date:20140518

On Sun, 18 May 2014 02:34:35 -0400
Tom H  wrote:

> On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 10:49 PM, Zenaan Harkness 
> wrote:
> >
> > Although initial tty session (from boot) is quicker than with
> > sysvinit, additional tty sessions are very slow to start, in the
> > order of 5 seconds (which seems like an eternity).
> >
> > Additionally, this slow tty/session creation time is seen when:
> > *) exiting X - ie logout back to terminal (from startx)
> > *) Shutdown from XFCE logout/shutdown dialog
> >
> > When exiting X from a startx at the linux tty, there appears to be a
> > large session tear-down time.
> >
> > In addition, a similarly long duration is seen when (as stated)
> > starting another linux vt.
> 
> By default, other than tty1 (via
> "/etc/systemd/system/getty.target.wants/getty@tty1.service"), VTs are
> started dynamically as needed.
> 
> If you want tty2 to be available permanently and persistently through
> reboots, run:
> 
> systemctl enable getty@tty2.service
> systemctl start getty@tty2.service
> 
> The first command will create a
> "/etc/systemd/system/getty.target.wants/getty@tty2.service" symlink to
> "/lib/systemd/system/getty@.service", which is more or less similar
> to, in the case of a hypothetical getty@tty2 sysvinit script, having
> "update-rc.d enable getty@tty2" create
> "/etc/rc{2,3,4,5}.d/Sabgetty@tty2" and "/etc/rc{0,6}.d/Kcdgetty@tty2"
> symlinks to "/etc/init.d/getty@tty2".
> 
> 

And you can set the maximum number of dynamic VTs
in /etc/systemd/logind.conf. Default is 6.

#NAutoVTs=6



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140518091914.684d7...@orac.fil

Re: systemd - excessive session-creation time

On 5/18/14, Tom H  wrote:
> On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 10:49 PM, Zenaan Harkness  wrote:
>>
>> Although initial tty session (from boot) is quicker than with
>> sysvinit, additional tty sessions are very slow to start, in the order
>> of 5 seconds (which seems like an eternity).
>>
>> Additionally, this slow tty/session creation time is seen when:
>> *) exiting X - ie logout back to terminal (from startx)
>> *) Shutdown from XFCE logout/shutdown dialog
>>
>> When exiting X from a startx at the linux tty, there appears to be a
>> large session tear-down time.
>>
>> In addition, a similarly long duration is seen when (as stated)
>> starting another linux vt.
>
> By default, other than tty1 (via
> "/etc/systemd/system/getty.target.wants/getty@tty1.service"), VTs are
> started dynamically as needed.

Sure.

> If you want tty2 to be available permanently and persistently through
> reboots, run:
>
> systemctl enable getty@tty2.service
> systemctl start getty@tty2.service
>
> The first command will create a
> "/etc/systemd/system/getty.target.wants/getty@tty2.service" symlink to
> "/lib/systemd/system/getty@.service", which is more or less similar
> to, in the case of a hypothetical getty@tty2 sysvinit script, having
> "update-rc.d enable getty@tty2" create
> "/etc/rc{2,3,4,5}.d/Sabgetty@tty2" and "/etc/rc{0,6}.d/Kcdgetty@tty2"
> symlinks to "/etc/init.d/getty@tty2".

That's possibly useful. I've just made use of it thanks.

But it doesn't have anything to do with tty1 having these 5 second (or
more) vt pauses on shutdown and/ or X exiting.

I've used the code that specifies X start on tty1/vt01 (I posted that
in my se() shell function). So we're not dealing with tty2 here, just
tty1.

I've just now confirmed that by running the above commands you
suggest, Ctrl-Alt-F2 to see that yes, the getty login is there, then
Alt-LeftArrow, and yes, back into X!

Thanks,
Zenaan


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/caosgnsqhjqamb_fdpiem7onogfokzyxkl-nmctn_zfu+jhs...@mail.gmail.com

Re: [totally OT] experience with Seagate Barracuda and NAS drives

2014-05-18 Thread Joe

On Sat, 17 May 2014 21:11:13 -0400
"Theodore Alcapotaxis"  wrote:

> > - Original Message -
> > From: Eike Lantzsch
> > Sent: 05/17/14 07:52 PM
> > To: Debian-user
> > Subject: [totally OT] experience with Seagate Barracuda and NAS
> > drives
> > 
> > On the contacts for the heads and also on the "washer"-shaped 
> > contacts for the srews I found a brownish-reddish film.
> > I removed it with a white soft eraser.
> > After assembling the drives they work OK ever since.
> > Now I bought two 2GB Seagate NAS drives and on one I found the same 
> > film on the contacts - just not as bad as on the drives which
> > failed.
> 
> Are you an anti-American, anti-NSA activist? Or, are you one of those
> blacklisted by the FBI or CIA?{just kidding}
> 
> According to Edward Snowden, US intel agencies are known to have
> intercepted routers, hard disk drives, solid state drives, graphic
> cards, CPUs, etc.., meant for delivery to customers and insert
> backdoors in them.
> 
> The brownish-reddish film could have been the result of some hardware
> modifications made by the NSA to the hard disk drives.
> 
> BTW Seagate is known to have worked closely with US intel agencies so
> much so that China, at one point, insisted that Seagate MUST
> manufacture HDDs in that country and not elsewhere if Seagate wanted
> to sell its products to Chinese. This is to facilitate easy
> inspection of HDDs for backdoors by China's own intel agencies.
> 
> 

Oddly, I had a dead Barracuda in front of me when I read the OP, but
sadly that isn't the problem. I suppose it is ten years old...

Yes, there was a fair amount of this stuff. The (cleaned) contact
plating looks like tin, so presumably this is tin oxide, which is
conductive in thin layers but maybe not in thick ones. Gold must be too
expensive now (and ten years ago).

-- 
Joe


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140518091507.38398...@jretrading.com

Re: Where to get older versions of pkgs

2014-05-18 Thread Tixy

On Sat, 2014-05-17 at 21:48 -0400, Harry Putnam wrote:
> I'm having plenty of trouble with the newest version of sendmail on a
> brand new install.
> 
> I have the version numbers obtained by running:
> 
> aptitude search -F sendmail '%p %v'
> 
> On a machine with it installed.  I understand the command necessary to
> install a certain version: aptitude install =
> But when I run that, I'm told the pkgs cannot be found and it wants to
> install the newer version 8.14.4-5 
[...]
> Is it a question of expanding my sources.list?

Yes, have a look at http://snapshot.debian.org/

-- 
Tixy


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1400401624.2951.2.ca...@computer5.home

Re: Tails

2014-05-18 Thread Francesco Ariis

On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 10:59:31PM -0700, Bob Holtzman wrote:
> Lighten up, lad and stop taking all things literally.
>  

Far from be being a Thought Policeman, I felt uneasy reading the OP and
some of the replies.

Back OT, someone please tell to the investigative journalist that
using Tails or any other OS on a compromised machine is a risky choice.
I am sure I am preaching to the choir here, but I found people who don't
otherwise take interest in security may think that a bootable USB will
magically shield them from, say, a hardware key-logger.

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140518090543.ga16...@x60s.casa

Re: Tails

2014-05-18 Thread Weaver


On Sun, May 18, 2014 2:05 am, Francesco Ariis wrote:
> On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 10:59:31PM -0700, Bob Holtzman wrote:
>> Lighten up, lad and stop taking all things literally.
>>
>

>
> Back OT, someone please tell to the investigative journalist that
> using Tails or any other OS on a compromised machine is a risky choice.
> I am sure I am preaching to the choir here, but I found people who don't
> otherwise take interest in security may think that a bootable USB will
> magically shield them from, say, a hardware key-logger.
>
It's only one step in a short introduction to base level security.
I have no intention of going into the rest of it on-list.
Other than the fact it's not relevant to the list, at least half the
replies are a waste of time reading and a sad statement on the mentalities
of those making them.

I have always found the community to be a source of supportive assistance.
Other than obvious exceptions, that appears to belong to another time and
in other company.
Cheers!

Weaver


-- 
"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its  government."
 -- Thomas Paine

Registered Linux User: 554515



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/2ee81906e66d3c8ee9a55f5162a61d83.squir...@fruiteater.riseup.net

Re: reboot required after linux-image upgrade?

On Wednesday 14 May 2014 12:44:36 The Wanderer wrote:
> They do appear to, but in my experience, not uncommonly when running a
> dist-upgrade that includes a linux-image* upgrade something will get
> messed up about the order of events; the script will get run at the
> wrong time, and then not get re-run later when it needs to.
>
> The result, which I've seen frequently, is that the new kernel shows up
> in the GRUB boot menu, but the GRUB boot entry does not include the
> matching initrd - and as a result, that kernel will not boot.

So far, I have never had a problem.

Lisi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/201405181103.48003.lisi.re...@gmail.com

Re: DEB Wheezy xfce desktops

On Sunday 18 May 2014 06:16:28 c. marlow wrote:
> Thank you so much TOM you made me SO HAPPY

So why did he have to tell you twice before you took any notice?
Lisi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/201405181105.54351.lisi.re...@gmail.com

Re: Where to get older versions of pkgs

2014-05-18 Thread José Antonio Podadera Moya

El Sábado, 17 de mayo de 2014 21:48:03 Harry Putnam escribió:
> I'm having plenty of trouble with the newest version of sendmail on a
> brand new install.
> 
> I have the version numbers obtained by running:
> 
> aptitude search -F sendmail '%p %v'
> 
> On a machine with it installed.  I understand the command necessary to
> install a certain version: aptitude install =
> But when I run that, I'm told the pkgs cannot be found and it wants to
> install the newer version 8.14.4-5
> 
> All the sendmail group showning the version I want below:
> 
>   sendmail   8.14.4-4.1
>   sendmail-base  8.14.4-4.1
>   sendmail-bin   8.14.4-4.1
>   sendmail-cf8.14.4-4.1
> 
> I have it running on my main desktop with out problems and want to
> install it on this new install.
> 
> Is it a question of expanding my sources.list? Or maybe the exact syntax
> in detail is all that is lacking.
> 
> I tried several renditions  but I think it is:
> 
>   aptitude install sendmail=8.14.4-4
> 
> But maybe that is not present in the repo.  My current sources list is
> the one a vanilla install has left me.  Well not quite vanilla since I
> installed from an lxde iso: debian-testing-i386-lxde-CD-1.iso
> 
> 
>   deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ jessie main
>   deb-src http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ jessie main
> 
>   deb http://security.debian.org/ jessie/updates main
>   deb-src http://security.debian.org/ jessie/updates main
> 
>   # jessie-updates, previously known as 'volatile'
>   deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ jessie-updates main
>   deb-src http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ jessie-updates main
> 
>   # jessie-backports, previously on backports.debian.org
>   deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ jessie-backports main
>   deb-src http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ jessie-backports main
> 
> Using this syntax... I get this result:
> 
>  # aptitude install sendmail=8.14.4-4
> 
>   Unable to find a version "8.14.4-4" for the package "sendmail"
>   Unable to find a version "8.14.4-4" for the package "sendmail"
>   The following NEW packages will be installed:
> sendmail sendmail-base{a} sendmail-bin{a} sendmail-cf{a} sensible-mda{a}
> 0 packages upgraded, 5 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
> Need to get 0 B/1,708 kB of archives. After unpacking 3,493 kB will be
> used. Do you want to continue? [Y/n/?]

You can try to install old package versions from the snapshot archive 
(http://snapshot.debian.org). As the page itself says: 

"The snapshot archive is a wayback machine that allows access to old packages 
based on dates and version numbers. It consists of all past and current 
packages the Debian archive provides."

Regards,

José Antonio Podadera Moya


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/2335372.1GToe04o8v@pekin

Re: reboot required after linux-image upgrade?

On 5/14/14, The Wanderer  wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
...
> three months, but I dist-upgrade to testing at least once every two or
> three weeks.)
>
> - --
>The Wanderer
>
> Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.

Ahhh .. so .. like, who are you?

I know secrecy is preferred by some people and all, but I hear it's
the beginning of tyranny.

Or something..

:)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/CAOsGNSRvt6UmtwRM60ro_Qp-dfhb=X81fijF54kgv=cxjxc...@mail.gmail.com

Re: systemd situation in Jesssie

2014-05-18 Thread Nemeth Gyorgy

2014-05-17 21:54 keltezéssel, Tom H írta:
>> I have servers running Jessie. Can I continue upgrading packages on a
>> regular basis, without having to worry that one of these updates will
>> uninstall half of my system and install systemd instead (and make my
>> servers unbootable) ?
> 
> On unstable, these are the packages that require systemd as pid 1:
> 
> 1)
> 
> # aptitude search -F "%p" ~Ddepends:systemd-sysv
> gpsd
> libpam-systemd
> mandos
> sysvinit

Take a deeper look:
apt-cache show sysvinit | grep Depends

Pre-Depends: sysvinit-core | upstart | systemd-sysv

So you are right, there is a dependency to systemd-sysv but not
exclusively, any of the three init system can be used. And this is the
situation for the other packages as well.


-- 
--- Friczy ---
'Death is not a bug, it's a feature'


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5378a628.4030...@freemail.hu

Re: Tails

2014-05-18 Thread Stephen Allen

On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 02:33:21AM -0700, Weaver wrote:
> 
> On Sun, May 18, 2014 2:05 am, Francesco Ariis wrote:
> > On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 10:59:31PM -0700, Bob Holtzman wrote:
> >> Lighten up, lad and stop taking all things literally.
> >>
> >
> 
> >
> > Back OT, someone please tell to the investigative journalist that
> > using Tails or any other OS on a compromised machine is a risky choice.
> > I am sure I am preaching to the choir here, but I found people who don't
> > otherwise take interest in security may think that a bootable USB will
> > magically shield them from, say, a hardware key-logger.
> >
> It's only one step in a short introduction to base level security.
> I have no intention of going into the rest of it on-list.
> Other than the fact it's not relevant to the list, at least half the
> replies are a waste of time reading and a sad statement on the mentalities
> of those making them.
> 
> I have always found the community to be a source of supportive assistance.
> Other than obvious exceptions, that appears to belong to another time and
> in other company.
> Cheers!

It used to be, alas it's not much of that anymore - many of the newer
folk are to blame unfortunately. Sorry that you were given the gears by
some idiots - your OP didn't creep me out in the slightest, and Kudo's
to you in helping out the young lady pursue her career safely. These are
unsafe times for "investigative" journalists around the world.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140518123854.GA25175@Jessie

Re: systemd situation in Jesssie

2014-05-18 Thread Stephen Allen

On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 08:37:38PM -0400, Ric Moore wrote:
> On 05/17/2014 02:57 PM, Sven Joachim wrote:
> >On 2014-05-17 19:58 +0200, Martin Vegter wrote:
> >
> >>Hello,
> >>
> >>I am wondering whether systemd will be mandatory in Jessie.
> >>At the moment, I can install Jessie without systemd. Will this stay so,
> >>or will this change somewhere before Jessie becomes stable?
> >
> >Depending on your needs, installing systemd might be mandatory in
> >unstable already (e.g. gdm3 indirectly depends on it), but you do _not_
> >have to install systemd-sysv and thus make it the default init system.
> >
> >>I have servers running Jessie. Can I continue upgrading packages on a
> >>regular basis, without having to worry that one of these updates will
> >>uninstall half of my system and install systemd instead (and make my
> >>servers unbootable) ?
> >
> >Why would installing systemd remove half of your system, and why do you
> >expect that your servers will not boot with systemd as init?
> 
> systemd has been on my Jessie install for some time. I've noted no
> difference. Ric
>

Same here - The only difference I noticed, was that suspend starting
working properly on my X300 laptop, so count me in as a happy systemd
user. 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140518124457.GB25175@Jessie

Re: systemd situation in Jesssie

2014-05-18 Thread Stephen Allen

On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 09:17:46PM -0400, Theodore Alcapotaxis wrote:
> > - Original Message -
> > From: Martin Vegter
> > Sent: 05/18/14 01:58 AM
> > To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> > Subject: systemd situation in Jesssie
> > 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > I have servers running Jessie. Can I continue upgrading packages on a
> > regular basis, without having to worry that one of these updates will
> > uninstall half of my system and install systemd instead (and make my
> > servers unbootable) ?
> 
> Do you find Jessie to be stable?
> 
> For the first time ever, I started running Jessie on my host computer, not as 
> a server. And just last week of some upgrades, Gnome3 broke in many places. 
> Do you have the same problem? Or you are not using Gnome3?

