetes, containers et autres théières high-tech.
Ma question : si vous connaissez un lien vers un tuto qui expliquerait pas à pas une procédure abordable et qui n’exigerait pas que je me transforme en ingénieur système, je serais preneur :)
Disclaimer: I hope you won't mind that lengthy reply, if you do by all means feel free to not read it. It's just something I consider both fascinating and essential, more than worth sharing and discussing ;)
It's also that France historically has always been both a very self-aware Nation/population (grossly simplified: the Francs, since Clovis approx in the year 500) and a very diversified/rich and oftentimes very conflicting collection of smaller groups of very different populations, with very different cultural backgrounds and values. Groups whose interests and objectives predictably were not the same.
Half seriously, but still half seriously, I would say one of the best representation of that French 'type' and how deeply it is is part of our ‘nature’ to constantly be fighting one another, can be found in the ‘Asterix’ series of comics. I’m only considering the original Uderzo/Gosciny collaboration here, as I have very little interest for the contemporary remakes.
I don’t think there is a single album in which there is not at least one strip showing some kind of violent dispute happening in-between the villagers themselves while the country is being invaded and their own village is being besieged by the powerful Roman armies. More often than not they’re fighting one another about absurd things, like the (lack of) freshness of the fish sold by the fish seller or the (lack of) quality of the music of the bard or some other non-sense like that. But at the same time, there is not a single album that doesn’t end up in a joyful reconciliation, around a banquet, celebrating our unity through our differences (which I always considered the true magical potion, to be honest) after they managed to teach a good lesson to the all mighty Roman armies if not directly to Caesar himself. One album after the other.
But like often, looking history is the most fascinating way to realize how nuanced (and rich) realty is.
Before France became the republic it has been since 1789, it was a monarchy. I would think most people with basic notions regarding France’s history and its monarchy will know that monarchy for two things: the ‘absolute monarchy’ or the ‘divine right monarchy’ (an undisputed king that has been put where he is by god himself) and ‘Louis XIV, le roi soleil’, the ‘sun king’ and his Versailles palace. This king being the legit the epitome of the ‘absolute monarchy’.
That would be correct but at the same time that would also give zero idea of the incredible variety, and the constant internal fights and changes that were going on.
At the very beginning of the kingdom of France, sometime after the collapse of the Carolingian empire and the troubled times that followed, the first ‘king of France’, Hugues Capet was… elected. So much for the 'divine right monarch' ;)
He was one of the aristocrats owning the lands of the various provinces of what was not yet looking anything like what the country of France would one day look like. And if Hugues Capet himself was already powerful he was far from being the most powerful aristocrat, his fief was not even the largest one back then (the amount of land owned back then was the equivalent of the amount of dollars and/or aircraft carriers a country owns today). It’s only slowly (it took centuries) through smart alliances, manipulations, treason and diplomacy, constantly going on (with their unavoidable setbacks) that this first election led to the undisputed powerful divine right monarch that Louis XIV incarnated centuries later. Undoubtedly a very powerful monarchy but one that also very collapsed very quickly after Louis XIV passed away: he died in 1715 and it is in 1789 (less than 75 years later) that France declared itself a republic (and in 1793, they beheaded his grandson, the last king of France).
The idea is that France was a very diversified and complex nation, whose impressive monarchy was built upon constant compromises and constant disputes.
Nowadays, this variety tends to fade away as there have have been a lot of work done to… standardize the population through a Nation-wide standardized education system. But even there, it took a lot of time: Richelieu created L’Académie Française in... 1635, as a mean to impose the French language to the very many regions and provinces who insisted on speaking their own regional languages and in doing so were putting themselves out of reach from the central monarchist power (and were claiming their right to self-determine). It also had to standardize units and measures for the same reason.
If today even the mere knowledge of that very rich and conflicting past tends to vanish, as history is barely being taught anymore nowadays to the general public and to our kids, and the little that is still being taught is being done in overly simplistic terms, like really it’s frightening. No matter what, French people still have that natural tendency to not back away from constant arguing, it’s what we are. I sincerely doubt any amount of ‘standardized reeducation’ will be able to change that.
:) or maybe I can even say <3? As a safe fallback allow me to say 'thx'.
