Re: How to install Precise without getting screwed?
On Sat, Apr 07, 2012 at 11:00:31PM -0600, Michael Loftis wrote: >Oh it goes well and truely far beyond that. Some pinhead decided to move >/var/run to /run without leaving a symlink or informing and updating >packages. /var/run is a symlink to /run in 12.04. Perhaps you ran into a corner-case bug, but in general there's a symlink there for backward-compatibility. >I had an unfortunate 10.04 LTS system go unbootable The switch to /run was in 11.10. >via the FHS accepted and everything but ubuntu� /var/run. http://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseGoals/RunDirectory#FAQ -- Colin Watson [cjwat...@ubuntu.com] -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: server went unbootable
On Sat, Apr 07, 2012 at 11:03:48PM -0600, Michael Loftis wrote: > > > Sent from my Motorola Xoom > On Apr 7, 2012 5:44 AM, "Dale Amon" wrote: > > At one point I tried to build a 'special' statically > > linked ssh... an effort that didn't work out... with > > the idea of having it available on some port as an > > emergency backdoor for sysadmins that came up as > > soon as networking was up. The idea was that if things > > went bad and you were 4000 miles away from the data > > centre... > > > > Just another of those things that I might have done, > > if I lived on a planet with 48 hours days. > > > > Don't use openssh! There are a few smaller, lighter, statically linkable > SSH daemons out there. There weren't many choices in 2001 or 2002 when I was looking into it. Do you have any suggestions on one that might be particularly useful? It doesn't have to be terribly fancy, just enough so you can get a shell and 'fix things'. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Ubuntu One needs cloud encryption like LastPass does it
On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 11:55:25AM +0800, John McCabe-Dansted wrote: > > LastPass may be secure today, but it is trivially easy for LastPass > > (or a hypothetical attacker who gains access to LastPass's > > infrastructure) to compromise that security simply by replacing the > > javascript code which does the client side encryption and decryption > > with some code that also passes the encryption key back up to the > > server (or wherever). > > Hmm, in principle Firefox could support native encryption, where you > add the key to Firefox directly before even visiting the website. > Being a bit careful about frames and/or javascript should give you a > secure solution. The major issue then is, if security matters to you, > why do you want to access these files from the web? Are you sitting > down on an untrusted computer and just blindy entering your encryption > key? > > Still, adding support for securely encrypted files as a cross browser > standard seems like a fundamentally cool thing to do. When Mozilla first came out, they had some built in encryption capability. The NSA folks forced them to remove it and even the hooks. I kept my own copy patched for awhile I just lacked the time. And then Zimmerman and his pgp pretty much broke the back of those efforts to keep strong encryption out of the hands of real people and the capabilities gradually returned. Do not ever trust these people. If you have a company that is US based (some other countries are probably even worse), someone will show up (or less melodramatically, you will receive a very official letter) and tell you who you are going to co-operate with them. And that you really do not have a choice. A friend of mine who had his own small ISP for a few customers had the FBI show up at his door to tell him that he had to supply them with a link for for monitoring his dial up connections. He chose to remove the dialups entirely and they went away. Some ISP's here in the UK at one point got told they had to supply a leased line to the police at their own expense. So make no mistake. Point to point encryption with locally held secure keys it the *ONLY* choice if you actually want privacy and not pretend privacy. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: server went unbootable
On Sun, 2012-04-08 at 13:55 +0100, Dale Amon wrote: > There weren't many choices in 2001 or 2002 when I was > looking into it. Do you have any suggestions on one > that might be particularly useful? It doesn't have to > be terribly fancy, just enough so you can get a shell > and 'fix things'. I used dropbear for a while. Works well. http://matt.ucc.asn.au/dropbear/dropbear.html Cheers! -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: How to install Precise without getting screwed?