Yes, running Gnome-Shell here on Jessie, Systemd I've had no problems.
What specifically broke, gdm3? Maybe use ligtdm for the time being ...
that's what I did.

I find that by reading this list and especially debian-dev I find out
about problems *usually* proactively. However, part of using
Testing/Unstable to is to find these bugs for the developing team and
file *useful* bug reports.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140518124845.GC25175@Jessie

Max number of loop devices OR "efficient search of Debian documentation"

2014-05-18 Thread Richard Owlett

My general question is "How to search for a particular particle 
of information that you've seen SOMEWHERE in the reams of 
information available as formal documentation, web pages, mailing 
lists, etc."


My current instance is attempting to modify the max number of 
loop devices. One pellet of Google buckshot reminded me that it 
can be reset for the next re-boot under /etc/modprobe.d . But I 
want to reset it on the fly.

Other pellets hit postings:
   that were over ten years old
   where post did not seem to agree with relevant man page
   post's author commented that he though solution might be of 
form ...


Suggestions?
TIA



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5378b094.7070...@cloud85.net

Re: systemd - excessive session-creation time

On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 3:21 AM, Zenaan Harkness  wrote:
> On 5/18/14, Tom H  wrote:
>> On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 10:49 PM, Zenaan Harkness  wrote:
>>>
>>> Although initial tty session (from boot) is quicker than with
>>> sysvinit, additional tty sessions are very slow to start, in the order
>>> of 5 seconds (which seems like an eternity).
>>>
>>> Additionally, this slow tty/session creation time is seen when:
>>> *) exiting X - ie logout back to terminal (from startx)
>>> *) Shutdown from XFCE logout/shutdown dialog
>>>
>>> When exiting X from a startx at the linux tty, there appears to be a
>>> large session tear-down time.
>>>
>>> In addition, a similarly long duration is seen when (as stated)
>>> starting another linux vt.
>>
>> By default, other than tty1 (via
>> "/etc/systemd/system/getty.target.wants/getty@tty1.service"), VTs are
>> started dynamically as needed.
>
> Sure.
>
>> If you want tty2 to be available permanently and persistently through
>> reboots, run:
>>
>> systemctl enable getty@tty2.service
>> systemctl start getty@tty2.service
>>
>> The first command will create a
>> "/etc/systemd/system/getty.target.wants/getty@tty2.service" symlink to
>> "/lib/systemd/system/getty@.service", which is more or less similar
>> to, in the case of a hypothetical getty@tty2 sysvinit script, having
>> "update-rc.d enable getty@tty2" create
>> "/etc/rc{2,3,4,5}.d/Sabgetty@tty2" and "/etc/rc{0,6}.d/Kcdgetty@tty2"
>> symlinks to "/etc/init.d/getty@tty2".
>
> That's possibly useful. I've just made use of it thanks.
>
> But it doesn't have anything to do with tty1 having these 5 second (or
> more) vt pauses on shutdown and/ or X exiting.
>
> I've used the code that specifies X start on tty1/vt01 (I posted that
> in my se() shell function). So we're not dealing with tty2 here, just
> tty1.

I understood "additional tty sessions" to mean tty2-tty6.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=swfxw3gtonv46kh7lxrbjoidtzh6x7m2mwolwajl1p...@mail.gmail.com

Re: systemd situation in Jesssie

On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Nemeth Gyorgy  wrote:
> 2014-05-17 21:54 keltezéssel, Tom H írta:
>>> I have servers running Jessie. Can I continue upgrading packages on a
>>> regular basis, without having to worry that one of these updates will
>>> uninstall half of my system and install systemd instead (and make my
>>> servers unbootable) ?
>>
>> On unstable, these are the packages that require systemd as pid 1:
>>
>> 1)
>>
>> # aptitude search -F "%p" ~Ddepends:systemd-sysv
>> gpsd
>> libpam-systemd
>> mandos
>> sysvinit
>
> Take a deeper look:
> apt-cache show sysvinit | grep Depends
>
> Pre-Depends: sysvinit-core | upstart | systemd-sysv
>
> So you are right, there is a dependency to systemd-sysv but not
> exclusively, any of the three init system can be used. And this is the
> situation for the other packages as well.

I didn't look into the sysvinit dependency in the email specifucally
because I know that sysvinit in jessie is a metapackage with the above
dependencies.

My email was to show which jessie packages require systemd as pid 1.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=szccme2rhhzxwcbppu77j_uwdds6rg+royhz6euhjv...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Max number of loop devices OR "efficient search of Debian documentation"

On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Richard Owlett  wrote:
>
> My general question is "How to search for a particular particle of
> information that you've seen SOMEWHERE in the reams of information available
> as formal documentation, web pages, mailing lists, etc."
>
> My current instance is attempting to modify the max number of loop devices.
> One pellet of Google buckshot reminded me that it can be reset for the next
> re-boot under /etc/modprobe.d . But I want to reset it on the fly.
> Other pellets hit postings:
>that were over ten years old
>where post did not seem to agree with relevant man page
>post's author commented that he though solution might be of form ...

If you have loop compiled in to the kernel, as I do below, you can
only change the number of loop devices at boot by using
"max_loop=


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=SxhwsM_CAOgvGHvVv0=Ja=xerxpn1gw5zo6xzlfvnw...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Max number of loop devices OR "efficient search of Debian documentation"

2014-05-18 Thread Pascal Hambourg

Tom H a écrit :
>>
>> My current instance is attempting to modify the max number of loop devices.
>> One pellet of Google buckshot reminded me that it can be reset for the next
>> re-boot under /etc/modprobe.d . But I want to reset it on the fly.
> 
> If you have loop compiled in to the kernel, as I do below, you can
> only change the number of loop devices at boot by using
> "max_loop= 
> But if loop is compiled as module
> 
> # rmmod loop
> # modprobe loop max_loop=

One more general piece of information about module parameters : some may
be modified on the fly by writing into
/sys/module//parameters/. But it appears that
/sys/module/loop/parameters/max_loop is read only.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5378bb14.4080...@plouf.fr.eu.org

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management


On 15/05/14 04:43 PM, Ralph Katz wrote:

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Free Software Foundation statement may clear some confusion expressed on
this list.

https://www.fsf.org/news/fsf-condemns-partnership-between-mozilla-and-adobe-to-support-digital-restrictions-management


[...] "Only a week after the International Day Against DRM, Mozilla
has announced that it will partner with proprietary software
company Adobe to implement support for Web-based Digital
Restrictions Management (DRM) in its Firefox browser, using
Encrypted Media Extensions (EME).

The Free Software Foundation is deeply disappointed in Mozilla's
announcement. The decision compromises important principles in
order to alleviate misguided fears about loss of browser
marketshare. It allies Mozilla with a company hostile to the free
software movement and to Mozilla's own fundamental ideals.

Although Mozilla will not directly ship Adobe's proprietary DRM
plugin, it will, as an official feature, encourage Firefox users
to install the plugin from Adobe when presented with media that
requests DRM. We agree with Cory Doctorow that there is no
meaningful distinction between 'installing DRM' and 'installing
code that installs DRM.'  [...]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTdSb9AAoJECe2FpioHXO6KfEH/1PvYl/dvu4mbWbBXJQn19qW
u/9Eao+ffnWfEOR5okvwVy0zAbWr28imOVJS3SVX23D527shfPjke7sY8jagozor
tH4me+yij9vir1yN5s0jcRMRXpPhyYVpu39NGYPhDE8i8IhET9XHEKQOcH5ggIDb
lnMd/emZS5dLNJ3/6rpviDY6i7MX+Ebto3mAVEG8/KGMjKe+G+rN5xMq6TyY4ule
+BwpDMIUewmQC0nQs0SmB14/B8dj+DF8CNpnj+oB1rTSg459MwAKVt6+o1I/DEif
+CtpoJtqMJfKa2Ux14gtISDQq0YUulRu8qyM3n6W3DLc/JMnh5o2QyiqjGA6+Ww=
=X7L4
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
A lot of people responding to this post don't seem to understand that 
freedom applies to more than just personal choice. The United States was 
not a free nation while it accepted slavery and Firefox is not free 
software while it accepts digital restrictions management.


Just as no one forced Americans to own slaves, the fact that slavery was 
allowed was an insult to notion of freedom. Arguing that the "freedom" 
to choose whether to own slaves or not made Americans freer would be 
called ridiculous by any sane person, yet the same argument is being 
bandied about in this discussion as if it made any sense.


The Free Software Foundation got this one right.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5378bfef.60...@torfree.net

Re: Max number of loop devices OR "efficient search of Debian documentation"

2014-05-18 Thread The Wanderer

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

On 05/18/2014 09:52 AM, Pascal Hambourg wrote:

> Tom H a écrit :

>> If you have loop compiled in to the kernel, as I do below, you can
>> only change the number of loop devices at boot by using
>> "max_loop=> 
>> But if loop is compiled as module
>> 
>> # rmmod loop
>> # modprobe loop max_loop=
> 
> One more general piece of information about module parameters : some
> may be modified on the fly by writing into
> /sys/module//parameters/. But it appears that
> /sys/module/loop/parameters/max_loop is read only.

What does 'modprobe -r loop' do to any active loop devices?

I would expect it to either error out without removing the module if any
loop devices are in use, or automatically shut the loop devices down.

If that's correct, then that might explain why the max_loop sysfs file
is read-only. If it were not, then what happens if you reduce it below
the number of currently active loop devices?

If the "automatically shut the loop devices down" case is what applies,
the system could theoretically shut down one or more loop devices to
bring the number of currently active ones within the new max_loop limit.
However, if there's more than one active device, how should it choose?
That's really a policy question, and doesn't belong to the kernel.

- --
   The Wanderer

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.

A government exists to serve its citizens, not to control them.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=e75a
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5378c1a4.7060...@fastmail.fm

Re: Tails

2014-05-18 Thread Doug



On 05/18/2014 05:05 AM, Francesco Ariis wrote:

On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 10:59:31PM -0700, Bob Holtzman wrote:

Lighten up, lad and stop taking all things literally.
  

Far from be being a Thought Policeman, I felt uneasy reading the OP and
some of the replies.

Back OT, someone please tell to the investigative journalist that
using Tails or any other OS on a compromised machine is a risky choice.
I am sure I am preaching to the choir here, but I found people who don't
otherwise take interest in security may think that a bootable USB will
magically shield them from, say, a hardware key-logger.



Is it possible to remotely install some kind of software onto the
BIOS chip? That's what it would seem to require, short of having
physical access to the machine.

--doug


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5378c57b.7020...@optonline.net

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management

On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 12:13 AM, Gary Dale  wrote:
> Just as no one forced Americans to own slaves, the fact that slavery was
> allowed was an insult to notion of freedom. Arguing that the "freedom" to
> choose whether to own slaves or not made Americans freer would be called
> ridiculous by any sane person, yet the same argument is being bandied about
> in this discussion as if it made any sense.
>
> The Free Software Foundation got this one right.

Is it wrong, then, for Samba to be included in the 'main' section? It
encourages the use of both Debian and Windows, making it that much
easier for people to use non-free software. Is it therefore a bad
thing? What about the various tools that read and write Microsoft
Office file formats? Are they bad because they give people the freedom
to work with non-free systems?

I have a Windows laptop and a Linux (Debian, currently, though
previously Ubuntu) desktop. Is it true freedom to embrace
alternatives, or is the truer freedom found by preventing the use of
any software, firmware, or hardware, that isn't itself free?

People who take the extreme stance of refusing to use *anything* that
isn't absolutely free are making that deliberate choice. That's fine.
They don't use the non-free section, and avoid any computer with a
non-free BIOS, and so on. (I don't know how you get around the
possibility of backdoors in your hard drives. Can you use free drives
only??) But that can't be mandated on everyone, or it's no better than
what Apple tries to do: use *our* hardware and *our* software in *our*
ways, or you're violating the TOS. Is that the freedom you want?

Chris Angelico

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/CAPTjJmpAT9MAboB4M6aH9Qg7ufwzAXx0P=tlhhslzb3vxo4...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Max number of loop devices OR "efficient search of Debian documentation"

On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 10:20 AM, The Wanderer  wrote:
> On 05/18/2014 09:52 AM, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
>> Tom H a écrit :
>>>
>>> If you have loop compiled in to the kernel, as I do below, you can
>>> only change the number of loop devices at boot by using
>>> "max_loop=>>
>>> But if loop is compiled as module
>>>
>>> # rmmod loop
>>> # modprobe loop max_loop=
>>
>> One more general piece of information about module parameters : some
>> may be modified on the fly by writing into
>> /sys/module//parameters/. But it appears that
>> /sys/module/loop/parameters/max_loop is read only.
>
> What does 'modprobe -r loop' do to any active loop devices?
>
> I would expect it to either error out without removing the module if any
> loop devices are in use, or automatically shut the loop devices down.

Correct, the call to modprobe will fail if "loop.ko" is in use.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=sz4s-kk-5dmgypp1+jv5ynrsg2votnabw8j7df26on...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Tails

2014-05-18 Thread Theodore Alcapotaxis

> - Original Message -
> From: Doug
> Sent: 05/18/14 10:36 PM
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Tails
> 
> Is it possible to remotely install some kind of software onto the
> BIOS chip? That's what it would seem to require, short of having
> physical access to the machine.

Yes, the Americans, together with the Israelis, managed to slip Stuxnet on to 
the BIOS chip and crippled the computers that ran the Iranian nuclear facility.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140518151344.77...@gmx.com

Re: Max number of loop devices OR "efficient search of Debian documentation"

On Sun 18 May 2014 at 09:40:29 -0400, Tom H wrote:

> If you have loop compiled in to the kernel, as I do below, you can
> only change the number of loop devices at boot by using
> "max_loop= 
> # grep BLK_DEV_LOOP /boot/config-3.15-rc5
> CONFIG_BLK_DEV_LOOP=y
> CONFIG_BLK_DEV_LOOP_MIN_COUNT=16
> 
> But if the above grep returns "CONFIG_BLK_DEV_LOOP=m", you can:
> 
> # rmmod loop
> # modprobe loop max_loop=

This can be automated to apply during booting by putting 'loop' into
/etc/modules and 'options loop max_loop='
into a file in /etc/modprobe.d/. This works (for me) under sysvint and
systemd.

The idea was borrowed from a post by Michael Biebl at

   https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=627949 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/18052014160221.149b7cb35...@desktop.copernicus.demon.co.uk

Re: Max number of loop devices OR "efficient search of Debian documentation"

On 2014-05-18, Richard Owlett  wrote:
>
> My current instance is attempting to modify the max number of 
> loop devices. One pellet of Google buckshot reminded me that it 
> can be reset for the next re-boot under /etc/modprobe.d . But I 
> want to reset it on the fly.

I'm reading you can *add* another loop device on the fly
with the mknod command:

mknod -m 660 /dev/loop8 b 7 8

But I guess that covers only half of the word "modify."


