On 6/13/13 17:33 Sérgio Basto wrote:
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
On 6/13/13 17:33 Sérgio Basto wrote:
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 22:02:14 +0100
drago01 wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Reindl Harald
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Am 27.11.2011 21:09, schrieb Bernd Stramm:
> >
> >>>> If implemented the wrong way, what's wrong with screenshots
> >&g
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 01:09:46 +0530
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 11/28/2011 12:01 AM, Bernd Stramm wrote:
> >
> > Call me elitist then, I think it is better when more people can
> > read, and when they actually do it.
>
> Unfortunately for someone talking about so
On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 22:06:33 +0530
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 11/27/2011 09:20 PM, Bernd Stramm wrote:
>
> >
> > I think this is going a little far. Saying that people are better
> > off being able to read is not elitist.
>
> Yes it is. Because you are assuming
oftware useful for everyone.
I think this is going a little far. Saying that people are better off
being able to read is not elitist. And like or not, we who make
tools are doing a part of building the world. Should we try to make
it better, or simple more convenient?
Computers are tools, and usi
the accounts will be compromised.
> 2) We could require
> everyone to change keys.
And some time after that, some accounts will be compromised again. Some
of the same accounts as before, and some other accounts. Not maybe.
Certainly, 100%.
--
Bernd Stramm
bernd.str...@gmail.com
signatu
t again, fairly quickly. I am also fairly
certain that they are not following this debate.
--
Bernd Stramm
bernd.str...@gmail.com
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 15:27:49 -0700
Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 14:14 -0400, Bernd Stramm wrote:
>
> > Many computers are booted very rarely, once a day or so, and then
> > sit idle for very long periods of time. This is very wasteful. The
> > reason p
d very rarely, once a day or so, and then
sit idle for very long periods of time. This is very wasteful. The
reason people do this is because booting takes a long time compared to
starting the set of applications they use.
If you could boot and start applications in say, 1/2 second, usage
patte
very node (service) as soon as possible. There is no guarantee that
this will _always_ finish everything sooner than some other, arbitrary
ordering. In this kind of environment, usually it will go faster, but
not always.
--
Bernd Stramm
bernd.str...@gmail.com
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists
On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 15:34:34 +0200
Marian Ganisin wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 10:36:08AM -0400, Bernd Stramm wrote:
> > > c) there's a spec about ~/.local/bin already accepted by a
> > > friendly project
> >
> > This is STILL a security risk, even if s
On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 14:35:27 +0100
"Bryn M. Reeves" wrote:
> On 07/28/2011 01:22 PM, Bernd Stramm wrote:
> > On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 13:00:28 +0100
> > "Bryn M. Reeves" wrote:
> > It is nevertheless an *added* avenue to do some phishing. And for
> > wh
On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 13:00:28 +0100
"Bryn M. Reeves" wrote:
> On 07/28/2011 12:54 PM, Bernd Stramm wrote:
> > On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 11:24:48 +0100
> > "Bryn M. Reeves" wrote:
> >> There are already quite a few things that may place executables
> &g
On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 11:24:48 +0100
"Bryn M. Reeves" wrote:
> On 07/27/2011 03:14 PM, Bernd Stramm wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:54:09 +0200
> > Lennart Poettering wrote:
> >> If you don't hide ~/.local and ~/.config then users who are less
> >>
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 17:14:22 -0400
Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 07/27/2011 05:00 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > On 7/27/11 1:09 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> >> Depends on the PATH-Order
> >>
> >> if something is intended to be first in PATH and any attacker is
> >> able to write there his "ls" would w
e's a spec about ~/.local/bin already accepted by a friendly
> project
This is STILL a security risk, even if somebody calls it a standard.
>
> d) there is point in having a standardized dir for this
>
> hence: let's just change the xdg basedir spec to standardize it.
>
> Lennart
>
--
Bernd Stramm
bernd.str...@gmail.com
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
t; it is nothing more than bike shedding anyway.
There are 173 hidden directories in my $HOME, none of which I put there
manually. 2 of these are .config and .local.
So I would say the spec is more widely ignored than it is being
implemented.
--
Bernd Stramm
bernd.str...@gmail.com
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
d between bash-4.2.10 -2 and -3:
>
> http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=bash.git;a=commitdiff;h=02b20d810111e8b53bb98ad49fedd1d583ce62e1
>
> because of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=699812
>
> There is some rationale in that bug, but I think it's extremely bogus.
Oh it seems every useful for purposes like installing executables that
most users will never find.
>
> Rich.
>
--
Bernd Stramm
bernd.str...@gmail.com
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 18:09:53 + (UTC)
JB wrote:
> Bernd Stramm gmail.com> writes:
>
> > ...
> > Would you help out with testing if given these specific
> > instructions? If not yourself, who would actually do this?
> > ...
>
> I am only suggestin
you.
That's not a very realistic approach you are taking now.
You are giving specific instructions to a project to in turn give
specific instructions to hypothetical testers.
Would you help out with testing if given these specific instructions?
If not yourself, who would actually do this?
M, if he doesn't he'll just not use TPM or re-sign kernels on
> update on his own with his personal key.
On the subject of trust, may I repeat that this is at present entirely
undocumented. The feature page contains nothing whatsoever saying
what this is, except for a link to a sourceforge project.
The sourceforge project in turn contains nothing saying what the
software does. Nothing.
