Rainer H. Rauschenberg wrote:
> I think this is the road that led to systemd -- if you think Linux needs
> to be "as easy as Windows" you tend to take away all the aspects that made
> it superior (in my view).
I think I didn't really express my position very well.
I'm not advocating "taking al
On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 10:02:51PM +, Simon Hobson wrote:
> 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
KatolaZ wrote:
> I don't get why any of those occasional "sysadmin-wannabe" users you
> have described above would ever need to mess around with their UEFI by
> hand.
They don't. But certain tasks they run apparently can do - did someone mention
Grub updating it ?
So one scenario (which I thin
El 04/02/16 a las 21:17, edward Bartolo escribió:
El 04/02/16 a las 21:17, edward Bartolo escribió: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 changi
El 03/02/16 a las 08:30, Edward Bartolo escribió:
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 woul
On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 11:39:15AM +, Simon Hobson wrote:
>
> Of course, unless you physically remove support for the virtual
> filesystem, then there's nothing to stop any program with enough
> privileges to mount the filesystem when it wants.
And that's the proble with the root model of a
Good afternoon,
2016-02-03 8:05 GMT+01:00, Edward Bartolo :
> 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
"Rainer H. Rauschenberg" writes:
> On Thu, 4 Feb 2016, Simon Hobson wrote:
[...]
> Besides that I don't think mounting EFI-vars r/w is a good idea as a
> system default and I don't think the user not having read all the
> relevant documentation (spread out over various places)
> is to blame wh
On 06/02/16 00:18, Hendrik Boom wrote:
On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 11:39:15AM +, Simon Hobson wrote:
Of course, unless you physically remove support for the virtual
filesystem, then there's nothing to stop any program with enough
privileges to mount the filesystem when it wants.
And that's th
Edward Bartolo writes:
> The argument of those who support protecting the hardware against a
> probable breakage are logically sound: I support them.
But "the hardware" didn't "break". Certain vendor-supplied software
reportedly ceases to function if certain EFI variables are deleted.
And the ven
KatolaZ writes:
> On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 10:02:51PM +, Simon Hobson wrote:
>> 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
On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 04:14:49PM +, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
[cut]
>
> It's not really that simple: This really an interesting multi-level
> fuck-up.
>
> - the systemd people shouldn't just mount the efivarfs r/w
> because that's convenient for them and tell people to get lo
Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> But "the hardware" didn't "break". Certain vendor-supplied software
> reportedly ceases to function if certain EFI variables are deleted.
That is the sort of linguistic gymnastics that vendors use to get out of
accepting responsibility for stuff.
I think most people wou
El 05/02/16 a las 17:14, Teodoro Santoni escribió:
Although I'd prefer butplug, I suggest netrunner, netvan, igign, ethcable.
Netbarx is a cool name, though.
I also thought in Netrunner, but there is a distribution with this name:
Netrunner OS.
Aitor.
_
On Fri, 2/5/16, aitor_czr wrote:
Subject: Re: [DNG] Change netman into another name.
To: "Edward Bartolo" , "Teodoro Santoni"
, dng@lists.dyne.org
Date: Friday, February 5, 2016, 10:41 AM
El 05/02/16 a las 17:14, Teodoro Santoni escribió:
> Although I'd prefer butplug, I suggest netrunner
Le 05/02/2016 16:33, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
"Rainer H. Rauschenberg" writes:
On Thu, 4 Feb 2016, Simon Hobson wrote:
[...]
Besides that I don't think mounting EFI-vars r/w is a good idea as a
system default and I don't think the user not having read all the
relevant documentation (spread
On Fri, 5 Feb 2016 11:39:15 +
Simon Hobson wrote:
> KatolaZ wrote:
>
> > I don't get why any of those occasional "sysadmin-wannabe" users you
> > have described above would ever need to mess around with their UEFI
> > by hand.
>
> They don't. But certain tasks they run apparently can do
On Fri, 5 Feb 2016 18:33:44 +0100
Didier Kryn wrote:
> People have always expected rm -rf / to destroy the OS. They
> also know that, from the keyboard, with root priviledge, they can
> destroy the partition table of the disk. All this is repairable by
> the admin her/himself.