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/slrnlnhjia.22g.cu...@einstein.electron.org

Re: DEB Wheezy xfce desktops

2014-05-18 Thread Tom Furie

On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 12:16:28AM -0500, c. marlow wrote:

> Thank you so much TOM you made me SO HAPPY... I found the one I
> wanted... I just LOVE this background it reminds me of WIN 2000
> which was my fav windows os Here is the desktop on Xubuntu 12.04
> my current OS for now.

I'm glad you got the wallpaper you were looking for, but as Lisi implies
in her post that kind of evidence of not trying to find the solution
yourself is a shortcut to getting very little help on this list.

Your first request was fair enough because searching for images can be
incredibly difficult. Your second post was much less reasonable as it
showed you had put no effort into finding the answer with the extra
information given. You only got such a direct answer because I was in an
odd mood, but you'll notice I still left you a *tiny* bit of work from
there.

Cheers,
Tom

-- 
We are using Linux daily to UP our productivity - so UP yours!
(Adapted from Pat Paulsen by Joe Sloan)

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Tails

2014-05-18 Thread Francesco Ariis

On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 10:36:43AM -0400, Doug wrote:
> BIOS chip? That's what it would seem to require, short of having
> physical access to the machine.
> 
> --doug
> 

Indeed physical access to the machine is what I was thinking about (simple
hypothetical threat: hardware key-logger in work environment or an internet
cafe). Such "tools" are quite cheap nowadays (~50$ off your favourite
online store).
I feel that, for someone who needs to securely store/access/transfer data and
is not tech-savvy (e.g.: a journalist), stating: "use a security-driven distro
(Tails, etc.) on secure hardware (your own machine or the machine of someone
you trust)" is concise, simple and comprehensive.

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140518151755.ga14...@x60s.casa

Re: Security updates for hold package

2014-05-18 Thread Theodore Alcapotaxis

> - Original Message -
> From: Andrei POPESCU
> Sent: 05/17/14 05:06 PM
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Security updates for hold package
> 
> You haven't yet stated why you need the backports kernel, but if you 
> want to keep using it install the backports meta-package.

I HAD to install kernel backport as I had been having issues with shutdown on 
Debian Wheezy 3.2.0.4-amd64 and Gnome3.

Google results revealed there are similar problems when one is using Intel 
Haswell CPUs with Debian Wheezy stable.

After upgrading to a kernel backport, I am able to do a proper shutdown.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140518151849.77...@gmx.com

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management

2014-05-18 Thread Slavko

Ahoj,

Dňa Mon, 19 May 2014 00:46:57 +1000 Chris Angelico 
napísal:

> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 12:13 AM, Gary Dale 
> wrote:
> > Just as no one forced Americans to own slaves, the fact that
> > slavery was allowed was an insult to notion of freedom. Arguing
> > that the "freedom" to choose whether to own slaves or not made
> > Americans freer would be called ridiculous by any sane person, yet
> > the same argument is being bandied about in this discussion as if
> > it made any sense.
> >
> > The Free Software Foundation got this one right.
> 
> Is it wrong, then, for Samba to be included in the 'main' section? It
> encourages the use of both Debian and Windows, making it that much
> easier for people to use non-free software. Is it therefore a bad
> thing? What about the various tools that read and write Microsoft
> Office file formats? Are they bad because they give people the freedom
> to work with non-free systems?

Not previous, but you are wrong in comparison (or example selection).

The Samba doesn't allow to use of proprietary software. Samba only uses
the SMB protocol (i can be wrong, but it is standardized), which Windows
uses (as primary) too. But you can connect two Samba between themselves,
then no Windows is needed.

Can you use free software for the DRM? If yes, then i am wrong and your
example is OK.

regards

-- 
Slavko
http://slavino.sk


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Max number of loop devices OR "efficient search of Debian documentation"

2014-05-18 Thread Pascal Hambourg

The Wanderer a écrit :
> 
> What does 'modprobe -r loop' do to any active loop devices?

Nothing.

> I would expect it to either error out without removing the module if any
> loop devices are in use,

As usual when the module is in use.

> or automatically shut the loop devices down.

That would be insane.

> If that's correct, then that might explain why the max_loop sysfs file
> is read-only.

Not IMO. That a feature may fail is not a reason to not implement it.
Otherwise removing a module would not even be implemented, because it
may fail when the module is in use.

> If it were not, then what happens if you reduce it below
> the number of currently active loop devices?

Just as usual : if there is at least one active loop device beyond the
new limit -> fail the write and do nothing. However, I believe users
would mostly need the feature to increase the number of loop devices,
not to reduce it : "oops, I just need more loop devices !"


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5378cc03.8070...@plouf.fr.eu.org

Re: Max number of loop devices OR "efficient search of Debian documentation"

On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Brian  wrote:
> On Sun 18 May 2014 at 09:40:29 -0400, Tom H wrote:
>>
>> If you have loop compiled in to the kernel, as I do below, you can
>> only change the number of loop devices at boot by using
>> "max_loop=>
>> # grep BLK_DEV_LOOP /boot/config-3.15-rc5
>> CONFIG_BLK_DEV_LOOP=y
>> CONFIG_BLK_DEV_LOOP_MIN_COUNT=16
>>
>> But if the above grep returns "CONFIG_BLK_DEV_LOOP=m", you can:
>>
>> # rmmod loop
>> # modprobe loop max_loop=
>
> This can be automated to apply during booting by putting 'loop' into
> /etc/modules and 'options loop max_loop='
> into a file in /etc/modprobe.d/. This works (for me) under sysvint and
> systemd.

The OP had said "... it can be reset for the next re-boot under
/etc/modprobe.d . But I want to reset it on the fly. ..."


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=Sw8-nSQG+Tbj-znkPS=grxr+umvsslrjxrqqz+gd_f...@mail.gmail.com

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management

2014-05-18 Thread Slavko

Ahoj,

Dňa Sat, 17 May 2014 21:00:48 +0900 Joel Rees 
napísal:

> What Mozilla is doing is providing a framework for keeping the
> companies that want into your computer out, by providing them tools to
> get only what the law allows them and no more.

I am not lawyer, then i will not write about laws, nor in our country
nor international. I will write only on ethic level...

But exactly this i consider as wrong. Or will these companies allow me
to go into their computer(s) to i can see, that they don't break my
right? I will consider all companies as criminal, by the same way as
these companies consider all people as criminals (which is needed to
persecute by inspecting of their computers).

At least, most people here know, how are companies involved in people's
privacy, how they know to respect personal information, etc. Nothing
from this, only money, money and money and THEIR right. Nothing about
our rights. And this Mozilla's decision is another step to get our
right into second rail. And right are thing, for which the free
software starts, not for money, not for to be best browser, only rights.

Finally, is widely known how are these companies able to approve e.g.
GPL and right of author's  of the GPL (or similar free) software.

Once again, i am not a criminal. And i want to no criminals go into my
home at all, don't depends if they will use door or computer (internet
connection). Do you want this?

regards

-- 
Slavko
http://slavino.sk


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Max number of loop devices OR "efficient search of Debian documentation"

On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Curt  wrote:
> On 2014-05-18, Richard Owlett  wrote:
>>
>> My current instance is attempting to modify the max number of
>> loop devices. One pellet of Google buckshot reminded me that it
>> can be reset for the next re-boot under /etc/modprobe.d . But I
>> want to reset it on the fly.
>
> I'm reading you can *add* another loop device on the fly
> with the mknod command:
>
> mknod -m 660 /dev/loop8 b 7 8

You'll have to run "chown root:disk /dev/loop8" too.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=syv4tdghtcgzc8cp7tj9n_ysjhx0as2jakgen9ghwi...@mail.gmail.com

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management

On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 1:19 AM, Slavko  wrote:
> The Samba doesn't allow to use of proprietary software. Samba only uses
> the SMB protocol (i can be wrong, but it is standardized), which Windows
> uses (as primary) too. But you can connect two Samba between themselves,
> then no Windows is needed.

I don't know whether Samba<->Samba is useful in the complete absence
of Windows or OS/2 (yes, I've used Samba to talk to an OS/2 server;
it's enormously better than Windows, but still non-free, so for this
discussion it's similar), given that there are alternatives such as
sshfs. But I doubt that exchanging documents between two LibreOffice
users, in the absence of all hint of Microsoft Office, would not be
done using a Microsoft Office file format, due to inevitable
imperfections in the codecs. And you wouldn't install a brand new
Debian Linux system and decide to format your drive NTFS, unless you
really were expecting to use it from Windows. Samba, LibreOffice, and
the NTFS driver (at least, I checked ntfs-3g, don't know about others)
are all in section 'main', and are thus considered to be completely
free.

Do you want the freedom to mount NTFS volumes in Debian, or do you
want to demand more freedom by stopping people from using NTFS
anywhere? (This isn't just about mounting that second internal drive,
of course; removable media can be formatted with any file system.)

ChrisA

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/captjjmoqvorhgx2phcommvw1oo7pyva3q9dl_jg0xzmwai3...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Max number of loop devices OR "efficient search of Debian documentation"

On Sun, 18 May 2014 15:15:34 + (UTC)
Curt  wrote:

> On 2014-05-18, Richard Owlett  wrote:
> >
> > My current instance is attempting to modify the max number of 
> > loop devices. One pellet of Google buckshot reminded me that it 
> > can be reset for the next re-boot under /etc/modprobe.d . But I 
> > want to reset it on the fly.
> 
> I'm reading you can *add* another loop device on the fly
> with the mknod command:
> 
> mknod -m 660 /dev/loop8 b 7 8
> 
> But I guess that covers only half of the word "modify."
> 
> 

You can create devices nodes with that in the filesystem, but they will
not work unless they also exist in the kernel.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140518173502.2c0b7...@orac.fil

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management

On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 1:26 AM, Slavko  wrote:
> Dňa Sat, 17 May 2014 21:00:48 +0900 Joel Rees 
> napísal:
>
>> What Mozilla is doing is providing a framework for keeping the
>> companies that want into your computer out, by providing them tools to
>> get only what the law allows them and no more.
>
> I am not lawyer, then i will not write about laws, nor in our country
> nor international. I will write only on ethic level...
>
> But exactly this i consider as wrong. Or will these companies allow me
> to go into their computer(s) to i can see, that they don't break my
> right? I will consider all companies as criminal, by the same way as
> these companies consider all people as criminals (which is needed to
> persecute by inspecting of their computers).

Then don't install the non-free DRM engine. Simple. From what I
understand (which may be wrong, please correct me), Mozilla will not
actually ship the non-free code; you have to explicitly accept it.
With gcc, you have the option of compiling a whole lot of non-free
code and then running it; doesn't mean that anyone's forcing you to do
so.

ChrisA


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/captjjmrmfzgdryre6ani-n60nh3vz9tcu2vh_nrftsa5b8f...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Max number of loop devices OR "efficient search of Debian documentation"

On 2014-05-18, Tom H  wrote:
>>
>> I'm reading you can *add* another loop device on the fly
>> with the mknod command:
>>
>> mknod -m 660 /dev/loop8 b 7 8
>
> You'll have to run "chown root:disk /dev/loop8" too.
>

Nobody mentioned that in my reading!




-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/slrnlnhl2d.22g.cu...@einstein.electron.org

Re: Max number of loop devices OR "efficient search of Debian documentation"

On Sun 18 May 2014 at 11:23:56 -0400, Tom H wrote:

> On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Brian  wrote:
> > On Sun 18 May 2014 at 09:40:29 -0400, Tom H wrote:
> >>
> >> If you have loop compiled in to the kernel, as I do below, you can
> >> only change the number of loop devices at boot by using
> >> "max_loop= >>
> >> # grep BLK_DEV_LOOP /boot/config-3.15-rc5
> >> CONFIG_BLK_DEV_LOOP=y
> >> CONFIG_BLK_DEV_LOOP_MIN_COUNT=16
> >>
> >> But if the above grep returns "CONFIG_BLK_DEV_LOOP=m", you can:
> >>
> >> # rmmod loop
> >> # modprobe loop max_loop=
> >
> > This can be automated to apply during booting by putting 'loop' into
> > /etc/modules and 'options loop max_loop='
> > into a file in /etc/modprobe.d/. This works (for me) under sysvint and
> > systemd.
> 
> The OP had said "... it can be reset for the next re-boot under
> /etc/modprobe.d . But I want to reset it on the fly. ..."

Because the OP hadn't given any detail about "... it can be reset for
the next re-boot under /etc/modprobe.d " I thought it might be
useful to extend your advice to indicate how to do it. There is also the
point that putting 'loop max_loop=' in
/etc/modules works with sysvinit but not with systemd.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140518155136.gy17...@copernicus.demon.co.uk

Re: systemd situation in Jesssie

2014-05-18 Thread David Dušanić

17.05.2014, 22:29, "Erwan David" :Le 17/05/2014 22:02, Tom H a écrit : On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Erwan David wrote: Le 17/05/2014 20:57, Sven Joachim a écrit : On 2014-05-17 19:58 +0200, Martin Vegter wrote: I am wondering whether systemd will be mandatory in Jessie. At the moment, I can install Jessie without systemd. Will this stay so, or will this change somewhere before Jessie becomes stable? Depending on your needs, installing systemd might be mandatory in unstable already (e.g. gdm3 indirectly depends on it), but you do _not_ have to install systemd-sysv and thus make it the default init system. So systemd-sysv is the real systemd ? or is there someting else ? systemd-sysv uninstalls sysvinit-core and takes over "/sbin/init" so systemd is used as pid 1. If you don't install systemd-sysv, you have to add "init=/lib/systemd/systemd" to the kernel cmdline in order to use systemd as pid 1.I do not particularly want to use it. I juste want to be prepared forwhen the switch will be compulsory. And there is a package calledsystemd which thus is *not* the systemd used as init, but something else? And what about systemd-shim ? When to use one, when to use another ?Thare are many packages, the documentation is sparse, and verydifficult to read (vocabulary, construction of the text, etc...)eg take the man of systemd-logind. At the end there is a link to"inhibition lock" documentation; However it is the first mention ofthose inhibition locks...Take systemd.service man age : speaks of sections, "units" without anydefinitions of what is a unit and what is a section. For the latter onecan guess it must be sothing looking like a windows .ini file, but notsure yet : the existing doc seems to be redacted *against* all unixadmins knowledge and habits.-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.orgArchive: https://lists.debian.org/5377c6b7.9060...@rail.eu.orgSystemd-shim is there to provide functions by systemd on a system that does not use it as its init system. It could be useful when you depend on Gnome 3 software like network-manager but do not want to use systemd. -- David Dusanic

Re: systemd - excessive session-creation time

2014-05-18 Thread Erwan David

Le 18/05/2014 08:34, Tom H a écrit :
> On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 10:49 PM, Zenaan Harkness  wrote:
>> Although initial tty session (from boot) is quicker than with
>> sysvinit, additional tty sessions are very slow to start, in the order
>> of 5 seconds (which seems like an eternity).
>>
>> Additionally, this slow tty/session creation time is seen when:
>> *) exiting X - ie logout back to terminal (from startx)
>> *) Shutdown from XFCE logout/shutdown dialog
>>
>> When exiting X from a startx at the linux tty, there appears to be a
>> large session tear-down time.
>>
>> In addition, a similarly long duration is seen when (as stated)
>> starting another linux vt.
> By default, other than tty1 (via
> "/etc/systemd/system/getty.target.wants/getty@tty1.service"), VTs are
> started dynamically as needed.
>
> If you want tty2 to be available permanently and persistently through
> reboots, run:
>
> systemctl enable getty@tty2.service
> systemctl start getty@tty2.service
>
> The first command will create a
> "/etc/systemd/system/getty.target.wants/getty@tty2.service" symlink to
> "/lib/systemd/system/getty@.service", which is more or less similar
> to, in the case of a hypothetical getty@tty2 sysvinit script, having
> "update-rc.d enable getty@tty2" create
> "/etc/rc{2,3,4,5}.d/Sabgetty@tty2" and "/etc/rc{0,6}.d/Kcdgetty@tty2"
> symlinks to "/etc/init.d/getty@tty2".
>
>

And is there a way toi keep current behaviour : X session on tty 7 ?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5378d3b8.1030...@rail.eu.org

Re: Where to get older versions of pkgs

2014-05-18 Thread Harry Putnam

José Antonio Podadera Moya  writes:

[...]

