Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> Dave Turner writes:
>> There seems to be an assumption that everybody is a 'power user' and
>> knows exactly what they are doing.
>> The reality is not like that at all.
>> Leaving nasty surprises for the unwary and inexperienced is at worst
>> malicious and at best inco
On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 08:03:24AM +0100, Edward Bartolo wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> This mail thread is intended to collect votes regarding netman's name
> change. The question is:
>
> Do you agree to renaming netman?
>
> The answers should be YES and NO. No long replies needed, I will
> adhere to the
YES.
On 2016-02-04 04:03, Edward Bartolo wrote:
Hi All,
This mail thread is intended to collect votes regarding netman's name
change. The question is:
Do you agree to renaming netman?
The answers should be YES and NO. No long replies needed, I will
adhere to the outcome vote.
The poll will b
Le 03/02/2016 22:29, Peter Vachuska a écrit :
03.02.2016, 14:56, "Steve Litt" :
Let's talk about a minimal standard of safety as opposed to relying on
"knowing what you're doing."
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
I wouldn't have hesitated using 'rm -rf /' if I was going to remove
Peter Vachuska writes:
[...]
> And I still don't understand why one would want a switch that bricks
> your computer?
It's easier to punish it this way than physically smashing it to bits.
But there was no such switch involved here. Just a non-volatile RAM
whose contents can be modified (that's
NO
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 7:58 AM, Marlon Nunes wrote:
> YES.
>
>
> On 2016-02-04 04:03, Edward Bartolo wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> This mail thread is intended to collect votes regarding netman's name
>> change. The question is:
>>
>> Do you agree to renaming netman?
>>
>> The answers should be Y
Simon Hobson writes:
> Rainer Weikusat wrote:
>> Dave Turner writes:
>>> There seems to be an assumption that everybody is a 'power user' and
>>> knows exactly what they are doing.
>>> The reality is not like that at all.
>>> Leaving nasty surprises for the unwary and inexperienced is at worst
>
Hendrik Boom writes:
> On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 08:03:24AM +0100, Edward Bartolo wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> This mail thread is intended to collect votes regarding netman's name
>> change. The question is:
>>
>> Do you agree to renaming netman?
>>
>> The answers should be YES and NO. No long replie
I vote NO
On Thursday, February 4, 2016 7:03 AM, Edward Bartolo wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> This mail thread is intended to collect votes regarding netman's name
> change. The question is:
>
> Do you agree to renaming netman?
>
> The answers should be YES and NO. No long replies needed, I will
> adhe
YES
On Thu, 2016-02-04 at 08:03 +0100, Edward Bartolo wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> This mail thread is intended to collect votes regarding netman's name
> change. The question is:
>
> Do you agree to renaming netman?
>
> The answers should be YES and NO. No long replies needed, I will
> adhere to the o
Le 04/02/2016 13:07, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
for the real "general case",
someone who blindly trusts the advice of strangers despite he doesn't
understand it will end up getting himself in trouble sooner or later and
probably rather sooner than later.
Eg nearly any client of a physician,
Didier Kryn wrote:
>> for the real "general case",
>> someone who blindly trusts the advice of strangers despite he doesn't
>> understand it will end up getting himself in trouble sooner or later and
>> probably rather sooner than later.
>
>Eg nearly any client of a physician, a lawyer...
:
Didier:
> Le 04/02/2016 13:07, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
> > for the real "general case",
> > someone who blindly trusts the advice of strangers despite he doesn't
> > understand it will end up getting himself in trouble sooner or later and
> > probably rather sooner than later.
> Eg nearly an
Simon Hobson writes:
> Didier Kryn wrote:
>
>>> for the real "general case",
>>> someone who blindly trusts the advice of strangers despite he doesn't
>>> understand it will end up getting himself in trouble sooner or later and
>>> probably rather sooner than later.
