On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 13:55:20 +
hellekin wrote:
> I guess we can investigate and find out how to generate these from
> mailman, and then have a nice URL like:
> https://lurker.devuan.org/ to redirect to the relevant
> lurker message. This would also make Devuan Editors' lives easier
> when wor
On Tue, 02 Feb 2016, Florian Zieboll wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 13:55:20 +
> hellekin wrote:
>
> > I guess we can investigate and find out how to generate these from
> > mailman, and then have a nice URL like:
> > https://lurker.devuan.org/ to redirect to the relevant
> > lurker message. T
On Tue, 02 Feb 2016, Wim wrote:
>[2]https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/2402
>Well, you've probably guessed the answer - Won't fix.
meanwhile, on the background, the usual bullying goes on among the
systemd hooligans, sarcastically liquidating the concern with some
cynical remarks,
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 10:45:22AM +0100, Jaromil wrote:
[cut]
>
> I haven't look at any existing solution, but I believe that a good
> approach would be to use the actual message-id: in the headers, which is
> also an identifier to retrieve email from lurker. But I have no idea if
> that header
Subject: Re: [DNG] Systemd at work: rm -rf EFI - made The Register
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/02/delete_efivars_linux/
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 5:48 AM, wrote:
> Send Dng mailing list submissions to
> dng@lists.dyne.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, vis
Le 02/02/2016 04:39, Simon Wise a écrit :
so looking at apt.conf I see as the very first text 'DESCRIPTION'
/etc/apt/apt.conf is the main configuration file shared by all
the tools in the APT suite of tools, though it is by no means
the only place options can be set. The suite also
On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 10:45:22 +0100
Jaromil wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Feb 2016, Florian Zieboll wrote:
>
> > Another loose thought on this: To spare the mailing list machine(s)
> > the additional burden of hashing, wouldn't it be sufficient to add
> > a simple counter to mailman and make it inject the c
Simon Wise writes:
[...]
> If you have the dedication to GUI and the resources of a global
> mega-corporation it is possible to make a similar GUI actually respect
> the under-lying settings ... but it is incredibly hard work, way
> beyond almost any organisation. OSX did achieve this
Not at al
Jaromil wrote:
> meanwhile, on the background, the usual bullying goes on among the
> systemd hooligans, sarcastically liquidating the concern with some
> cynical remarks, as if it would be a deserved punition for users
> caught into a bricked laptop rather than an erased filesystem:
>
> http://
Didier Kryn writes:
> Le 02/02/2016 04:39, Simon Wise a écrit :
>> so looking at apt.conf I see as the very first text 'DESCRIPTION'
[...]
>> FILES
>>/etc/apt/apt.conf
>>APT configuration file. Configuration Item:
>>Dir::Etc::Main.
>>
>> /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/
>>
Jaromil writes:
> On Tue, 02 Feb 2016, Wim wrote:
>
>>[2]https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/2402
>>Well, you've probably guessed the answer - Won't fix.
>
> meanwhile, on the background, the usual bullying goes on among the
> systemd hooligans, sarcastically liquidating the concern
This is enough evidence to be very vigilant where an OS uses systemd.
Breaking hardware is a very serious issue, will not fix is not acceptable
as a responsible reply.
On Feb 2, 2016 2:25 PM, "Rainer Weikusat"
wrote:
> Jaromil writes:
> > On Tue, 02 Feb 2016, Wim wrote:
> >
> >>[2]https://gi
On 02/02/16 22:22, Didier Kryn wrote:
Le 02/02/2016 04:39, Simon Wise a écrit :
so looking at apt.conf I see as the very first text 'DESCRIPTION'
/etc/apt/apt.conf is the main configuration file shared by all
the tools in the APT suite of tools, though it is by no means
the only place options c
On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 10:49:10 +0100
Jaromil wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Feb 2016, Wim wrote:
>
> >[2]https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/2402
> >Well, you've probably guessed the answer - Won't fix.
>
> meanwhile, on the background, the usual bullying goes on among the
> systemd hooligans
On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 10:49:10 +0100
Jaromil wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Feb 2016, Wim wrote:
>
> >[2]https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/2402
> >Well, you've probably guessed the answer - Won't fix.