We met online some 25+ years ago. We met by accident, while we were discussing with other people about some topic. We then started chatting just the two of us, through email and phone and after a (short) while we decided to meet (just to have a drink and diner). We met and that went quite well. So, we met a few more times and one day, rather quickly to be honest, we decided it would be a lot simpler for both of us if we just started living together not planning on anything special or anything long-term, no commitment... 25+ years later, we still live together ;)
Is there any place in the constitution
Of what Nation? You know that there are a few other countries outside your own and that they all have their own constitution? ;)
France, my own country, in the second article of its 'Déclaration universelle des droits de l'homme' (1789) reads « Le but de toute association politique est la conservation des droits naturels et imprescriptibles de l’homme. Ces droits sont la liberté, la propriété, la sûreté et la résistance à l’oppression. » Which roughly translates as : “The aim of any political association is the preservation of the natural and imperscriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.”
Not only does this text states what the purpose of any legit government must be but in doing so it also let it be understood that any government who is not actively working at protecting those fundamental rights stops being legitimate (and then it becomes the political/moral duty of citizens to oppose it).
The text is not mentioning violently overthrowing said government nor is it targeting specifically tyranny or monarchy (even though it was written against them) but it's making it a legit reason to stop obeying and to oppose any form of government that fails to protect those fundamentals rights… without fixing any 'acceptable' limit to the form said opposition could take.
And said limit can and were quite... high, back then. That is not something people like to consider nowadays but violence was part of the Republic’s DNA since its inception. Not even mentioning our own national enthem (la marseillaise) which is everything but friendly to whoever dares threatening our Nation, the most well known symbol is the beheading of the king and queen (and many other aristocrats) and then, in the name of its own safety, the new born French Republic turned itself into a literal mass murderer, culminating in what was later described as 'The Terror' (1792-94) during which, in the name of its own preservation, the Nation (that was indeed directly threatened by European monarchies and by internal dissents) massacred their own population (and also its own leaders). That Terror was a nightmarish blood bath, but I don't think the republic would have stand much of a chance without at least some of that extreme violence.
Violence set aside, I sincerely think France’s 'Déclaration’ is a wonderful text that is more than worth reading and meditating over and over again, today probably more than ever: La déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen , plus its official English translation: The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.
I suppose your from the USA? Then, your own Declaration of Independence (1776) states that "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends (protecting the people's fundamental rights), it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"
Please do note that they take a stance against 'any Form of Government' that is abusing its power and stops respecting people’s fundamental rights, not just against monarchy or tyranny.
Sure, back then they wrote it against what they considered abuses from the British monarchy but those people were smart enough to make sure that this essential text could be used against abuse of power from any form of government... including democratic ones.
Depending how one interprets it, this could also be one of the reasons why that young USA republic has deemed it necessary to have the 2nd Amendments (1791) say that: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” But I will let US people discuss that particular US notion. Still, as a foreigner I consider it another key text that is worth reading over and over again:
It's also worth remembering those people were highly educated and valued education in the citizen. As far as I can tell, as a mere foreigner, the US constitution does not talk about education of the people but one just needs to refer to Jefferson’s, Adams or Franklin’s own work (edit: and the work of some of their contemporaries) to brush aside any doubt: education and culture was considered a way to protect the republic from any ‘elite’ taking hold of it.
Education is something whose essential importance in protecting and strengthening our democracies we may have dangerously neglected for the last few decades. Here in France too, btw.
Oddly (?) this is probably one of my least favorite in all of his work. It's just that, well, it lacks something that is always present, or that quite abruptly it gives too much of something else?
There is only one other comic that made an even more negative impact on me (this one, I read it as a child and I never read again after that). It was one of those (many) French comics kids could buy for cheap back in the early 70s, whose name completely escapes me after 50 years. It was telling the sad story of a dog calmly lying on the grave of its recently deceased master, waiting to peacefully die. Some of the villagers weren't happy about that and tried to chase the dog which did not agree. Frightened, they gathered a crowd and did exactly what crowds excel at: acting like a braindead asshole and that nice dog ends up being killed.
Reading those few pages, I cried my soul out and I was so angry at that unspeakable injustice that I just witnessed I threw the comic in the trash bin after tearing it apart in tiny unreadable parts.
All those years later, I still somewhat regret my lack of control and my inability to refrain from blaming the book and its author for my emotional reactions to it. In my defense, when all that happened I was 7 years old, at most. Edit: well I was almost the age of Calvin...