> > On the contrary, I found Michael's rant refreshing. Politically correct > rants look like a lot of nitpicking over nothing. > > ... > > > But of course a little "We shouldn't do this, it's a bad idea" just gets > an enthusiastic push-back from strong-headed "visionaries" that think > they're onto something. When the criticism starts coming in force and with > sharp language, a threat to ration and reason is made--in other words: > humans fear losing arguments in the same way they fear being punched in the > face, and strong and vicious protest is threatening in that it makes being > wrong particularly high impact. If the whole world is iffy but unenthused, > they will swallow your crap and then complain--unenthusiastically--that > it's not great. If you are being flamed and shouted at, then when the > whole world doesn't turn around and realize how excellent your new ideas > are--perhaps because they're not--you take a MAJOR social hit and suddenly > nobody likes you, and as a bonus they also get it in their heads that > anything you touch is a born disaster and probably will never come near you > again. > > In other words, maybe you'll listen when people actually say what they > mean instead of sucking all the emotional meaning out and presenting simple > facts--facts which you may dispute with other simple facts. Facts are > facts, whether they're true or false. Information is more than just > facts: the emotional weight carries, and the presentation makes that. Do > you honestly think Unity would have ever happened if Shuttleworth got > called a pinhead whenever someone commented on the design proposal and > subsequent betas? It would have been quickly abandoned as every single > developer associated with the project ran for cover from the raining fire > and brimstone. > John, I can see that you make a good point; bad UI decisions would have been less likely to happen if at first they were savagely railed against, thereby causing the potential developers of those bad ideas to go elsewhere. The problem, as I see it, is that once the decisions have already had time and effort invested in them, it becomes a problem of, "is all that work I did stupid/irrelevant?" This, in addition to pressing the "I can't be wrong!" button, also presses the "if I'm wrong, my work isn't valuable, so I'm not valuable" button. This is, as I see it, the other side of the psychological "coin" that you aptly outlined above. Therefore, when a part of a person's sense of self worth is threatened by way of intense criticism, the normal response is to "dig in" and fight vehemently to protect the perceived value of one's work. Thus, no matter how bad an idea or system is, those who made it will be all the more stubborn if they feel like they can't concede gracefully. (Incidentally, this is similar to how [useless] bureaucracies become self-preserving.) So, while I'm, in fact, all *for *speaking bluntly, I also see the quandary that speaking too bluntly produces when being "wrong" (for the "owners" of a work) would mean that the months they spent on a particular project would all be for nothing, should they admit that they were actually wrong. As a side note, mentioning these psychological/social dynamics may well push the conversation further in that direction, but it would seem that it needs to be said (and under other circumstances, I wouldn't hesitate to aggravate everyone by saying them). Nobody likes to admit that their thought processes are irrational and/or emotional, since it means that on some level, they're being "stupid" by letting other things control any intelligence they might otherwise possess. This dynamic (all of the above, including what you've written) seems to have run rampant in the development of GUIs for the last year or so...but I hadn't exactly intended to expose this directly until you began doing so. (Now the beans are "spilled...") Plus it's fun to read people speaking frankly, though if you spoke like a > Franc I guess you'd have to use a lot more accents and apostrophes. > Well said. ;-) --Dane -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: How to install Precise without getting screwed?
On 04/08/2012 11:14 PM, Dane Mutters wrote:
John,
So, while I'm, in fact, all /for /speaking bluntly, I also see the
quandary that speaking too bluntly produces when being "wrong" (for
the "owners" of a work) would mean that the months they spent on a
particular project would all be for nothing, should they admit that
they were actually wrong.
All things have a balance. Direct personal attacks are less useful than
attacks on a particular feature you don't like; attacks by proxy are
also more useful than direct personal attacks ("I don't know what idiot
came up with this..." that idiot is somewhere, but he's at least able to
shuffle back into the crowd and hide...). Directly grabbing the
developer in question and giving them a severe public dressing down is
just not constructive--let's ignore the issue and lob personal attacks
instead now eh? (Thorough dressings down are for the rare situation
where the person in question is a severely destructive idiot--this
doesn't happen much, aside from that one coworker we've all had that
gets paid to creates problems for everyone else.)
Either way, getting *too* uncivil is a bad thing. Strong language can
be very useful in some forums; but in forums where it's strongly
inappropriate you should pick your tone well enough to have the same
effect. Railing on something by proxy on a glancing blow may be
overstepping the bounds of civility, or it might be a needed slap
alongside the head for someone; continuing to ignore the feature itself
and continuously use it purely as a proxy to insult someone is just
malicious and useless.
We don't want to degenerate into a forum of continuous flame wars in any
case; but the truth is the occasional burn serves to remind us that fire
is hot and we should really pay attention to what we're doing. While
you don't want to burn your house down, you also really don't want to
freeze to death.
That all said, let's keep it civil. Or at least let's go for a farce.
Plus it's fun to read people speaking frankly, though if you spoke
like a Franc I guess you'd have to use a lot more accents and
apostrophes.
Well said. ;-)
If only brevity was my strong point.
--Dane
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