>>
>>Eg nearly any client
Didier Kryn writes:
> Le 04/02/2016 13:07, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
>> for the real "general case",
>> someone who blindly trusts the advice of strangers despite he doesn't
>> understand it will end up getting himself in trouble sooner or later and
>> probably rather sooner than later.
>
> Eg
On Thu, 04 Feb 2016 14:44:48 +, Rainer wrote in message
<87k2mka61r@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com>:
> Didier Kryn writes:
> > Le 04/02/2016 13:07, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
> >> for the real "general case",
> >> someone who blindly trusts the advice of strangers despite he
> >> do
On 02/04/2016 12:47 PM, Edward Bartolo wrote:
Hi All,
This mail thread is intended to collect votes regarding netman's name
change. The question is:
Do you agree to renaming netman?
The answers should be YES and NO. No long replies needed, I will
adhere to the outcome vote.
The poll will b
On 02/04/2016 12:47 PM, Edward Bartolo wrote:
Hi All,
This mail thread is intended to collect votes regarding netman's name
change. The question is:
Do you agree to renaming netman?
The answers should be YES and NO. No long replies needed, I will
adhere to the outcome vote.
The poll will be
Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> "Whoever disagrees with me MUST either have a hidden, maliscious agenda
> or be out of his mind" is a pretty standard way to (attempt to) handle
> a situation where someone ran out of arguments but doesn't feel like
> admitting that.
Not at all. I have a perfectly sound
I vote NO.
It would seem today a lot of names start with "net" and you will tread
on toes somewhere or other and "netman" seems no worse than the
alternatives.
If a trademark problem occurs with a minor comic super hero, deal with
it then. (-;
Clarke
__
On 02/04/2016 05:21 PM, aitor_czr wrote:
On 02/04/2016 12:47 PM, Edward Bartolo wrote:
Hi All,
This mail thread is intended to collect votes regarding netman's name
change. The question is:
Do you agree to renaming netman?
The answers should be YES and NO. No long replies needed, I will
ad
On 02/04/2016 06:29 PM, Clarke Sideroad wrote:
If a trademark problem occurs with a minor comic super hero, deal with
it then. (-;
Do you remember Mandrake? :-)
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/lis
Simon Hobson writes:
> Rainer Weikusat wrote:
>
>> "Whoever disagrees with me MUST either have a hidden, maliscious agenda
>> or be out of his mind" is a pretty standard way to (attempt to) handle
>> a situation where someone ran out of arguments but doesn't feel like
>> admitting that.
>
> Not a
2016-02-04 17:55 GMT+01:00 Simon Hobson :
> Rainer Weikusat wrote:
>
> > "Whoever disagrees with me MUST either have a hidden, maliscious agenda
> > or be out of his mind" is a pretty standard way to (attempt to) handle
> > a situation where someone ran out of arguments but doesn't feel like
> >
Wim writes:
[...]
> I'd like to see Devuan do better. Better than Debian, fi. Windows doesn't
> seem to have this problem, as far as I could figure out. A format c:/
> doesn't erase UEFI...
Formatting a Linux disk partition also doesn't change anything in the
EFI NVRAM. Linux (the kernel) provi
YES
NETMAN has been around as a standalone mainframe network/system automation
product since at least the 90s on MVS/ESA, and later moved into workload
manager under z/OS but it is still known and referred to as NETMAN. CA also
has a product called NETMAN for mainframe systems, I suppose because I
On Thu, 4 Feb 2016 09:36:05 +
Simon Hobson wrote:
> Trash the OS - fair game (maybe). Brick the hardware, that's another
> kettle of fish.
Another (and consistent) view is that we had a deal. From 1969 til
2013, we had a deal that if you backed up every day and then used a bad
rf command, re
2016-02-04 18:53 GMT+01:00 Rainer Weikusat :
> Wim writes:
>
> [...]
>
> > I'd like to see Devuan do better. Better than Debian, fi. Windows doesn't
> > seem to have this problem, as far as I could figure out. A format c:/
> > doesn't erase UEFI...