That is certainly not the same emotion/reaction I feel looking at this strip but I really do feel like it is saying something sad about Calvin & maybe about the terribly absent Hobbes would I also be tempted to note. Or maybe old as I'm today, I'm just still too emotional? Or, since I'm sick as a dog today (no pun intended) I may just have some fever going on clouting my judgment?
Edit: To make sure no ones gets me wrong: thx a lot for sharing this strip.
Jamais lu. Mais bon, je ne suis plus tout jeune non plus ;)
Je me souviens il y a quelques années d'avoir jeté un coup d'oeil sur une sélection de titres de la série Goosebumps de R.L. Stine, et de m'être dit que c'était logique que ça plaise aux jeunes lecteurs que l'auteur cible (Stine connaît vachement bien son métier, de toute évidence). Dans un registre un tantinet différent, j'imagine que cette collection c'est le même type de produit très codifié et encadré?
Par contre, tu es certain que ce n'est pas ce gentil petit chien qui est progressivement transformé et ainsi cruellement condamné à devoir expérimenter toutes les phases et toutes les 'crises' de ce misérable état d'existence humaine qu'on appelle l’adolescence ? ;)
J'aurais du préciser 'les classiques' mais, hélas, j'ai bien peur que tu aies raison. Surtout avec cette idée fixe de 'simplifier' les textes dont je parlai.
The danger of a poster being less neutral than a moderator seems small to me.
Imagine this: I disagree with your reply (not saying I do, just pretend I do), and since I'm also its moderator, I simply delete it (and if you repost it I block or ban you. And that would just be me not liking someone daring contradict my own little comment.
More seriously, I think this would be a real huge source of trouble: people IRL already have a hard time to stand critics. That's worse online.
The person who posted would be the moderator for that post.
In theory a moderator is expected to be neutral in regard to what is being posted/shared (be ok with conflicting opinions, for example, even ones that completely oppose the OP). At least, in theory.
Someone posting something will seldom feel neutral regarding what they just posted.
Why is one bad but the other is acceptable?
A bit like being nice and polite would seldom be frown upon but acting like a dick would?
Things like !outofcontextcomics@lemmy.world ?
Then, I can suggest a couple dedicated comics communities
Daily, at least once in the morning and later in the evening. A lot more often whenever it's possible. Summer and winter.
God knows I'm hostile to the marketing shit filled world we live in, but ads are... there would not even be a society without the ability to advertise, aka to share information (be it paid for or not) with other people.
The issue, my issue, is with marketing.
Any insight into this besides useful idiots saying advertising is good or necessary would be greatly appreciated!
A single one? That may be too little to be helpful but here it is: insulting people is probably not the best way to attract them to your cause.
edit: typos/ missing word
'tout' est un sujet un peu vaste et intimidant, 'rien' me semble a contrario un peu trop... réducteur. Ou alors est-ce l'inverse?
Sinon, qui a pris froid hier soir et se retrouve, comme moi ce matin, sous l'aile malveillante de madame Migraine, la gorge en feu et dépendant d'une perfusion (très haut débit) de mouchoirs? Voilà une question autrement passionnante et digne d’un lundi matin ;)
"Don't waste my time with your hate or anger (and maybe try to stop wasting your own time too?)"
Disagreeing is to be expected and even welcomed in any discussion. I also don't mind people not sharing my views, and I don't even mind people not 'liking' me (why should I? We're not living together). I do mind ad hominem attacks, insults and bad faith arguments, because those are not a discussion anymore: the idea is not to exchange contradictory arguments anymore but to somehow hurt the other person, or to hurt their reputation in the eyes of other users. The moment I realize what's going on, I will block the person doing that. (edit: I will not try to discuss any further, nor try to explain other participants what I just realized, I will simply say "thx, have a nice day", or something like that, and block them once and for all)
They are free to keep on throwing insults (and non-sense) around if that's what they want their online presence to be... exactly like I'm free, literally freed from wasting a second more of my own time reading them. That's not worth it.
Edit: clarifications
I don't shop fashion, which means I may not the most qualified to answer your question, but I still do shop for stuff so maybe I can still answer ;)
I only care about a brand when I know it offers quality products (or not). I care much more about the place I will purchase something as I like to know I can rely on a good customer service if anything was to happen.
Great to see new users joining (welcome, guys).
Thx a lot!