> You can try to install old package versions from the snapshot archive 
> (http://snapshot.debian.org). As the page itself says: 
>
> "The snapshot archive is a wayback machine that allows access to old packages 
> based on dates and version numbers. It consists of all past and current 
> packages the Debian archive provides."
>
> Regards,
>

Looking that over it appears it will be more complicated to get that
figured out and whatever trouble using that kind of sources.list will
cause,  than it will be fighting my way thru problems with the new
version of sendmail I'm trying to avoid.

Thanks to both of you.

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/8761l33wqd@newsguy.com

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management

On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Gary Dale  wrote:

A lot of people responding to this post don't seem to understand that
> freedom applies to more than just personal choice. The United States was
> not a free nation while it accepted slavery and Firefox is not free
> software while it accepts digital restrictions management.
>
> Just as no one forced Americans to own slaves, the fact that slavery was
> allowed was an insult to notion of freedom. Arguing that the "freedom" to
> choose whether to own slaves or not made Americans freer would be called
> ridiculous by any sane person, yet the same argument is being bandied about
> in this discussion as if it made any sense.
>
> The Free Software Foundation got this one right.
>

The above message contains good rhetoric and execrable reasoning.

The above dogma confuses two basic categories of freedoms "freedom from"
and"freedom to".  Freedom from is the ability to avoid undesirable
situations. Freedom to is the ability to pursue desirable situations.

Being a slavery is something that people tend to avoid.  So the freedom (or
lack thereof) must be assessed from the perspective of the slave).  If one
believes otherwise then, in the vein of the above statements, America_was_
free because the slave _owners_ were free to own other human beings.  Is
that the freedom you are trying to promote?

DRM is two things: a legal doctrine and a technical implementation.  While
I believe in protecting the rights of owners of intellectual property, both
the existing DRM legal doctrine and the original and  existing DRM
implementations are flawed. So badly that I will not abide by them, rely
upon them, nor tolerate their existence within my areas of control.

DRM is not about freedom of any kind.  It is about control of ones
property.  Owners of intellectual property are free (in all senses of the
term, including Stallman's) to attach such restriction on the property they
sell/lend/rent/gift..  Potential customers are free (in all senses of the
term, including Stallman's) to buy/borrow/rent/accept (or not) that
property based on its own merits or based on the fact of DRM restrictions.

The real argument is not about DRM restrictions.  Those restrictions are
irrelevant.  The real argument is whether to allow DRM-restricted property
(often called content) into one's own domain.

Anyone who proposes to restrict my ability to choose, for or against,
DRM-restricted property is making a proposition that I will _always_ res
*ist.*  After all, it is about freedom.  Mine.  Not some wacko theoretical
objection based on alleged principles, but a fully personal decision on a
care-by-case basis about the property in question.

And, for the record, I do not consider intellectual property to be morally
equivalent to a human being.  Owning property has been around for million
of years.  And I approve of that practice (see Locke).  The distinction is
that people are not and never have been property, much as some would like
to think of other people as property.

But, contrary to Stallman's arguments, intellectual property is real and
worth protecting.  Otherwise I would consider every GPL "protected" product
to have a BSD or an MIT license.  It is my respect for the owner's ability
to set terms of use for their property that protects GPL'd products. Not
the terms of that or any other license.

Lee Winter
Nashua, New Hampshire
United States of America

Re: Max number of loop devices OR "efficient search of Debian documentation"

On 2014-05-18, Filip  wrote:
>> 
>> mknod -m 660 /dev/loop8 b 7 8
>> 
>> But I guess that covers only half of the word "modify."
>
> You can create devices nodes with that in the filesystem, but they will
> not work unless they also exist in the kernel.

Yes, but "work" was not part of the problem space as defined by
the OP.

;-)

But all seriousness aside it appears that the max number of loop devices
cannot be altered on the fly and requires a reboot, if I'm understanding
correctly.

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/slrnlnhm7o.22g.cu...@einstein.electron.org

Re: Max number of loop devices OR "efficient search of Debian documentation"

On Sun 18 May 2014 at 16:01:08 +, Curt wrote:

> But all seriousness aside it appears that the max number of loop devices
> cannot be altered on the fly and requires a reboot, if I'm understanding
> correctly.

You really should try Tom H's advice. Two minutes out of your life. :)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/18052014170306.b6d15331e...@desktop.copernicus.demon.co.uk

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management

On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Slavko  wrote:

> Ahoj,
>
> Dňa Sat, 17 May 2014 21:00:48 +0900 Joel Rees 
> napísal:
>
> > What Mozilla is doing is providing a framework for keeping the
> > companies that want into your computer out, by providing them tools to
> > get only what the law allows them and no more.
>
> I am not lawyer, then i will not write about laws, nor in our country
> nor international. I will write only on ethic level...
>
> But exactly this i consider as wrong. Or will these companies allow me
> to go into their computer(s) to i can see, that they don't break my
> right? I will consider all companies as criminal, by the same way as
> these companies consider all people as criminals (which is needed to
> persecute by inspecting of their computers).
>
> At least, most people here know, how are companies involved in people's
> privacy, how they know to respect personal information, etc. Nothing
> from this, only money, money and money and THEIR right. Nothing about
> our rights. And this Mozilla's decision is another step to get our
> right into second rail. And right are thing, for which the free
> software starts, not for money, not for to be best browser, only rights.
>
> Finally, is widely known how are these companies able to approve e.g.
> GPL and right of author's  of the GPL (or similar free) software.
>
> Once again, i am not a criminal. And i want to no criminals go into my
> home at all, don't depends if they will use door or computer (internet
> connection)


None of the above matters.


> . Do you want this?
>

Now you are getting to the heart of the matter.  Neither you, nor Mozilla,
nor Adobe, nor FSF have any say in the matter.  It is a personal matter.  I
will make the decision myself. I will also live with the consequences of
that decision.

But if you interfere with my ability to make that decision, then you are
making a bad mistake.  After all, it is about freedom.  Mine.  Not yours,
not Mozilla's, not Adobe's, and certainly not FSF's. Mine.  And when you
comprehend that then you will then understand  why all of the preceding
portions of your message just don't matter.

Lee Winter
Nashua, New Hampshire
United States of America

Re: Max number of loop devices OR "efficient search of Debian documentation"

On 2014-05-18, Brian  wrote:
>
> You really should try Tom H's advice. Two minutes out of your life. :)
>

So if loop is compiled as a module (as it is here) you can change the
max number of devices without rebooting (but this requires removing the
module from the running kernel, which might be difficult if any loop
devices are currently mounted)?

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/slrnlnhn2f.22g.cu...@einstein.electron.org

Re: Where to get older versions of pkgs

2014-05-18 Thread José Antonio Podadera Moya

El Domingo, 18 de mayo de 2014 11:58:02 Harry Putnam escribió:
> José Antonio Podadera Moya  writes:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > You can try to install old package versions from the snapshot archive
> > (http://snapshot.debian.org). As the page itself says:
> > 
> > "The snapshot archive is a wayback machine that allows access to old
> > packages based on dates and version numbers. It consists of all past and
> > current packages the Debian archive provides."
> > 
> > Regards,
> 
> Looking that over it appears it will be more complicated to get that
> figured out and whatever trouble using that kind of sources.list will
> cause,  than it will be fighting my way thru problems with the new
> version of sendmail I'm trying to avoid.
> 
> Thanks to both of you.

Anyway, you can download the packages from snapshot and downgrade them, 
without adding a new source to APT. Install with DPKG and be sure you put them 
on hold so they will never be upgraded again.

Regards,

José Antonio Podadera Moya


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/3204429.GGB7Ydg5Tk@pekin

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management


On 18/05/14 12:00 PM, Lee Winter wrote:
On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Gary Dale > wrote:


A lot of people responding to this post don't seem to understand
that freedom applies to more than just personal choice. The United
States was not a free nation while it accepted slavery and Firefox
is not free software while it accepts digital restrictions management.

Just as no one forced Americans to own slaves, the fact that
slavery was allowed was an insult to notion of freedom. Arguing
that the "freedom" to choose whether to own slaves or not made
Americans freer would be called ridiculous by any sane person, yet
the same argument is being bandied about in this discussion as if
it made any sense.

The Free Software Foundation got this one right.


The above message contains good rhetoric and execrable reasoning.

The above dogma confuses two basic categories of freedoms "freedom 
from" and"freedom to".  Freedom from is the ability to avoid 
undesirable situations. Freedom to is the ability to pursue desirable 
situations.


Being a slavery is something that people tend to avoid.  So the 
freedom (or lack thereof) must be assessed from the perspective of the 
slave).  If one believes otherwise then, in the vein of the above 
statements, America_was_ free because the slave _owners_ were free to 
own other human beings.  Is that the freedom you are trying to promote?


DRM is two things: a legal doctrine and a technical implementation.  
While I believe in protecting the rights of owners of intellectual 
property, both the existing DRM legal doctrine and the original and  
existing DRM implementations are flawed. So badly that I will not 
abide by them, rely upon them, nor tolerate their existence within my 
areas of control.


DRM is not about freedom of any kind. It is about control of ones 
property.  Owners of intellectual property are free (in all senses of 
the term, including Stallman's) to attach such restriction on the 
property they sell/lend/rent/gift..  Potential customers are free (in 
all senses of the term, including Stallman's) to 
buy/borrow/rent/accept (or not) that property based on its own merits 
or based on the fact of DRM restrictions.


The real argument is not about DRM restrictions.  Those restrictions 
are irrelevant.  The real argument is whether to allow DRM-restricted 
property (often called content) into one's own domain.


Anyone who proposes to restrict my ability to choose, for or against, 
DRM-restricted property is making a proposition that I will _always_ 
res/ist./ After all, it is about freedom.  Mine.  Not some wacko 
theoretical objection based on alleged principles, but a fully 
personal decision on a care-by-case basis about the property in question.


And, for the record, I do not consider intellectual property to be 
morally equivalent to a human being.  Owning property has been around 
for million of years. And I approve of that practice (see Locke).  The 
distinction is that people are not and never have been property, much 
as some would like to think of other people as property.


But, contrary to Stallman's arguments, intellectual property is real 
and worth protecting.  Otherwise I would consider every GPL 
"protected" product to have a BSD or an MIT license.  It is my respect 
for the owner's ability to set terms of use for their property that 
protects GPL'd products. Not the terms of that or any other license.


Lee Winter
Nashua, New Hampshire
United States of America

So freedom from doesn't include freedom from DRM? Unfortunately the DMCA 
and its international clones prohibit me from accessing DRM except by 
methods provided by the content owner. I am not free to use my own 
implementation through reverse engineering, etc..



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5378e142.6040...@torfree.net

Re: new 3.14-1-amd64 kernel will not boot

2014-05-18 Thread John Bleichert

On May 17, 2014, at 6:24 PM, John Bleichert  wrote:

> Hello All,
> 
> Running jessie/sid on an i7. Just installed todays updates which included an 
> update from 3.13-1-amd64 to 3.14-1-amd64 and the new kernel does not boot, it 
> just stalls at "Booting the kernel" (full console below). Any idea how to 
> debug this? The previous 3.13 kernel boots just fine! Phew!
> 

For grins I purged linux-image-3.14-1-amd64 and reset the system with the 
intention of reinstalling 3.14 via aptitude update. For some reason, the 3.14 
image does not show up as available via “aptitude update”.

Shouldn’t it be available again? To stay in sync should I try to install it 
again manually?

I am fine with 3.13 but don’t want to get out of sync. When trying to boot 3.14 
it doesn’t get far enough to leave anything at all in messages or in kern.log.

Suggestions?

JB

--
John Bleichert  -syb...@earthlink.net
The heat from below can burn your eyes out!

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/f44ff506-6230-40f4-82e0-09bf9f40f...@earthlink.net

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management


On 18/05/14 11:26 AM, Slavko wrote:

Ahoj,

Dňa Sat, 17 May 2014 21:00:48 +0900 Joel Rees 
napísal:


What Mozilla is doing is providing a framework for keeping the
companies that want into your computer out, by providing them tools to
get only what the law allows them and no more.

I am not lawyer, then i will not write about laws, nor in our country
nor international. I will write only on ethic level...

But exactly this i consider as wrong. Or will these companies allow me
to go into their computer(s) to i can see, that they don't break my
right? I will consider all companies as criminal, by the same way as
these companies consider all people as criminals (which is needed to
persecute by inspecting of their computers).

At least, most people here know, how are companies involved in people's
privacy, how they know to respect personal information, etc. Nothing
from this, only money, money and money and THEIR right. Nothing about
our rights. And this Mozilla's decision is another step to get our
right into second rail. And right are thing, for which the free
software starts, not for money, not for to be best browser, only rights.

Finally, is widely known how are these companies able to approve e.g.
GPL and right of author's  of the GPL (or similar free) software.

Once again, i am not a criminal. And i want to no criminals go into my
home at all, don't depends if they will use door or computer (internet
connection). Do you want this?

regards

Right. I can use a free implementation to access an SMB network. I can't 
use a free implementation to access DRM. Non-free DRM pollutes Firefox. 
It shouldn't do the same to Iceweasel.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5378e1ca.40...@torfree.net

Re: new 3.14-1-amd64 kernel will not boot

2014-05-18 Thread Erwan David

Le 18/05/2014 00:24, John Bleichert a écrit :
> Hello All,
>
> Running jessie/sid on an i7. Just installed todays updates which
> included an update from 3.13-1-amd64 to 3.14-1-amd64 and the new
> kernel does not boot, it just stalls at "Booting the kernel" (full
> console below). Any idea how to debug this? The previous 3.13 kernel
> boots just fine! Phew!
>
> Thanks,
>
> John
>
> ---
>
> Loading Linux 3.14-1-amd64 ...
> Loading initial ramdisk ...
> early console in decompress_kernel
>
> Decompressing Linux... Parsing ELF... done.
> Booting the kernel.
>
> *stall*
>

Same for me on a Dell PowerEdge R210

See bug 748574 that I opened.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5378e39b.3020...@rail.eu.org

Re: new 3.14-1-amd64 kernel will not boot


On 17/05/14 06:24 PM, John Bleichert wrote:

Hello All,

Running jessie/sid on an i7. Just installed todays updates which 
included an update from 3.13-1-amd64 to 3.14-1-amd64 and the new 
kernel does not boot, it just stalls at "Booting the kernel" (full 
console below). Any idea how to debug this? The previous 3.13 kernel 
boots just fine! Phew!


Thanks,

John

---

Loading Linux 3.14-1-amd64 ...
Loading initial ramdisk ...
early console in decompress_kernel

Decompressing Linux... Parsing ELF... done.
Booting the kernel.