>
> The
Hi,
This is a short list of possible future names for netman with a google
suggestion count below 3.
a) wifiwaverider -> 1 google suggestions
b) netgalloper (instead of netrunner) -> 2 google suggestions
c) ostiumreticulum (network door in Latin) --> 2 google suggestions
d
On 2016-02-05 18:15, Go Linux wrote:
Every name I came up with was already in multiple use. I also thought
of netbarx which is completely unique. Kinda like it actually.
golinux
I vote for netbarx
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://ma
Hi,
I will NOT name the project after myself; I even abstained from
voting. My project was written to HELP; I am not after
self-appraisal... In fact, after just two days back in August I had
already a functioning backend and GUI, but I continued to listen to
what others wanted. I could have stayed
> --
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2016 07:28:32 +0100
> From: Edward Bartolo
> To: dng
> Subject: Re: [DNG] Vote for/against netman name change
> Message-ID:
> ju5r...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Hi,
>
> Till now: (voting
YES
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
>
>
>
> El 04/02/16 a las 21:17, edward Bartolo escribió:
> >> El 04/02/16 a las 21:17, edward Bartolo escribió: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. There
On 2016-02-05 21:12, Edward Bartolo wrote:
Hi,
I will NOT name the project after myself; I even abstained from
voting. My project was written to HELP; I am not after
self-appraisal...
That's too bad cause I honestly think netbarx is a real good name.
I urge you to reconsider, at least let it b
On 02/05/2016 01:20 PM, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Feb 2016 18:33:44 +0100
> Didier Kryn wrote:
>
>> People have always expected rm -rf / to destroy the OS. They
>> also know that, from the keyboard, with root priviledge, they can
>> destroy the partition table of the disk. All this is re
On Fri, 2/5/16, shraptor wrote:
Subject: Re: [DNG] Change netman into another name.
To: "Edward Bartolo"
Cc: "dng"
Date: Friday, February 5, 2016, 2:47 PM
On 2016-02-05 21:12,
Edward Bartolo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I will NOT name the project after myself; I even abstained from
> voting.
On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 09:47:45PM +0100, shraptor wrote:
> On 2016-02-05 21:12, Edward Bartolo wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >I will NOT name the project after myself; I even abstained from
> >voting. My project was written to HELP; I am not after
> >self-appraisal...
>
> That's too bad cause I honestly th
On 02/05/2016 07:18 PM, Go Linux wrote:
Every name I came up with was already in multiple use. I also thought of
netbarx which is completely unique. Kinda like it actually.
golinux
IMO, netbarx is the best choice :)
Aitor.
___
Dng mailing list
Didier Kryn wrote:
>
> The ability to brick the motherboard is brand new. Therefore admins
> should be seriously protected and warned against this eventuality, at least
> until it percolates into the general culture.
IIUC, this means malware will now be able to not only
erase, but to render i
On 02/05/2016 08:48 PM, Joel Roth wrote:
> Didier Kryn wrote:
>>
>> The ability to brick the motherboard is brand new. Therefore admins
>> should be seriously protected and warned against this eventuality, at least
>> until it percolates into the general culture.
>
> IIUC, this means malware w
On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 09:38:10PM -0500, fsmithred wrote:
> On 02/05/2016 08:48 PM, Joel Roth wrote:
> > Didier Kryn wrote:
> >>
> >> The ability to brick the motherboard is brand new. Therefore admins
> >> should be seriously protected and warned against this eventuality, at least
> >> until
+1
SWS
On Feb 5, 2016 7:46 PM, "aitor_czr" wrote:
> On 02/05/2016 07:18 PM, Go Linux
> wrote:
>
> Every name I came up with was already in multiple use. I also thought of
> netbarx which is completely unique. Kinda like it actually.
>
> golinux
>
>
> IMO, netbarx is the best choice :)
>
>
On 2016-02-04 07:03, Edward Bartolo wrote:
>
> Do you agree to renaming netman?
NO
--
al3xu5 / dotcommon
Say NO to copyright, patents, trademarks and any industrial design restrictions.
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne
34 matches
Mail list logo