>
> meanwhile, on the background, the usual bullying goes on among the
> systemd hooligans
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 10:07:17AM -0500, Steve Litt wrote:
> Back in the BIOS/MBR days, we had a very thin, very tiny interface to
> the pre-boot stuff. About the only way you could mess it up was to blow
> a bios upgrade, so you were always *very* careful during that process.
> But in every other
The proposed fix is to mark it in fstab as read only...
I was under the impression fstab was one of the things systemd wanted to
replace/eradicate?
2016-02-02 16:15 GMT+01:00 Fernando M. Maresca :
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 10:07:17AM -0500, Steve Litt wrote:
> > Back in the BIOS/MBR days, we had
Didier Kryn writes:
> Le 01/02/2016 22:38, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
>> Didier Kryn writes:
>>> Le 01/02/2016 17:52, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
there's a known upper bound for the maximum number of objects which will
be needed
>>> Some applications need to asynchronously create and
Edward Bartolo writes:
> This is enough evidence to be very vigilant where an OS uses systemd.
> Breaking hardware is a very serious issue, will not fix is not acceptable
> as a responsible reply.
In all seriousness, what is the guy supposed to do if some
less-than-informed person accidentally de
On 02/02/16 15:51, Steve Litt wrote:
>
> Poettering's final post reminds me so much of Don Armstrong on
> Debian-User. "My way or the highway, no further discussion!"
>
LOL.. me too :-)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
D
Rainer Weikusat writes:
> Didier Kryn writes:
>> Le 01/02/2016 22:38, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
>>> Didier Kryn writes:
Le 01/02/2016 17:52, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
> there's a known upper bound for the maximum number of objects which will
> be needed
Some applications n
Hi all,
an occasional rant from you humble almost-lurker.
From: Rainer Weikusat
In all seriousness, what is the guy supposed to do if some
less-than-informed person accidentally deletes something he'd better
Let's not lose the point: while stupidly issuing rm -rf / was possibly
intention
On 02/02/2016 08:05 AM, Simon Hobson wrote:
> Exposing my ignorance here, what would need to write to the EFI stuff ? That
> article quotes someone as saying mounting it read-only would break some
> userspace stuff - so what would it break and why does it need to write there ?
> Not having actual
Le 02/02/2016 16:42, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
Didier Kryn writes:
Le 01/02/2016 22:38, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
Didier Kryn writes:
Le 01/02/2016 17:52, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
there's a known upper bound for the maximum number of objects which will
be needed
Some applications ne
Steve Litt writes:
> On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 10:49:10 +0100 Jaromil wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 02 Feb 2016, Wim wrote:
>>
>> >[2]https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/2402
>> >Well, you've probably guessed the answer - Won't fix.
>>
>> meanwhile, on the background, the usual bullying goes on
On Tue, 02 Feb 2016 20:07:33 +
Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> There are really only two options:
>
[snip]
>
> 2. Mount r/w and expect people messing around with the fs as superuser
>to know what they're doing.
Chefs know what they're doing, but they still have fire extinguishers
with which t
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 04:39:57PM -0500, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Feb 2016 20:07:33 +
> Rainer Weikusat wrote:
>
> > There are really only two options:
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > 2. Mount r/w and expect people messing around with the fs as superuser
> >to know what they're doing.
>
>
Can anyone answer:
1] Does this vulnerability apply when the UEFI is operating in "legacy
boot" mode instead of "secure boot" mode? I recall that when I was
originally setting up my only UEFI-equipped device that there were
differences between the two modes in how I needed to set up the
partition
Steve Litt [2016-02-02 22:39]:
> Chefs know what they're doing, but they still have fire extinguishers
> with which to put out any fires. When the downside is severe enough,
> safety measures are called for regardless of the skill of the operator.
Amen!
--
Hilsen Harald
_
Hi All,
I did a google search for netman but I was presented with several
pages of results always pointing to other similarly named commercial
projects. Therefore, I am thinking about changing netman's name into a
unique name so that users would be able to be directed to the proper
sites.
I am su
Edward Bartolo wrote:
>I am suggesting this name:
>nm-devuan for network manager Devuan.
I don't think it should contain Devuan word in it,
as long as people from other communities
will probably use it too.
netconman for Network Connections Manager
would be nice.
My two cents,
Mitt
_
31 matches
Mail list logo