*stall*

Works for me. Possibly something didn't complete in your install, such 
as updating the initramfs.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5378e424.6010...@torfree.net

Re: latest sendmail on testing

2014-05-18 Thread Harry Putnam

Filip  writes:

> On Sat, 17 May 2014 17:08:10 -0400
> Harry Putnam  wrote:
>
>> Filip  writes:
>> 
>> [...]
>> 
>> >> I would have thought the install of a pkg would also create any
>> >> needed directories for the pkg to operate.
>> >> 
>> >> Is it normal for user to create these things?
>> 
>> >
>> > No, it's not normal. The post-install scripts should create a
>> > working initial configuration where it at least starts up.
>> >
>> > Try reinstalling with the --reinstall option.
>> >
>> > apt-get install sendmail --reinstall
>> > apt-get install sendmail-base --reinstall
>> > apt-get install sendmail-bin --reinstall
>> >
>> > Does that give any errors ?

Just those I mentioned that only required moving a few lines in sendmail.mc

However I'm still seeing something in the smtp conversation output about
not being able to write somewhere... The message is too damn cryptic be
very helpful. (see below).

If you are running version 4.14.4-5.. maybe you could post the perms on:

/var/spool/clientmqueue (Its a directory that should be created during
install but is not).  And:
/var/lib/sendmail (There should be another directory here named
/var/lib/sendmail/host_status but it didn't get created during install either)

----   ---=---   -   
Tail of smtp conversation:

250 2.0.0 Verbose mode
>>> MAIL From: SIZE=289 AUTH=rea...@rdr.local.lan
250 2.1.0 ... Sender ok
>>> RCPT To:
>>> DATA
250 2.1.5 ... Recipient ok
354 Enter mail, end with "." on a line by itself
>>> .
421 4.3.0 collect: Cannot write ./dfs4IGodqZ004450 (bfcommit, uid=0, gid=122): 
No such file or directory
>>> QUIT
rea...@newsguy.com... Deferred: 421 4.3.0 collect: Cannot write 
./dfs4IGodqZ004450 (bfcommit, uid=0, gid=122): No such file or directory
Closing connection to [127.0.0.1]
----   ---=---   -   

I can't figure out where the damn thing is trying to write, perhaps the
root uid should be something else?

----   ---=---   -  

perms on /var/spool stuff:

total 32
drwxr-xr-x 2 rootroot4096 May 16 16:48 anacron

This one I created by hand and took the perms from the similar named
directory mqueue-client which did exist

*** drwxrws--- 2 smmsp   smmsp   4096 May 17 14:41 clientmqueue

drwxr-xr-x 5 rootroot4096 May 16 16:20 cron
drwxr-x--- 5 Debian-exim Debian-exim 4096 May 16 16:35 exim4
drwxr-xr-x 3 rootroot4096 May 16 16:18 libreoffice
lrwxrwxrwx 1 rootroot   7 May 16 15:47 mail -> ../mail
drwxrws--- 2 smmta   smmsp   4096 Feb 15 19:32 mqueue
drwxrws--- 2 smmsp   smmsp   4096 May 18 12:50 mqueue-client
drwx-- 2 rootroot4096 Mar 28 08:10 rsyslog

----   ---=---   -  

ls -ld /var/lib/sendmail

I changed this to what you see, from:
  drwxr-s--x

  drwxrws--x 3 smmta smmsp 4096 May 18 12:49 /var/lib/sendmail

ls -l /var/lib/sendmail/
-rw-rw 1 root smmsp0 May 17 21:55 dead.letter
drwxrws--- 2 root smmsp 4096 May 18 12:49 host_status





-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/871tvr3tj5@newsguy.com

users groups for in person work revisited?

2014-05-18 Thread Karen Lewellen

I have asked about this before. The goal remains needful as I have yet to 
find anyone in Toronto willing to work with me on my goals.  Last time I 
asked there was no really active debian group in Toronto, perhaps a 
 Ubintu one?

Thanks in advance,
Kare


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/pine.bsf.4.64.1405181309260.3...@server1.shellworld.net

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management

On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Gary Dale  wrote:

So freedom from doesn't include freedom from DRM?

Of course you are free from DRM.  Just don't buy/install content that is
restricted by DRM.

> Unfortunately the DMCA and its international clones prohibit me from
> accessing DRM except by methods provided by the content owner.

Yeah.  That is _their_ freedom in action.  They are perfectly free to be as
stupid as they want.

> I am not free to use my own implementation through reverse engineering,
> etc..
>

Think of the DRM as part of their packaging.  You aren't free to dictate to
them (thus limiting their freedom) that they have to ship to you in
green-qualified, 100% recycled, non-climate-harming bubble- wrap either.

Don't re-implement DRM, just find the loopholes in it and use them.  Or
exercise your freedom to choose another content vendor and tell the DRM
people about it in excruciating detail.  Whining about DRM is both unsavory
and unsatisfying.

You aren't free to ignore the consequences of attempting to ignore the law
of gravity.   Whose "fault" is that?

Lee Winter
Nashua, New Hampshire (Live Free or Die)
United States of America

Re: systemd situation in Jesssie

On Sat 17 May 2014 at 22:40:13 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:

> On Sb, 17 mai 14, 20:57:39, Sven Joachim wrote:
> > 
> > Depending on your needs, installing systemd might be mandatory in
> > unstable already (e.g. gdm3 indirectly depends on it), but you do _not_
> > have to install systemd-sysv and thus make it the default init system.
>  
> Actually gdm3 Depends: libpam-systemd, which Depends: systemd-sysv, so 
> yes, you do. network-manager and gnome-bluetooth also depend on 
> libpam-systemd.

libpam-systemd: Depends: systemd-sysv | systemd-shim.

I'm with Sven here. Install systemd-shim and systemd-sysv will not be
installed.

One consideration might be

  https://lists.debian.org/1399888483.5437.804.camel@dsp0698014

 As far as GDM is concerned, any bug reported with systemd-shim
 installed will be ignored. The bug script should probably be
 updated to that effect, BTW. 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140518174339.gz17...@copernicus.demon.co.uk

Re: latest sendmail on testing

On Sun, 18 May 2014 13:07:10 -0400
Harry Putnam  wrote:

> Filip  writes:
> 
> > On Sat, 17 May 2014 17:08:10 -0400
> > Harry Putnam  wrote:
> >
> >> Filip  writes:
> >> 
> >> [...]
> >> 
> >> >> I would have thought the install of a pkg would also create any
> >> >> needed directories for the pkg to operate.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Is it normal for user to create these things?
> >> 
> >> >
> >> > No, it's not normal. The post-install scripts should create a
> >> > working initial configuration where it at least starts up.
> >> >
> >> > Try reinstalling with the --reinstall option.
> >> >
> >> > apt-get install sendmail --reinstall
> >> > apt-get install sendmail-base --reinstall
> >> > apt-get install sendmail-bin --reinstall
> >> >
> >> > Does that give any errors ?
> 
> Just those I mentioned that only required moving a few lines in
> sendmail.mc
> 
> However I'm still seeing something in the smtp conversation output
> about not being able to write somewhere... The message is too damn
> cryptic be very helpful. (see below).
> 
> If you are running version 4.14.4-5.. maybe you could post the perms
> on:
> 
> /var/spool/clientmqueue (Its a directory that should be created during
> install but is not).  And:
> /var/lib/sendmail (There should be another directory here named
> /var/lib/sendmail/host_status but it didn't get created during
> install either)
> 
> ----   ---=---   -   
> Tail of smtp conversation:
> 
> 250 2.0.0 Verbose mode
> >>> MAIL From: SIZE=289
> >>> AUTH=rea...@rdr.local.lan
> 250 2.1.0 ... Sender ok
> >>> RCPT To:
> >>> DATA
> 250 2.1.5 ... Recipient ok
> 354 Enter mail, end with "." on a line by itself
> >>> .
> 421 4.3.0 collect: Cannot write ./dfs4IGodqZ004450 (bfcommit, uid=0,
> gid=122): No such file or directory
> >>> QUIT
> rea...@newsguy.com... Deferred: 421 4.3.0 collect: Cannot
> write ./dfs4IGodqZ004450 (bfcommit, uid=0, gid=122): No such file or
> directory Closing connection to [127.0.0.1] ---
> -   ---=---   -   
> 
> I can't figure out where the damn thing is trying to write, perhaps
> the root uid should be something else?
> 
> ----   ---=---   -  
> 
> perms on /var/spool stuff:
> 
> total 32
> drwxr-xr-x 2 rootroot4096 May 16 16:48 anacron
> 
> This one I created by hand and took the perms from the similar named
> directory mqueue-client which did exist
> 
> *** drwxrws--- 2 smmsp   smmsp   4096 May 17 14:41
> clientmqueue
> 
> drwxr-xr-x 5 rootroot4096 May 16 16:20 cron
> drwxr-x--- 5 Debian-exim Debian-exim 4096 May 16 16:35 exim4
> drwxr-xr-x 3 rootroot4096 May 16 16:18 libreoffice
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 rootroot   7 May 16 15:47 mail -> ../mail
> drwxrws--- 2 smmta   smmsp   4096 Feb 15 19:32 mqueue
> drwxrws--- 2 smmsp   smmsp   4096 May 18 12:50 mqueue-client
> drwx-- 2 rootroot4096 Mar 28 08:10 rsyslog
> 
> ----   ---=---   -  
> 
> ls -ld /var/lib/sendmail
> 
> I changed this to what you see, from:
>   drwxr-s--x
> 
>   drwxrws--x 3 smmta smmsp 4096 May 18 12:49 /var/lib/sendmail
> 
> ls -l /var/lib/sendmail/
> -rw-rw 1 root smmsp0 May 17 21:55 dead.letter
> drwxrws--- 2 root smmsp 4096 May 18 12:49 host_status
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

I have this:

drwxr-s--- 2 smmta smmsp 4096 May 18 19:46 /var/spool/mqueue
drwxrws--- 2 smmsp smmsp 4096 Feb 16 01:04 /var/spool/mqueue-client
drwxrwsrwt 2 root mail 4096 May 18 19:46 /var/mail
drwxr-s--x 2 smmta smmsp 4096 May 18 19:40 /var/lib/sendmail

mqueue-client instead of clientmqueue.

# dpkg -L sendmail-bin|grep client
/var/spool/mqueue-client

sendmail package version 8.14.4-5



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140518200525.5648e...@orac.fil

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management


On 18/05/14 01:49 PM, Lee Winter wrote:
On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Gary Dale > wrote:


So freedom from doesn't include freedom from DRM?


Of course you are free from DRM.  Just don't buy/install content that 
is restricted by DRM.


Unfortunately the DMCA and its international clones prohibit me
from accessing DRM except by methods provided by the content owner.


Yeah.  That is _their_ freedom in action.  They are perfectly free to 
be as stupid as they want.


I am not free to use my own implementation through reverse
engineering, etc..


Think of the DRM as part of their packaging.  You aren't free to 
dictate to them (thus limiting their freedom) that they have to ship 
to you in green-qualified, 100% recycled, non-climate-harming bubble- 
wrap either.


Don't re-implement DRM, just find the loopholes in it and use them.  
Or exercise your freedom to choose another content vendor and tell the 
DRM people about it in excruciating detail.  Whining about DRM is both 
unsavory and unsatisfying.


You aren't free to ignore the consequences of attempting to ignore the 
law of gravity.   Whose "fault" is that?


Lee Winter
Nashua, New Hampshire (Live Free or Die)
United States of America


If packaging prevents me from using a product for a purpose that I am 
legally entitled to use it for then I have a right to demand that the 
packaging be changed. DRM prevents not just my use on platforms that 
they don't support but also to make fair use of the product.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5378f8c8.1030...@torfree.net

Re: systemd situation in Jesssie

2014-05-18 Thread Erwan David

Le 18/05/2014 19:43, Brian a écrit :
> On Sat 17 May 2014 at 22:40:13 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>
>> On Sb, 17 mai 14, 20:57:39, Sven Joachim wrote:
>>> Depending on your needs, installing systemd might be mandatory in
>>> unstable already (e.g. gdm3 indirectly depends on it), but you do _not_
>>> have to install systemd-sysv and thus make it the default init system.
>>  
>> Actually gdm3 Depends: libpam-systemd, which Depends: systemd-sysv, so 
>> yes, you do. network-manager and gnome-bluetooth also depend on 
>> libpam-systemd.
> libpam-systemd: Depends: systemd-sysv | systemd-shim.
>
> I'm with Sven here. Install systemd-shim and systemd-sysv will not be
> installed.
>
> One consideration might be
>
>   https://lists.debian.org/1399888483.5437.804.camel@dsp0698014
>
>  As far as GDM is concerned, any bug reported with systemd-shim
>  installed will be ignored. The bug script should probably be
>  updated to that effect, BTW. 
>
>

For me this is a major bug of GDM : imposing a specific init system. But
it is same thing since beginning of gnome project : users are just
cosidered as cattle


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5378f5df.7000...@rail.eu.org

Re: systemd situation in Jesssie

On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 3:43 AM, Brian  wrote:
> I'm with Sven here. Install systemd-shim and systemd-sysv will not be
> installed.
>
> One consideration might be
>
>   https://lists.debian.org/1399888483.5437.804.camel@dsp0698014
>
>  As far as GDM is concerned, any bug reported with systemd-shim
>  installed will be ignored. The bug script should probably be
>  updated to that effect, BTW.
>

I just read that post and its follow-ups; my understanding is that
this is not a reason for avoiding systemd-shim. It's either a
statement of annoyance with no real significance, or a reason for
avoiding GNOME. (And more likely the former.)

Chris Angelico


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/captjjmrmiz3-bqrjejcfn26oxml+bvjt4ghvfefsgyhihqi...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Tails

2014-05-18 Thread Bob Holtzman

On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 11:05:43AM +0200, Francesco Ariis wrote:
> On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 10:59:31PM -0700, Bob Holtzman wrote:
> > Lighten up, lad and stop taking all things literally.
> >  
> 
> Far from be being a Thought Policeman, I felt uneasy reading the OP and
> some of the replies.

Your privilege.

> 
> Back OT, someone please tell to the investigative journalist that
> using Tails or any other OS on a compromised machine is a risky choice.
> I am sure I am preaching to the choir here, but I found people who don't
> otherwise take interest in security may think that a bootable USB will
> magically shield them from, say, a hardware key-logger.
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
> Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140518090543.ga16...@x60s.casa

-- 
Bob Holtzman
Our company's mission is to enable data-stream 
synergies with confluent bullshit mining,


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management

On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Gary Dale  wrote:

> On 18/05/14 01:49 PM, Lee Winter wrote:
>
>  On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Gary Dale > garyd...@torfree.net>> wrote:
>>
>> So freedom from doesn't include freedom from DRM?
>>
>>
>> Of course you are free from DRM.  Just don't buy/install content that is
>> restricted by DRM.
>>
>> Unfortunately the DMCA and its international clones prohibit me
>> from accessing DRM except by methods provided by the content owner.
>>
>>
>> Yeah.  That is _their_ freedom in action.  They are perfectly free to be
>> as stupid as they want.
>>
>> I am not free to use my own implementation through reverse
>> engineering, etc..
>>
>>
>> Think of the DRM as part of their packaging.  You aren't free to dictate
>> to them (thus limiting their freedom) that they have to ship to you in
>> green-qualified, 100% recycled, non-climate-harming bubble- wrap either.
>>
>> Don't re-implement DRM, just find the loopholes in it and use them.  Or
>> exercise your freedom to choose another content vendor and tell the DRM
>> people about it in excruciating detail.  Whining about DRM is both unsavory
>> and unsatisfying.
>>
>> You aren't free to ignore the consequences of attempting to ignore the
>> law of gravity.   Whose "fault" is that?
>>
>> Lee Winter
>> Nashua, New Hampshire (Live Free or Die)
>> United States of America
>>
>>
>>  If packaging prevents me from using a product for a purpose that I am
> legally entitled to use it for then I have a right to demand that the
> packaging be changed.

Correct.  Andyou can demand that all day long from the content providers
who use DRM.  But your demands are just that: requests.  Noeither you nor
anyone else has the authority to _force_ them to accept andcomply with your
demands.