>
> Formatting a Linux disk partition also doesn
On Thu, 04 Feb 2016 17:42:35 +
Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> Simon Hobson writes:
> > Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> >
> >> "Whoever disagrees with me MUST either have a hidden, maliscious
> >> agenda or be out of his mind" is a pretty standard way to (attempt
> >> to) handle a situation where someo
Steve Litt writes:
> On Thu, 4 Feb 2016 09:36:05 +
> Simon Hobson wrote:
>
>> Trash the OS - fair game (maybe). Brick the hardware, that's another
>> kettle of fish.
>
> Another (and consistent) view is that we had a deal. From 1969 til
> 2013, we had a deal that if you backed up every day an
On 02/03/2016 08:30 AM, Edward Bartolo wrote:
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
On Thu, 4 Feb 2016 13:33:33 -0500, Steve wrote in message
<2016020413.720b2...@mydesk.domain.cxm>:
> On Thu, 04 Feb 2016 17:42:35 +
> Rainer Weikusat wrote:
>
> > Simon Hobson writes:
> > > Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> > >
> > >> "Whoever disagrees with me MUST either have a hidden, mal
Simon old chap, we are ALL geeks here! And thus by definition on the
edge of just about all normal spectra...
I think Rainer is probably diametrically opposite to me on the weirdo
spectrum!
DaveT
On 04/02/16 13:27, Simon Hobson wrote:
Didier Kryn wrote:
for the real "general case",
someone
Steve Litt writes:
[...]
> Is there anyone on this list who would object to *Devuan* mounting
> /sys/firmware/efi/efivars read-only?
'A distribution' would usually provide some default settings for
mounting virtual filesystems but I don't really care what these are. If
I don't consider such a f
>
> ..me, I do not see any point in keeping it mounted at all.
> Whenever such a need arises, it should be mounted read-only.
> If a need to write to /sys/firmware/efi/efivars should happen,
> the machine should first be taken off-line, backed-up etc out
> of production and into a maintenance mode,
Dave Turner writes:
> Simon old chap, we are ALL geeks here! And thus by definition on the
> edge of just about all normal spectra...
> I think Rainer is probably diametrically opposite to me on the weirdo
> spectrum!
Like all normal people, I'm convinced I'm normal and everybody else is
weird.
Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> ..me, I do not see any point in keeping it mounted at all.
> Whenever such a need arises, it should be mounted read-only.
> If a need to write to /sys/firmware/efi/efivars should happen,
> the machine should first be taken off-line, backed-up etc out
> of production and int
On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 08:03:24AM +0100, Edward Bartolo wrote:
> Do you agree to renaming netman?
no
Greg
--
web site: http://www.gregn.net
gpg public key: http://www.gregn.net/pubkey.asc
skype: gregn1
(authorization required, add me to your contacts list first)
If we haven't been in touch be
On Thu, 4 Feb 2016, Simon Hobson wrote:
> Yes, in an ideal world where everyone is a "full time admin". But in the
> real world, more systems are used by "average users" who just expect
> "stuff to work". So IMO, you either build stuff that works (or at least
> is up-front about what's wrong),
Hi,
Till now: (voting still open)
Voted YES: 5
Voted NO: 4
I am abstaining from voting.
Edwad
On 05/02/2016, Gregory Nowak wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 08:03:24AM +0100, Edward Bartolo wrote:
>> Do you agree to renaming netman?
>
> no
>
> Greg
>
>
> --
> web site: http://www.gregn.net
> g
Hi,
The argument of those who support protecting the hardware against a
probable breakage are logically sound: I support them.
Let us look at it differently and let us consider the switching power
supply that supplies stable voltages to the various circuits of a
computer.
Would anyone agree that
On 05/02/16 15:30, Edward Bartolo wrote:
Hi,
The argument of those who support protecting the hardware against a
probable breakage are logically sound: I support them.
I see it simpler than that.
I've always believed that best practice was if you don't need it mounted
rw, then don't. For ex
42 matches
Mail list logo