I have found something that looks related here
http://www.intel.com/technology/security/downloads/315168.htm
but is that it? How would anyone know?
--
Bernd Stramm
bernd.str...@gmail.com
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
n be) in the chain of trust.
Those sorts of technical topics would be interesting.
>
> kevin
--
Bernd Stramm
bernd.str...@gmail.com
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> Only if it is not under user control, otherwise it is a very useful
> feature.
Nevertheless, the feature page contains no documentation about what it
actually is. Neither does the sourceforge.net page of the project.
It seems like a reasonable request that this documentation be added.
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 19:46:46 -0300
Evandro Giovanini wrote:
> Em Sex, 2011-06-17 às 15:21 -0400, Bernd Stramm escreveu:
> > On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 14:47:38 -0400
> > Casey Dahlin wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 02:32:12PM -0400, Bernd Stramm wrote:
>
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 14:47:38 -0400
Casey Dahlin wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 02:32:12PM -0400, Bernd Stramm wrote:
> > So Gnome Shell is not for a good many of the people who had been
> > using Gnome before that.
> >
>
> YES! I don't know why more people d
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 12:41:21 -0600
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 12:34, Bernd Stramm
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 12:16:46 -0600
> > Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 12:02, Casey Dahlin
> >> w
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 12:16:46 -0600
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 12:02, Casey Dahlin
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 01:05:08PM -0400, Bernd Stramm wrote:
> >>
> >> I think it fails on #1:
> >>
> >> > Makes i
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 14:25:53 -0400
Casey Dahlin wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 02:12:54PM -0400, Bernd Stramm wrote:
> > One could do that, but that would be an idiotic thing to do. So one
> > doesn't.
> >
>
> Its what you said. You explicitly want to divide y
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 14:02:14 -0400
Casey Dahlin wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 01:05:08PM -0400, Bernd Stramm wrote:
> >
> > I think it fails on #1:
> >
> > > Makes it easy for users to focus on their current task and reduces
> > > distraction and i
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 09:44:45 -0700
Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-06-18 at 00:30 +0900, 夜神 岩男 wrote:
> > On Fri, 2011-06-17 at 10:04 -0400, Bernd Stramm wrote:
> > > On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 19:33:18 +0900
> > > 夜神 岩男 wrote:
> > >
> > >
> >
; has failed?
>
> "Doesn't live up to my expectation" is very different from "Doesn't
> comply with spec" and both are different from "Is a bad design".
How about a spec then of what Gnome3 was trying to achiece, and how
about those who like it tell
n't come up with
any new ideas.
--
Bernd Stramm
bernd.str...@gmail.com
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
:24ff:fec9:2e0c(fe80::200:24ff:fec9:2e0c) from
> > fe80::21e:8cff:fecf:cde5 eth0: 56 data bytes
> > 64 bytes from fe80::200:24ff:fec9:2e0c: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=1.69
> > ms 64 bytes from fe80::200:24ff:fec9:2e0c: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64
> > time=0.263 ms
>
> But that&#x
On Tue, 04 May 2010 21:08:23 -0400
Matt McCutchen wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 17:44 -0400, Bernd Stramm wrote:
> > Too costly with the current tools, I have no doubt. The method you
> > describe doesn't look manageable, you're right.
> >
> > Perhaps I sho
On Tue, 04 May 2010 14:26:34 -0700
Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 15:20 -0400, Bernd Stramm wrote:
> > On Tue, 04 May 2010 20:42:18 +0200
> > Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >
> > > Bernd Stramm wrote:
> > > > I would like to pick the packages th
On Tue, 04 May 2010 20:42:18 +0200
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Bernd Stramm wrote:
> > I would like to pick the packages that I'm adventurous with.
> > Currently that's not very easy, either an adventurousness level is
> > enabled in the repos or it isn't. That mea
e users have given up using it
- testing people asleep on the job
Bernd
--
Bernd Stramm
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
For adventurous bug fixes, perhaps there should be a classification
emergency-because-the-bug-breaks-most-of-the-system, which gets pushed
with extreme priority. Of course this can result maintainers having to
use this classification twice in a row.
Bernd
--
Bernd Stramm
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Mon, 3 May 2010 22:04:11 -0400
Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 8:22 PM, Bernd Stramm wrote:
> > On Tue, 04 May 2010 01:58:34 +0200
> > Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >
> >
> >> The poll told us an approximate proportion, which is so far from
> &
, but a sample size of 183 people
makes it utterly meaningless considering the population size.
It gives no useful information one way or the other.
Bernd
--
Bernd Stramm
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Tue, 2010-04-20 at 16:56 +0200, Alexander Boström wrote:
> tis 2010-04-20 klockan 01:51 +0300 skrev Slava Zanko:
>
> > For example, all present utilites have sence just for guru's (ls, rm,
> > fsck etc), but for novies it's hard to use. Is good idea to symlink'ing
> > (shell aliasing) these and
anything I can
do.
Bernd
> The other xmms2 clients are held up on this, and I'd rather not simply
> dead.package this unless I absolutely have to.
>
> I would be happy to return the favor with work that is in my skillset,
> licensing, packaging, reviewing, triage, e
On Tue, 2010-04-20 at 02:06 +0200, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2010/4/20 Slava Zanko :
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Hi folk,
> >
> > I want to propose new idea about names of command line utilites...
> >
> > For example, all present utilites have sence just
44 matches
Mail list logo