More importantly, you are not legally entitled to use the product in ways
other than the provider permits.  Like Micros~1, they can require that you
hold your mouth a certain way.  Facing that requirement you are not free to
violate it.  You are free to choose a different product (despite Ballmer's
insistence otherwise).

> DRM prevents not just my use on platforms that they don't support but also
> to make fair use of the product.

It does limit the portability of the product.  That's the provider's
problem.  You are not free to solve that problem for them.

It does not limit fair use.  The term "fair use" has a technical definition
in copyright law that provides an exception to the requirement for
permission from the publisher.  That discussion is way beyond the scope of
this one.  And that discussion is irrelevant to this one I think.

Lee Winter
Nashua, New Hampshire (Live Free or Die)
United States of America

Re: systemd situation in Jesssie

On Sun 18 May 2014 at 20:03:11 +0200, Erwan David wrote:

> Le 18/05/2014 19:43, Brian a écrit :
> > On Sat 17 May 2014 at 22:40:13 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> >
> >> On Sb, 17 mai 14, 20:57:39, Sven Joachim wrote:
> >>> Depending on your needs, installing systemd might be mandatory in
> >>> unstable already (e.g. gdm3 indirectly depends on it), but you do _not_
> >>> have to install systemd-sysv and thus make it the default init system.
> >>  
> >> Actually gdm3 Depends: libpam-systemd, which Depends: systemd-sysv, so 
> >> yes, you do. network-manager and gnome-bluetooth also depend on 
> >> libpam-systemd.
> > libpam-systemd: Depends: systemd-sysv | systemd-shim.
> >
> > I'm with Sven here. Install systemd-shim and systemd-sysv will not be
> > installed.
> >
> > One consideration might be
> >
> >   https://lists.debian.org/1399888483.5437.804.camel@dsp0698014
> >
> >  As far as GDM is concerned, any bug reported with systemd-shim
> >  installed will be ignored. The bug script should probably be
> >  updated to that effect, BTW. 
> >
> >
> 
> For me this is a major bug of GDM : imposing a specific init system. But
> it is same thing since beginning of gnome project : users are just
> cosidered as cattle

The substantive part of my mail debunks the claim that GDM necessarily
imposes a specific init system. It is correct to say that gdm3 depends
on libpam-systemd, but installing systemd-shim leaves a sysvinit system
without any change in PID 1.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/18052014193330.56d7ddf98...@desktop.copernicus.demon.co.uk

Re: users groups for in person work revisited?

2014-05-18 Thread Richard Owlett


https://www.google.com/search?q=debian+user+group+toronto



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/537903e7.9000...@cloud85.net

Re: systemd situation in Jesssie

On Mon, 19 May 2014 04:11:29 +1000
Chris Angelico  wrote:

> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 3:43 AM, Brian  wrote:
> > I'm with Sven here. Install systemd-shim and systemd-sysv will not
> > be installed.
> >
> > One consideration might be
> >
> >   https://lists.debian.org/1399888483.5437.804.camel@dsp0698014
> >
> >  As far as GDM is concerned, any bug reported with systemd-shim
> >  installed will be ignored. The bug script should probably be
> >  updated to that effect, BTW.
> >
> 
> I just read that post and its follow-ups; my understanding is that
> this is not a reason for avoiding systemd-shim. It's either a
> statement of annoyance with no real significance, or a reason for
> avoiding GNOME. (And more likely the former.)
> 
> Chris Angelico
> 
> 

There are other reasons to boycot GNOME though. Look at the latest
'feature' in they put in GTK+ 3.12:

http://redmine.audacious-media-player.org/boards/1/topics/1135


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140518205113.6664d...@orac.fil

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management


On 5/18/2014 2:41 PM, Lee Winter wrote:


It does not limit fair use.  The term "fair use" has a technical
definition in copyright law that provides an exception to the
requirement for permission from the publisher.  That discussion is way
beyond the scope of this one.  And that discussion is irrelevant to this
one I think.

Lee Winter
Nashua, New Hampshire (Live Free or Die)
United States of America



Lee,

Unfortunately, too many people think that if something's on the 
Internet, "fair use" means they can use it (almost) any way they want.


And while I think that discussion is relevant to this one, I also agree 
it is well beyond the scope of what can reasonably be discussed here.


Jerry


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53790826.5010...@attglobal.net

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management


On 5/18/2014 2:15 PM, Gary Dale wrote:



If packaging prevents me from using a product for a purpose that I am
legally entitled to use it for then I have a right to demand that the
packaging be changed. DRM prevents not just my use on platforms that
they don't support but also to make fair use of the product.




Can you show where that is occurring now?

If not, your argument is without merit.

Jerry


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5379087b.6030...@attglobal.net

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management

2014-05-18 Thread Ric Moore


On 05/18/2014 03:22 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

On 5/18/2014 2:15 PM, Gary Dale wrote:



If packaging prevents me from using a product for a purpose that I am
legally entitled to use it for then I have a right to demand that the
packaging be changed. DRM prevents not just my use on platforms that
they don't support but also to make fair use of the product.




Can you show where that is occurring now?

If not, your argument is without merit.


The entire thing has become an "Unmarked Helicopters" issue. Besides, 
far worse tricks were pulled in the 80's regarding anti-copying of 
floppies. Ways were found around almost over-night. Yoho. :/ Ric


--
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:

"There are two Great Sins in the world...

..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.

Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.

https://linuxcounter.net/cert/44256.png

X-oldie-warning: Toothless but still vicious



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53790d35.9020...@gmail.com

debian-installer preseed of wheezy

2014-05-18 Thread Gregor Giesen

Dear all,

I'm trying to use a preseed.cfg with the current wheezy debian-installer
to partition my 8GiB virtio disk of a KVM virtual machine:

d-i partman-auto/expert_recipe string \
sysdisk :: \
1024 2048 1024 ext4 \
$primary{ } $bootable{ } \
method{ format } format{ } \
use_filesystem{ } filesystem{ ext4 } \
mountpoint{ / } \
. \
512 2048 512 linux-swap \
$primary{ } \
method{ swap } format{ } \
. \
2048 2048 2048 ext4 \
method{ format } format{ } \
use_filesystem{ } filesystem{ ext4 } \
mountpoint{ /usr } \
. \
2048 2048 2048 ext4 \
method{ format } format{ } \
use_filesystem{ } filesystem{ ext4 } \
mountpoint{ /var } \
. \
2048 2048 -1 ext4 \
method{ format } format{ } \
use_filesystem{ } filesystem{ ext4 } \
mountpoint{ /tmp } \
.

But this gives me the following layout:

/dev/vda1   *2048 2000895  999424   83  Linux
/dev/vda2 200294216775167 73861135  Extended
/dev/vda5 2002944 3000319  498688   82  Linux swap / Solaris
/dev/vda6 300236816775167 6886400   83  Linux

/var and /tmp are missing and /usr (vda6) takes the rest of the
harddisk. Do I have a mistake in my config or is there a bug in the
installer? Strangely the same configuration seems to work as intended
with recent Ubuntu installer.

Best,
Gregor



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management


On 18/05/14 02:41 PM, Lee Winter wrote:
On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Gary Dale > wrote:


On 18/05/14 01:49 PM, Lee Winter wrote:

On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Gary Dale
mailto:garyd...@torfree.net>
>>
wrote:

So freedom from doesn't include freedom from DRM?


Of course you are free from DRM.  Just don't buy/install
content that is restricted by DRM.

Unfortunately the DMCA and its international clones
prohibit me
from accessing DRM except by methods provided by the
content owner.


Yeah.  That is _their_ freedom in action.  They are perfectly
free to be as stupid as they want.

I am not free to use my own implementation through reverse
engineering, etc..


Think of the DRM as part of their packaging.  You aren't free
to dictate to them (thus limiting their freedom) that they
have to ship to you in green-qualified, 100% recycled,
non-climate-harming bubble- wrap either.

Don't re-implement DRM, just find the loopholes in it and use
them.  Or exercise your freedom to choose another content
vendor and tell the DRM people about it in excruciating
detail.  Whining about DRM is both unsavory and unsatisfying.

You aren't free to ignore the consequences of attempting to
ignore the law of gravity.   Whose "fault" is that?

Lee Winter
Nashua, New Hampshire (Live Free or Die)
United States of America


If packaging prevents me from using a product for a purpose that I
am legally entitled to use it for then I have a right to demand
that the packaging be changed.


Correct.  Andyou can demand that all day long from the content 
providers who use DRM.  But your demands are just that: requests.  
Noeither you nor anyone else has the authority to _force_ them to 
accept andcomply with your demands.


More importantly, you are not legally entitled to use the product in 
ways other than the provider permits.  Like Micros~1, they can require 
that you hold your mouth a certain way.  Facing that requirement you 
are not free to violate it.  You are free to choose a different 
product (despite Ballmer's insistence otherwise).


DRM prevents not just my use on platforms that they don't support
but also to make fair use of the product.


It does limit the portability of the product.  That's the provider's 
problem.  You are not free to solve that problem for them.


It does not limit fair use.  The term "fair use" has a technical 
definition in copyright law that provides an exception to the 
requirement for permission from the publisher.  That discussion is way 
beyond the scope of this one.  And that discussion is irrelevant to 
this one I think.


So I am free to build a fence on public property that denies my 
neighbour the right to access his house? That seems to be the crux of 
your argument.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/537912b3.7060...@torfree.net

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management


On 18/05/14 03:22 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

On 5/18/2014 2:15 PM, Gary Dale wrote:



If packaging prevents me from using a product for a purpose that I am
legally entitled to use it for then I have a right to demand that the
packaging be changed. DRM prevents not just my use on platforms that
they don't support but also to make fair use of the product.




Can you show where that is occurring now?

If not, your argument is without merit.

Jerry


Yes. It's happening everywhere DRM is being used. I support the Free 
Software Foundation's campaign against digital restrictions.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5379132e.8070...@torfree.net

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management


On 5/18/2014 4:06 PM, Gary Dale wrote:


So I am free to build a fence on public property that denies my
neighbour the right to access his house? That seems to be the crux of
your argument.




Strawman argument.  A fence has nothing to do with intellectual property 
or copyright law.


Jerry


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/537913f3.4040...@attglobal.net

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management


On 5/18/2014 4:08 PM, Gary Dale wrote:

On 18/05/14 03:22 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

On 5/18/2014 2:15 PM, Gary Dale wrote:



If packaging prevents me from using a product for a purpose that I am
legally entitled to use it for then I have a right to demand that the
packaging be changed. DRM prevents not just my use on platforms that
they don't support but also to make fair use of the product.




Can you show where that is occurring now?

If not, your argument is without merit.

Jerry



Yes. It's happening everywhere DRM is being used. I support the Free
Software Foundation's campaign against digital restrictions.




Your proof?  Claims alone are without merit.

Jerry


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5379142d.1050...@attglobal.net

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management


On 18/05/14 03:42 PM, Ric Moore wrote:

On 05/18/2014 03:22 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

On 5/18/2014 2:15 PM, Gary Dale wrote:



If packaging prevents me from using a product for a purpose that I am
legally entitled to use it for then I have a right to demand that the
packaging be changed. DRM prevents not just my use on platforms that
they don't support but also to make fair use of the product.




Can you show where that is occurring now?

If not, your argument is without merit.


The entire thing has become an "Unmarked Helicopters" issue. Besides, 
far worse tricks were pulled in the 80's regarding anti-copying of 
floppies. Ways were found around almost over-night. Yoho. :/ Ric


Sadly the digital restrictions are becoming worse. While the DVD CSS was 
cracked as were early BluRay DRMs, the current DRMs are much harder to 
circumvent.


This is due in part to the Internet and in part due to better 
technology, which allows players to be updated to include new schemes 
when the older ones are cracked. You couldn't do that with DVD players 
because the original schemes were hard coded and not set up to be 
updated. BluRay players allow the DRM schemes to be updated to play new 
movies that come out using them.


The DRM schemes seem to much harder to crack as well, judging from the 
number of BluRays that require a commercial environment to be playable. 
Linux can play the movies only if they aren't using the latest DRM 
schemes. Otherwise you need Windows, a Mac or a dedicated player.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5379150c.7020...@torfree.net

Re: new 3.14-1-amd64 kernel will not boot

2014-05-18 Thread John Bleichert


On 05/18/2014 12:45 PM, Erwan David wrote:


Loading Linux 3.14-1-amd64 ...
Loading initial ramdisk ...
early console in decompress_kernel

Decompressing Linux... Parsing ELF... done.
Booting the kernel.

*stall*



Same for me on a Dell PowerEdge R210

See bug 748574 that I opened.




I subscribed to the bug, not sure if I did it correctly. Please feel 
free to email me off-list if I can help. I have a failsafe kernel 
installed/saved so I can test anything.


JB

--
---
John Bleichert-syb...@earthlink.net
The heat from below can burn your eyes out!


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5379169d.1070...@earthlink.net

can't get wicd to work

2014-05-18 Thread tom arnall

I'm trying to get my wifi set up under wheezy using wicd.

I've followed all the instructions at:

https://wiki.debian.org/WiFi/HowToUse#Wicd

When I do ~/$ wicd-client -n I get:

"No wireless networks found."



The following is the output from the session:
(My username is 'tom'.)

~/$ cat /etc/network/interfaces
# This file describes the network interfaces available on your system
# and how to activate them. For more information, see interfaces(5).

# The loopback network interface
auto lo
iface lo inet loopback

root@debian:/home/tom# adduser tom netdev
The user `tom' is already a member of `netdev'.
root@debian:/home/tom#

root@debian:/home/tom#  /etc/init.d/dbus reload
[ ok ] Reloading system message bus config...done.
root@debian:/home/tom#

root@debian:/home/tom#  /etc/init.d/wicd start
[ ok ] Starting Network connection manager: wicd.
root@debian:/home/tom#

root@debian:/home/tom# exit
exit
  ~/$ wicd-client -n
  Has notifications support True
  Loading...
  Connecting to daemon...
  Connected.
  refreshing...

And get:

"No wireless networks found."

on the gui.

I tried the same procedure with 'lo' changed to 'wlan0'.

The following is output of ifconfig and iwconfig:

root@debian:/home/tom# ifconfig
eth0  Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:1c:23:2f:f3:8f
  inet addr:192.168.0.14  Bcast:192.168.0.255  Mask:255.255.255.0
  inet6 addr: fe80::21c:23ff:fe2f:f38f/64 Scope:Link
  UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
  RX packets:1027 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
  TX packets:981 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
  collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
  RX bytes:471487 (460.4 KiB)  TX bytes:159963 (156.2 KiB)
  Interrupt:17

loLink encap:Local Loopback
  inet addr:127.0.0.1  Mask:255.0.0.0
  inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host
  UP LOOPBACK RUNNING  MTU:16436  Metric:1
  RX packets:20 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
  TX packets:20 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
  collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
  RX bytes:1544 (1.5 KiB)  TX bytes:1544 (1.5 KiB)

root@debian:/home/tom#

root@debian:/home/tom# iwconfig
lono wireless extensions.

wlan0 IEEE 802.11bg  ESSID:off/any
  Mode:Managed  Access Point: Not-Associated   Tx-Power=0 dBm
  Retry  long limit:7   RTS thr:off   Fragment thr:off
  Encryption key:off
  Power Management:on

eth0  no wireless extensions.

root@debian:/home/tom#



What am I doing wrong?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/CAFKYrxrb=d73vid_9ouc6sus6kasdb-mbx_gdwtrnhmhajl...@mail.gmail.com

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management

On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Gary Dale  wrote:
>
> A lot of people responding to this post don't seem to understand that
> freedom applies to more than just personal choice. The United States was not
> a free nation while it accepted slavery and Firefox is not free software
> while it accepts digital restrictions management.
>
> Just as no one forced Americans to own slaves, the fact that slavery was
> allowed was an insult to notion of freedom. Arguing that the "freedom" to
> choose whether to own slaves or not made Americans freer would be called
> ridiculous by any sane person, yet the same argument is being bandied about
> in this discussion as if it made any sense.
>
> The Free Software Foundation got this one right.