+1, à défaut de pouvoir voter davantage, car c’est +1 aussi pour ceci:
Pendant les 1ères années, j'étais la bête noire du prof de français. Je n’étais pas un mauvais élève ni une petite crapule qui aime rien tant que foutre la merde (je n’étais pas calme, cela dit) mais j’étais allergique aux ‘classiques’ qu’on nous donnait à lire qui me faisaient chier, tous, et je ne me privais jamais de le lui dire. Un jour, nous avons bu arriver un nouveau prof, un tout jeune dont nous fûmes la toute première classe. Sa première initiative a été de nous emmener... voir une pièce de théâtre jouée par une petite troupe locale, basée sur le dernier livre, une pièce donc que nous étions censés lire dans le programme officiel.
Au début, en chemin vers et aussi une fois installé dans le théâtre, je ricanais comme j'en avais l'habitude, mais quand les trois coups ont retenti et dès que les comédiens ont commencé à jouer j’avais cessé de ricaner. Ils m’ont emporté, ces acteurs et Molière derrière eux, et m’ont gardé scotché jusqu’à la toute fin suite à quoi j’étais debout à applaudir à m’en exploser les mains. Excité, amusé, enchanté, ravi et séduit par cette pièce, par le théâtre, par la langue française. Sur le chemin du retour vers l’école, le prof est venu me parler, me demandant ce que j’avais pensé de la pièce (là non plus, je ne me suis pas privé de le lui dire). En classe, il nous a demandé d’écrire un commentaire sur la pièce (j’ai bien dû écrire un mini roman, tellement j’avais de choses à dire). Ensuite, il nous a demandé de lire la pièce que nos venions de voir. Et pour la première fois, je me suis retrouvé à lire un classique avec plaisir.
« Le misanthrope » de Molière fut pour moi l’équivalent de ton livre audio : une porte qui, enfin, s’ouvrait en grand sur la littérature.
Depuis, j’ai lu beaucoup d’autres livres. Des classiques et pas des classiques, du théâtre et pas du théâtre.
Mais, à ce jour, à peu près 50 ans plus tard, je considère toujours Molière un des plus grands auteurs de théâtre, que je le place au minimum à égalité avec Shakespeare et Racine dans mon Panthéon des auteurs, une petite poignée de tragiques Grecs, et ce cher Aristophane. Quand je suis à mon bureau, il me suffit de tendre le bras vers la gauche, même pas besoin de regarder, pour immédiatement mettre la main sur leurs œuvres complètes, rangées à côté de quelques volumes de poésies, une poignée de romans, et une sélection de dictionnaires. C’est un régal aussi, de bons dictionnaires : aucune honte à avouer que feuillette souvent un des volumes du Littré par pur plaisir de savourer quelques mots de la langue française.
Donc oui, les livres audio méritent sans doute plus de place… le texte performé derrière un micro ou sur scène (ou sur un écran, aussi) méritent toute leur place.
Mais je pense que ça doit rester un moyen, génial, dont la finalité ultime doit être de donner le goût de la lecture, de l’acte de lire un texte imprimé, aux enfants... dans leur propre intérêt. Pas par dévotion ou par fétichisme envers une forme spécifique (parce que le texte écrit ou le livre imprimé serait « mieux ») ou pour une époque (« Ah, la France c’était mieux avant ! ») : on se fiche de l’un comme de l’autre. Ni parce que lire serait une technique parfait (c’est loin de l’être… déjà dans l’Antiquuité, l’ami Socrate était hostile envers l’écriture et la lecture, c’est dire et nous n’aurions jamais rien pu lire de lui si son élève Platon n’avait pas décidé de transcrire les ‘dialogues’ de son maître), mais parce que apprendre à bien lire (c’est-à-dire avec facilité et autant que possible, avec plaisir) reste le meilleur moyen de développer certaines capacités dans nos petites cervelles. Et, peu importe toutes les innovations high-tech dont nous sommes abreuvés : à ce jour cet outil reste sans alternative capable de le remplacer.
Ensuite, il y aurait aussi les raisons sociales ou sociétales que nous devrions considérer vraiment très sérieusement pour encourager (le développement de et) le goût de la lecture chez les plus jeunes à la place, donc, de la consommation de contenus via un écran (ou même de son écoute audio), mais là ça devient un tout autre débat. Et, en attendant, encore une fois : oui, il y a plus d’une façon de tomber dans la littérature. Les livres audio en sont une toute légitime :)