Drawing a parallel between slavery and DRM is delirious!

A country allowing slavery means allowing some people to restrict the
freedom other people.

Mozilla allowing its users to download a non-free Firefox extension
like flash or the new DRM plugin doesn't restrict anyone's freedom,
especially since you'll only end up with the new DRM plugin if you opt
in to downloading and using it and it looks like you'll be able to
compile Firefox without the non-free plugin's free container.

You seem to have an issue with copyrights, and are venting about DRM
because it enables copyright holders.

"Tilting at windmills" comes to mind...

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=swhcz-fva2r8dcinuwqb+dmp_jjfe2bcss2kekprk0...@mail.gmail.com

Re: can't get wicd to work

On Sunday 18 May 2014 22:25:43 tom arnall wrote:
> root@debian:/home/tom# ifconfig

What does ifconfig -a give?

Lisi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/201405182302.50470.lisi.re...@gmail.com

Re: Max number of loop devices OR "efficient search of Debian documentation"

On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Filip  wrote:
> On Sun, 18 May 2014 15:15:34 + (UTC)
> Curt  wrote:
>> On 2014-05-18, Richard Owlett  wrote:
>>>
>>> My current instance is attempting to modify the max number of
>>> loop devices. One pellet of Google buckshot reminded me that it
>>> can be reset for the next re-boot under /etc/modprobe.d . But I
>>> want to reset it on the fly.
>>
>> I'm reading you can *add* another loop device on the fly
>> with the mknod command:
>>
>> mknod -m 660 /dev/loop8 b 7 8
>
> You can create devices nodes with that in the filesystem, but they will
> not work unless they also exist in the kernel.

The kernel knows about a mknod-created loop device once you use losetup.


# ls1 /dev/loop*
/dev/loop0
/dev/loop1
/dev/loop2
/dev/loop3
/dev/loop4
/dev/loop5
/dev/loop6
/dev/loop7
/dev/loop-control

# mknod -m 660 /dev/loop99 b 7 99

# ls1 /dev/loop*
/dev/loop0
/dev/loop1
/dev/loop2
/dev/loop3
/dev/loop4
/dev/loop5
/dev/loop6
/dev/loop7
/dev/loop99
/dev/loop-control

# find /sys -name loop99

# losetup /dev/loop99 disk.img

# find /sys -name loop99
/sys/devices/virtual/block/loop99
/sys/block/loop99
/sys/class/block/loop99


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=SxPygSK=s7fx7hw0ocoesnd0kvtzkhgx9z1ubwkpf5...@mail.gmail.com

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management

On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Gary Dale  wrote:

> On 18/05/14 02:41 PM, Lee Winter wrote:
>
>> On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Gary Dale > garyd...@torfree.net>> wrote:
>>
>> On 18/05/14 01:49 PM, Lee Winter wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Gary Dale
>> mailto:garyd...@torfree.net>
>> >>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> So freedom from doesn't include freedom from DRM?
>>
>>
>> Of course you are free from DRM.  Just don't buy/install
>> content that is restricted by DRM.
>>
>> Unfortunately the DMCA and its international clones
>> prohibit me
>> from accessing DRM except by methods provided by the
>> content owner.
>>
>>
>> Yeah.  That is _their_ freedom in action.  They are perfectly
>> free to be as stupid as they want.
>>
>> I am not free to use my own implementation through reverse
>> engineering, etc..
>>
>>
>> Think of the DRM as part of their packaging.  You aren't free
>> to dictate to them (thus limiting their freedom) that they
>> have to ship to you in green-qualified, 100% recycled,
>> non-climate-harming bubble- wrap either.
>>
>> Don't re-implement DRM, just find the loopholes in it and use
>> them.  Or exercise your freedom to choose another content
>> vendor and tell the DRM people about it in excruciating
>> detail.  Whining about DRM is both unsavory and unsatisfying.
>>
>> You aren't free to ignore the consequences of attempting to
>> ignore the law of gravity.   Whose "fault" is that?
>>
>> Lee Winter
>> Nashua, New Hampshire (Live Free or Die)
>> United States of America
>>
>>
>> If packaging prevents me from using a product for a purpose that I
>> am legally entitled to use it for then I have a right to demand
>> that the packaging be changed.
>>
>>
>> Correct.  Andyou can demand that all day long from the content providers
>> who use DRM.  But your demands are just that: requests.  Noeither you nor
>> anyone else has the authority to _force_ them to accept andcomply with your
>> demands.
>>
>> More importantly, you are not legally entitled to use the product in ways
>> other than the provider permits.  Like Micros~1, they can require that you
>> hold your mouth a certain way.  Facing that requirement you are not free to
>> violate it.  You are free to choose a different product (despite Ballmer's
>> insistence otherwise).
>>
>> DRM prevents not just my use on platforms that they don't support
>> but also to make fair use of the product.
>>
>>
>> It does limit the portability of the product.  That's the provider's
>> problem.  You are not free to solve that problem for them.
>>
>> It does not limit fair use.  The term "fair use" has a technical
>> definition in copyright law that provides an exception to the requirement
>> for permission from the publisher.  That discussion is way beyond the scope
>> of this one.  And that discussion is irrelevant to this one I think.
>>
>
> So I am free to build a fence on public property that denies my neighbour
> the right to access his house? That seems to be the crux of your argument.


No.  That is neither part of nor related to my argument.

Lee Winter
Nashua, New Hampshire (Live Free or Die)
United States of America

Re: Iceweasel and DRM

On Friday 16 May 2014 19:13:11 Brian wrote:
> The iplayer offerings can be viewed on all platforms. It uses Flash.

Now, yes.  But not initially.  And the BBC wasn't put off by the fact that 
only one browser could read their content.  It was put off by the large 
volume of loud complaints from licence payers who could not access the 
content that they had paid for.

Lisi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/201405182311.54013.lisi.re...@gmail.com

Re: Max number of loop devices OR "efficient search of Debian documentation"

On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Curt  wrote:
> On 2014-05-18, Tom H  wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm reading you can *add* another loop device on the fly
>>> with the mknod command:
>>>
>>> mknod -m 660 /dev/loop8 b 7 8
>>
>> You'll have to run "chown root:disk /dev/loop8" too.
>
> Nobody mentioned that in my reading!

ls -l /dev/loop*


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=sxza8golebpmgar9m6jcprbz9uekf_bwivoa_qb8fn...@mail.gmail.com

Re: latest sendmail on testing

2014-05-18 Thread Harry Putnam

Filip  writes:

[...]

>> If you are running version 4.14.4-5.. maybe you could post the perms
>> on:
> 
>> /var/spool/clientmqueue (Its a directory that should be created during
>> install but is not).  And:
>> /var/lib/sendmail (There should be another directory here named
>> /var/lib/sendmail/host_status but it didn't get created during
>> install either)
>> 
>> ----   ---=---   -   
>> Tail of smtp conversation:
>> 
>> 250 2.0.0 Verbose mode
>> >>> MAIL From: SIZE=289
>> >>> AUTH=rea...@rdr.local.lan
>> 250 2.1.0 ... Sender ok
>> >>> RCPT To:
>> >>> DATA
>> 250 2.1.5 ... Recipient ok
>> 354 Enter mail, end with "." on a line by itself
>> >>> .
>> 421 4.3.0 collect: Cannot write ./dfs4IGodqZ004450 (bfcommit, uid=0,
>> gid=122): No such file or directory
>> >>> QUIT
>> rea...@newsguy.com... Deferred: 421 4.3.0 collect: Cannot
>> write ./dfs4IGodqZ004450 (bfcommit, uid=0, gid=122): No such file or
>> directory Closing connection to [127.0.0.1] ---
>> -   ---=---   -   
>> 
>> I can't figure out where the damn thing is trying to write, perhaps
>> the root uid should be something else?
>> 
>> ----   ---=---   -  
>> 
>> perms on /var/spool stuff:
>> 
>> total 32
>> drwxr-xr-x 2 rootroot4096 May 16 16:48 anacron
>> 
>> This one I created by hand and took the perms from the similar named
>> directory mqueue-client which did exist
>> 
>> *** drwxrws--- 2 smmsp   smmsp   4096 May 17 14:41
>> clientmqueue
>> 
>> drwxr-xr-x 5 rootroot4096 May 16 16:20 cron
>> drwxr-x--- 5 Debian-exim Debian-exim 4096 May 16 16:35 exim4
>> drwxr-xr-x 3 rootroot4096 May 16 16:18 libreoffice
>> lrwxrwxrwx 1 rootroot   7 May 16 15:47 mail -> ../mail
>> drwxrws--- 2 smmta   smmsp   4096 Feb 15 19:32 mqueue
>> drwxrws--- 2 smmsp   smmsp   4096 May 18 12:50 mqueue-client
>> drwx-- 2 rootroot4096 Mar 28 08:10 rsyslog
>> 
>> ----   ---=---   -  
>> 
>> ls -ld /var/lib/sendmail
>> 
>> I changed this to what you see, from:
>>   drwxr-s--x
>> 
>>   drwxrws--x 3 smmta smmsp 4096 May 18 12:49 /var/lib/sendmail
>> 
>> ls -l /var/lib/sendmail/
>> -rw-rw 1 root smmsp0 May 17 21:55 dead.letter
>> drwxrws--- 2 root smmsp 4096 May 18 12:49 host_status

>
> I have this:
>
> drwxr-s--- 2 smmta smmsp 4096 May 18 19:46 /var/spool/mqueue
> drwxrws--- 2 smmsp smmsp 4096 Feb 16 01:04 /var/spool/mqueue-client
> drwxrwsrwt 2 root mail 4096 May 18 19:46 /var/mail
> drwxr-s--x 2 smmta smmsp 4096 May 18 19:40 /var/lib/sendmail
>
> mqueue-client instead of clientmqueue.
>
> # dpkg -L sendmail-bin|grep client
> /var/spool/mqueue-client
>
> sendmail package version 8.14.4-5

If you recall, in the OP that started this thread I posted the output of
my first attempt at running sendmail:

   # service sendmail start

   [] Starting Mail Transport Agent (MTA): sendmailcan not
   chdir(/var/spool/clientmqueue/): No such file or directory

   Warning: Cannot use HostStatusDirectory =
   /var/lib/sendmail/host_status: No such file or directory

I created /var/spool/clientmqueue because of that first part
That is where my interest in /var/spool/clientmqueue began.

Why is sendmail attempting to chdir to a directory that is not part of
its working setup?

Why is sendmail trying to use a non-existent directory in the second bit
above? 

What are those errors about?

Further, could you make any sense of the smtp output I posted:

,
|  421 4.3.0 collect: Cannot write ./dfs4IGodqZ004450 (bfcommit, uid=0,
|  gid=122): No such file or directory
|  >>> QUIT
|  rea...@newsguy.com... Deferred: 421 4.3.0 collect: Cannot
|  write ./dfs4IGodqZ004450 (bfcommit, uid=0, gid=122): No such file or
|  directory Closing connection to [127.0.0.1]
`

Where is sendmail trying to write?  Why is sendmail trying to write to
something that does not exist?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87wqdi3enj@newsguy.com

Re: systemd situation in Jesssie

On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 11:29 AM, David Dušanić  wrote:
>
> Systemd-shim is there to provide functions by systemd on a system that does
> not use it as its init system. It could be useful when you depend on Gnome 3
> software like network-manager but do not want to use systemd.

AFAIUI:

It's not clear that systemd-shim is going to be updated to deal with
systemd 208 (it works with systemd 204) because of changes in the
kernel's cgroup implementation because Ubuntu's switching to systemd
so it doesn't need to do so.

So unless someone packages Ubuntu's cgmanager and patches logind 208
to use it (and perhaps does even more than that), it's unlikely that
systemd-shim will be useful in jessie as a systemd
mini-/micro-substitute.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=Sydx=u0sgmuxxdsxwvhobokn3lqzum844pomk-5_1+...@mail.gmail.com

Re: systemd - excessive session-creation time

On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Erwan David  wrote:
> Le 18/05/2014 08:34, Tom H a écrit :
>> On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 10:49 PM, Zenaan Harkness  wrote:
>>>
>>> Although initial tty session (from boot) is quicker than with
>>> sysvinit, additional tty sessions are very slow to start, in the order
>>> of 5 seconds (which seems like an eternity).
>>>
>>> Additionally, this slow tty/session creation time is seen when:
>>> *) exiting X - ie logout back to terminal (from startx)
>>> *) Shutdown from XFCE logout/shutdown dialog
>>>
>>> When exiting X from a startx at the linux tty, there appears to be a
>>> large session tear-down time.
>>>
>>> In addition, a similarly long duration is seen when (as stated)
>>> starting another linux vt.
>>
>> By default, other than tty1 (via
>> "/etc/systemd/system/getty.target.wants/getty@tty1.service"), VTs are
>> started dynamically as needed.
>>
>> If you want tty2 to be available permanently and persistently through
>> reboots, run:
>>
>> systemctl enable getty@tty2.service
>> systemctl start getty@tty2.service
>>
>> The first command will create a
>> "/etc/systemd/system/getty.target.wants/getty@tty2.service" symlink to
>> "/lib/systemd/system/getty@.service", which is more or less similar
>> to, in the case of a hypothetical getty@tty2 sysvinit script, having
>> "update-rc.d enable getty@tty2" create
>> "/etc/rc{2,3,4,5}.d/Sabgetty@tty2" and "/etc/rc{0,6}.d/Kcdgetty@tty2"
>> symlinks to "/etc/init.d/getty@tty2".
>
> And is there a way toi keep current behaviour : X session on tty 7 ?

What does the above have to do with X and tty7?


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=Sw-mPnCbcxQChZtqTS66pTXyPGxW=0Gmi5�rg9pd...@mail.gmail.com

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management

2014-05-18 Thread The Wanderer

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

On 05/18/2014 05:49 PM, Tom H wrote:

> You seem to have an issue with copyrights, and are venting about DRM
> because it enables copyright holders.

DRM doesn't just "enable copyright holders".

Copyright law restricts what people are allowed to do.

DRM restricts what people are *able* to do.

When the copyright on something expires (not that that ever happens
nowadays), it enters the public domain, and people are allowed to copy
and redistribute it as much as they care to. This is, in fact, the goal
and the purpose of copyright, at least in USA law.

If the copyright on something restricted by DRM were to expire, and the
DRM were still effective (or if breaking it were forbidden, e.g. by
anti-circumvention laws), then although people would be *allowed* to
copy and redistribute it at will, they would still not be *able* to do
so, without permission from whoever controls the DRM - which would,
likely, be the former holder of the copyright.

There's more, but that should do as a first point. Objections to DRM go
far beyond just objections to copyright.

- --
   The Wanderer

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.

A government exists to serve its citizens, not to control them.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=wBMl
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/537936b5.20...@fastmail.fm

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management

On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Gary Dale  wrote:
>
> So I am free to build a fence on public property that denies my neighbour
> the right to access his house? That seems to be the crux of your argument.

You ought to go in to politics because this is yet another ridiculous
parallel of the kind that politicians use to fool voters.

In what way are Mozilla, Adobe, or a copyright holder building a fence
on public property when a user freely installs a plugin on his/her own
computer in order to download restricted content? It's all done
without impinging on anyone else's property or liberty.

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=Sw-kaK039-hwd-qdVAxJ=4uq5gjv8k3doj6f0nb7f5...@mail.gmail.com

Re: systemd situation in Jesssie

On Sun 18 May 2014 at 19:43:19 +0100, Brian wrote:

> The substantive part of my mail debunks the claim that GDM necessarily
> imposes a specific init system. It is correct to say that gdm3 depends
> on libpam-systemd, but installing systemd-shim leaves a sysvinit system
> without any change in PID 1.

This is the situation at present with unstable. The future is less clear:

  https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/05/msg00469.html

  https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/05/msg00532.html  


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140518232526.ga17...@copernicus.demon.co.uk

Re: users groups for in person work revisited?

2014-05-18 Thread Dan Ritter

On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 01:11:57PM -0400, Karen Lewellen wrote:
> I have asked about this before. The goal remains needful as I have
> yet to find anyone in Toronto willing to work with me on my goals.
> Last time I asked there was no really active debian group in
> Toronto, perhaps a  Ubintu one?
> Thanks in advance,
> Kare

Talk to gtalug.org. You'll find that Linux users often have
useful cross-distro knowledge.

-dsr-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140519001328.gb4...@randomstring.org

Re: Iceweasel and DRM

>> Debian is based on freedom.
>
> Yes.
> Freedom to choose.
> Free will - have you heard of the concept? Or is that redundant in the
> new world where someone will tell me what to think and ensure laws and
> protests against bad weather and sharp corners on furniture?

Yes, pretty well redundant. Of course - freedom means complain the
government didn't "fix it", and if anyone says the govt was paid off
then complain about the complainer being a conspiracy nut. Oh what
tautological joy! Such sanity! Such ... deep conversation.

Debian might be about freedom to choose, but certainly the freedom to
think (about anything) is entirely optional, mostly despised and
pretty damn rare these days.

Emotionally effective entertainment is the lowest common denom. of
allowed communication now...

Farewell, free world. :'(

>> they can always download
>> Firefox but they should have a choice for freedom.

Not picking on anyone here, but I found that a really ironic
statement, on the face of it, given the context.

Regards to all,
Zenaan


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/CAOsGNSQ4deW-y43mgBtAoG6PpoBgnLGz_E_Tv=szp-cl5hp...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Iceweasel and DRM

On 5/16/14, Gary Dale  wrote:
> On 15/05/14 04:04 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>> On Jo, 15 mai 14, 00:27:08, Gary Dale wrote:
>>> To not remove digital restrictions support undermines a
>>> major strength of Debian. If people want DRM, they can always download
>>> Firefox but they should have a choice for freedom.
>> There is no need to remove *support* for DRM, as long as it is Free
>> Software (according to Debian's definition). Whether to use it (or not)
>> must be the choice of the user.
>>
> I disagree again. The presence of DRM material is an affront to the open
> nature of the web.

The 'open nature of the web' is an affront to those with proprietary
mindsets who wish to close the web and monetize all human activity.

The question is how best to handle this affront to the affront to the
open web. There are different yet valid strategies.

> Mozilla's decision to cave in to the DRM crowd
> doesn't need to be echoed by Debian. DRM isn't a user's choice. It's the
> choice of the site owners. Groups like Debian should be backing the FSF
> on this by refusing to endorse web content restrictions.

A valid strategy. Not the only one which might be effective in the
long run. Your proposed strategy to reclaim the open web might be the
most effective one, I don't know.

Good luck
Zenaan


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/caosgnsrsd0mv3qg0_9zry7zwhkb4bkfwd-rozncfkqbcz7d...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Iceweasel and DRM

On 5/15/14, Andrei POPESCU  wrote:
> On Jo, 15 mai 14, 00:27:08, Gary Dale wrote:
>> I disagree. Browser support for DRM makes it easier for people to provide
>> content that uses DRM. After all, if every browser supports it, why not
>> use it?
>>
>> Debian is based on freedom. Iceweasel exists because Firefox contained
>> proprietary parts.
>
> Iceweasel exists because the trademark policy for Firefox requires all
> changes to the browser to be approved my the Mozilla Corporation and
> this conflicts with Debian's usual security support strategy for stable.
>
> Lately Mozilla has been providing the ESR and Debian has been upgrading
> iceweasel in wheezy via the security archive. I'd say there are chances
> that Jessie releases with Firefox instead of Iceweasel.
>
>> To not remove digital restrictions support undermines a
>> major strength of Debian. If people want DRM, they can always download
>> Firefox but they should have a choice for freedom.
>
> There is no need to remove *support* for DRM, as long as it is Free
> Software (according to Debian's definition). Whether to use it (or not)
> must be the choice of the user.

Freedom 0 (zero) if I remember rightly - the freedom to use for any purpose.

I guess the problem is education - most people click "yes, do
everything you possibly can to allow me to watch this popular thing
NOW and don't even THINK about making me think about concepts or
anything I want to be _entertained_ only".

So Gary, how do we handle this problem of lack of educated thinkers?
Cause that's the real problem as I see it.

Regards
Zenaan


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/caosgnsspwkqapkbebzcgf7+osavmh1k5cbh9aftrx4rqze+...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Iceweasel and DRM

On 5/16/14, Jerry Stuckle  wrote:
> On 5/15/2014 12:16 PM, Gary Dale wrote:
>> On 15/05/14 04:04 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>>> On Jo, 15 mai 14, 00:27:08, Gary Dale wrote:
 I disagree. Browser support for DRM makes it easier for people to
 provide
 content that uses DRM. After all, if every browser supports it, why
 not use
 it?

 Debian is based on freedom. Iceweasel exists because Firefox contained
 proprietary parts.
>>> Iceweasel exists because the trademark policy for Firefox requires all
>>> changes to the browser to be approved my the Mozilla Corporation and
>>> this conflicts with Debian's usual security support strategy for stable.
>>>
>>> Lately Mozilla has been providing the ESR and Debian has been upgrading
>>> iceweasel in wheezy via the security archive. I'd say there are chances
>>> that Jessie releases with Firefox instead of Iceweasel.
>>>
 To not remove digital restrictions support undermines a
 major strength of Debian. If people want DRM, they can always download
 Firefox but they should have a choice for freedom.
>>> There is no need to remove *support* for DRM, as long as it is Free
>>> Software (according to Debian's definition). Whether to use it (or not)
>>> must be the choice of the user.
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Andrei
>> I disagree again. The presence of DRM material is an affront to the open
>> nature of the web. Mozilla's decision to cave in to the DRM crowd
>> doesn't need to be echoed by Debian. DRM isn't a user's choice. It's the
>> choice of the site owners. Groups like Debian should be backing the FSF
>> on this by refusing to endorse web content restrictions.
>
> As it should be.  The site owners own the content, and they get to
> decide what is being done with it.

In fact you are wrong!

Content consumers get to choose how they 'consume content'.

Put another way: those with a vested interest, get their say, whether
site 'owners' (one group with a vested interest) or 'consumers'.

We, mere 'content consumers' have rights, we have an interest and some
of these interests are even recognized in law.

Once I buy a DVD, _I_ get to decide how that DVD is used. If you sell
it to me, you get jack shit of a choice over my actions thereafter!

You might not like that, so welcome to wake up and smell reality.

> Copyright violations are rampant on the web.

Thank you for refraining from calling that piracy.

> If there were no problem, DRM would not be required.

Please, do speak of the 'problem' that is in your mind. I'm genuinely curious.

> People deserve to protect what they worked
> hard (and often paid) for.

I worked hard to earn those dollars to buy my DVD. Yes I have a right
to protect my DVD and my viewing of that DVD. I have a right to look
after and enrich my children and spouse too, so I'm going to let them
watch my hard-earned DVD too!

And if it's a cartoon DVD, I'll put a copy on my children's computer
so they can watch it over and over.

> Just because it's there does not mean you have a
> right to use it as you see fit.

Just because _you_ think you have a right to control my private
activities does not make it so!

Just because _you_ think you have a right to arbitrary copyright
monopoly power which is against the natural growth of a community's
popular culture, does not make it so!

> Try using a car that was parked on the street, just because it
> was there.  See how far you get.

Deprivation of goods is deprivation. Re-performance of a song, does
not deprive you of that song.

Go read the GPL (2) again!

And please, for your own dignity's sake, stop using these old logical
fallacies, conflation and deception to try to make your point. The
crown here on debian-user is most likely more educated than most of
congress combined. You will have to try better than that in these
parts.

Zenaan

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/CAOsGNST1cVLoBBwnEqB0=nkzrbbwtvk0veaiakhk-3jfb9+...@mail.gmail.com

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management


On 5/18/2014 6:39 PM, The Wanderer wrote:

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

On 05/18/2014 05:49 PM, Tom H wrote:


You seem to have an issue with copyrights, and are venting about DRM
because it enables copyright holders.


DRM doesn't just "enable copyright holders".

Copyright law restricts what people are allowed to do.

DRM restricts what people are *able* to do.

When the copyright on something expires (not that that ever happens
nowadays), it enters the public domain, and people are allowed to copy
and redistribute it as much as they care to. This is, in fact, the goal
and the purpose of copyright, at least in USA law.



Copyrights last a long time, depending on the laws of the country under 
which the item is copyrighted.  But typically it is either 75 years from 
the original copyright, or 75 years after the death of the owner 
(author) of the copyrighted material.  Both are much longer than the 
Internet has existed.



If the copyright on something restricted by DRM were to expire, and the
DRM were still effective (or if breaking it were forbidden, e.g. by
anti-circumvention laws), then although people would be *allowed* to
copy and redistribute it at will, they would still not be *able* to do
so, without permission from whoever controls the DRM - which would,
likely, be the former holder of the copyright.

There's more, but that should do as a first point. Objections to DRM go
far beyond just objections to copyright.



Please show an example where that has occurred.

Jerry


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53795f00.3000...@attglobal.net

Re: Iceweasel and DRM


On 5/18/2014 8:54 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

On 5/16/14, Jerry Stuckle  wrote:

On 5/15/2014 12:16 PM, Gary Dale wrote:

On 15/05/14 04:04 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:

On Jo, 15 mai 14, 00:27:08, Gary Dale wrote:

I disagree. Browser support for DRM makes it easier for people to
provide
content that uses DRM. After all, if every browser supports it, why
not use
it?

Debian is based on freedom. Iceweasel exists because Firefox contained
proprietary parts.

Iceweasel exists because the trademark policy for Firefox requires all
changes to the browser to be approved my the Mozilla Corporation and
this conflicts with Debian's usual security support strategy for stable.

Lately Mozilla has been providing the ESR and Debian has been upgrading
iceweasel in wheezy via the security archive. I'd say there are chances
that Jessie releases with Firefox instead of Iceweasel.


To not remove digital restrictions support undermines a
major strength of Debian. If people want DRM, they can always download
Firefox but they should have a choice for freedom.

There is no need to remove *support* for DRM, as long as it is Free
Software (according to Debian's definition). Whether to use it (or not)
must be the choice of the user.

Kind regards,
Andrei

I disagree again. The presence of DRM material is an affront to the open
nature of the web. Mozilla's decision to cave in to the DRM crowd
doesn't need to be echoed by Debian. DRM isn't a user's choice. It's the
choice of the site owners. Groups like Debian should be backing the FSF
on this by refusing to endorse web content restrictions.


As it should be.  The site owners own the content, and they get to
decide what is being done with it.


In fact you are wrong!

Content consumers get to choose how they 'consume content'.



The law says otherwise.  Those who invested their time (and money) 
creating the content get to decide what is done with that.



Put another way: those with a vested interest, get their say, whether
site 'owners' (one group with a vested interest) or 'consumers'.



Yes.  Those who have spent their time and money have a "vested 
interest".  Consumers have none.



We, mere 'content consumers' have rights, we have an interest and some
of these interests are even recognized in law.



Actually, you have NO RIGHTS.  You can do only what the content creators 
say you can do.



Once I buy a DVD, _I_ get to decide how that DVD is used. If you sell
it to me, you get jack shit of a choice over my actions thereafter!



No, you don't.  For instance, if you look at the license for DVD's made 
for home use, it states you cannot use it for "public performances". 
You can only use that at home.



You might not like that, so welcome to wake up and smell reality.



Exactly.  Wake up and smell reality.




Copyright violations are rampant on the web.


Thank you for refraining from calling that piracy.



OK, since you insist, I'll call it what it is - piracy.  I was trying to 
be kind.  But I see that is lost on you.





If there were no problem, DRM would not be required.


Please, do speak of the 'problem' that is in your mind. I'm genuinely curious.



Piracy, for one thing.




People deserve to protect what they worked
hard (and often paid) for.


I worked hard to earn those dollars to buy my DVD. Yes I have a right
to protect my DVD and my viewing of that DVD. I have a right to look
after and enrich my children and spouse too, so I'm going to let them
watch my hard-earned DVD too!



And the people who made the DVD worked harder and spent a lot more than 
the few (your unit of currency) to product that DVD.  But then if you're 
willing to pay for all of the costs for making the DVD (including the 
movie, of course), you could dictate the terms under which that DVD 
could be used (and could use it for anything you want).



And if it's a cartoon DVD, I'll put a copy on my children's computer
so they can watch it over and over.



Of course, depending on the license, that would make you a pirate.




Just because it's there does not mean you have a
right to use it as you see fit.


Just because _you_ think you have a right to control my private
activities does not make it so!



I have a right to control your private activities when you are using MY 
CONTENT.  If you want additional activities beyond the license, you can 
pay for it.



Just because _you_ think you have a right to arbitrary copyright
monopoly power which is against the natural growth of a community's
popular culture, does not make it so!



The law says otherwise.




Try using a car that was parked on the street, just because it
was there.  See how far you get.


Deprivation of goods is deprivation. Re-performance of a song, does
not deprive you of that song.



So is piracy.  It is deprivation of income from the performance of that 
song.


Go read the GPL (2) again!



Get a copyright attorney to give you GOOD advice.  Not everything you 
want is covered under GPL - including those cartoons yo

Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management

2014-05-18 Thread Paul E Condon

On 20140518_2131-0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 5/18/2014 6:39 PM, The Wanderer wrote:
> >-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> >Hash: SHA512
> >
> >On 05/18/2014 05:49 PM, Tom H wrote:
> >
> >>You seem to have an issue with copyrights, and are venting about DRM
> >>because it enables copyright holders.
> >
> >DRM doesn't just "enable copyright holders".
> >
> >Copyright law restricts what people are allowed to do.
> >
> >DRM restricts what people are *able* to do.
> >
> >When the copyright on something expires (not that that ever happens
> >nowadays), it enters the public domain, and people are allowed to copy
> >and redistribute it as much as they care to. This is, in fact, the goal
> >and the purpose of copyright, at least in USA law.
> >
> 
> Copyrights last a long time, depending on the laws of the country
> under which the item is copyrighted.  But typically it is either 75
> years from the original copyright, or 75 years after the death of the
> owner (author) of the copyrighted material.  Both are much longer
> than the Internet has existed.
> 
> >If the copyright on something restricted by DRM were to expire, and the
> >DRM were still effective (or if breaking it were forbidden, e.g. by
> >anti-circumvention laws), then although people would be *allowed* to
> >copy and redistribute it at will, they would still not be *able* to do
> >so, without permission from whoever controls the DRM - which would,
> >likely, be the former holder of the copyright.
> >
> >There's more, but that should do as a first point. Objections to DRM go
> >far beyond just objections to copyright.
> >
> 
> Please show an example where that has occurred.

Please show an example of a digital recording that was copyrighted 75 yrs
ago. It is a silly request, I know. But no less silly than yours.

> 
> Jerry



-- 
Paul E Condon   
pecon...@mesanetworks.net


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140519014736.gb27...@big.lan.gnu

Re: Iceweasel and DRM