> Daryll> On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 09:34:59PM -0500, David Feuer wrote:
> >> For what it's worth, I absolutely agree with this. I have the same
> >> impression when I just see the word "dangerous".
>
> Daryll> Why not call a spade a spade and label it BROKEN. I do think
> Daryll> that's stronger
> "Daryll" == Daryll Strauss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Daryll> On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 09:34:59PM -0500, David Feuer wrote:
>> For what it's worth, I absolutely agree with this. I have the same
>> impression when I just see the word "dangerous".
Daryll> Why not call a spade a spade and la
> You could just tell people the truth. Something far worse that DANGEROUS.
> Like:
>
> CRIPPLED BY LEGAL DURESS
>
> Or as I come to understand:
>
> The processes that would normally have fixed this driver by now
> are broken by the vigorous defense of Microsoft's IP.
> It will trash your dis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Alvord) said:
[...]
> If this was a business, and we were knowingly distributing software
> that was known to be dangerous, we would probably be risking legal
> action.
Debatable. It is marked EXPERIMENTAL and DANGEROUS, and not enabled by
default.
> Why are we distribu
On Sat, 9 Dec 2000, Ren Haddock wrote:
> I think part of the problem is that there are other things labeled
> DANGEROUS that actually do work fairly reliably (offhand, I'm thinking
> off the IDE config stuff..). Perhaps it needs to explicitely say
> 'This is broken and is gauranteed to destroy y
On Sat, 09 Dec 2000 21:34:59 -0500, David Feuer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>At 08:12 PM 12/9/2000 -0600, Rene wrote:
>>I think part of the problem is that there are other things labeled
>>DANGEROUS that actually do work fairly reliably (offhand, I'm thinking
>>off the IDE config stuff..). Perhaps
On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 09:34:59PM -0500, David Feuer wrote:
> At 08:12 PM 12/9/2000 -0600, Rene wrote:
> >I think part of the problem is that there are other things labeled
> >DANGEROUS that actually do work fairly reliably (offhand, I'm thinking
> >off the IDE config stuff..). Perhaps it needs t
At 08:12 PM 12/9/2000 -0600, Rene wrote:
>I think part of the problem is that there are other things labeled
>DANGEROUS that actually do work fairly reliably (offhand, I'm thinking
>off the IDE config stuff..). Perhaps it needs to explicitely say
>'This is broken and is gauranteed to destroy your
I think part of the problem is that there are other things labeled
DANGEROUS that actually do work fairly reliably (offhand, I'm thinking
off the IDE config stuff..). Perhaps it needs to explicitely say
'This is broken and is gauranteed to destroy your data. Do not use it'
The 'DANGEROUS' label
On Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 02:38:03AM +0100, willy tarreau wrote:
>
> Perhaps we should more generally display a line at
> boot
> telling if there were EXPERIMENTAL or DANGEROUS code
> compiled in the kernel.
>
Good idea.
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-
> Alan has spoken. If DANGEROUS doesn't get their
> attention, what will?
Jeff, I know that, but I was speaking about people who
use these features while they don't know they're
dangerous just because someone else has compiled the
kernel for them. There are people who claim to know
linux better
On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 03:03:22PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> "Jeff V. Merkey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hmm. If this is the case then shouldn't someone point this out. To the
> antitrust lawyers. You present this as a clear case of deliberately
> preventing interoperability between N
"Jeff V. Merkey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 02:00:29PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > Agree. We need to disable it, since folks do not read the docs
> > > (obviously). Of course, we could leave it on, and I could start
> > > charging money for these tools -- there's lit
On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 05:49:00PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
Alan has spoken. If DANGEROUS doesn't get their attention, what
will?
Jeff
> One problem with warnings at compile time is that in many cases, administrators
> use kernels provided by friends or collegues that "know linux better th
On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 05:49:00PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> One problem with warnings at compile time is that in many cases, administrators
> use kernels provided by friends or collegues that "know linux better than them".
> If an admin uses a kernel in which write support has been activated
One problem with warnings at compile time is that in many cases, administrators
use kernels provided by friends or collegues that "know linux better than them".
If an admin uses a kernel in which write support has been activated to mount
an NTFS file system without providing any option, he will ge
>I agree that if you give a mentally unbalanced person a firearm, they might
>shoot themselves with it. I am suggesting we take away their firearm. Write
>support for NTFS is useful for migrating from Linux to NT, R/O support is
>useful for migrating NT to Linux. We won't be giving anything up.
On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 12:42:45PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> "Jeff V. Merkey" wrote:
>
> We don't need any messages. If (DANGEROUS) is not sufficient, then
> disable the feature unconditionally. Someone hacking on the code will
> be smart enough to enable the stuff while they are debugging.
>
"Jeff V. Merkey" wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 02:00:29PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > Agree. We need to disable it, since folks do not read the docs
> > > (obviously). Of course, we could leave it on, and I could start
> > > charging money for these tools -- there's little doubt it would
On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 01:55:43PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
> > somewhere in the thousands. Is NTFS write stable enough now in 2.4 to
> > fix these problems, if so, can we DISABLE by REMOVING write code in the
>
> It says DANGEROUS in big letters on the configuration option. We are now
> down to t
On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 02:00:29PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Agree. We need to disable it, since folks do not read the docs
> > (obviously). Of course, we could leave it on, and I could start
> > charging money for these tools -- there's little doubt it would be a
> > lucrative business. Perha
On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 03:34:09PM +0100, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 02:43:42PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 08:19:46AM -0500, David Relson wrote:
> > > At 11:54 PM 12/7/00, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
> > No amount of warnings can prevent morons f
On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 03:34:09PM +0100, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
[...]
> Maybe that can prevent pupils^H^H^H^H^Heople from shooting their
> foots...
Nothing can "prevent" them from shooting themselves in the foot,
even taking away their guns and ammunition (removing it from th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> They'd prolly blast through it without reading (You don't think they
> read teh MS agreement when istalling windows do you?) but I bet we
> could argue that they accepted the agreement to protect us.
tristate 'NTFS file system support (read only)' CONFIG_NTFS_FS
dep_
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > I am very firmly against removing something because people do
> > not read manuals, what is next fdisk , mkfs ?.
>
> I must say I like the CONFIG_MORON though. By setting that the
> (l)user exposes his true iden
You know, couldn't we do something like prompting the (l)user with an
disclaimer/agreement or something when selecting the option or maybe
even when doing a make dep?
They'd prolly blast through it without reading (You don't think they
read teh MS agreement when istalling windows do you?) but I b
On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 02:43:42PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 08:19:46AM -0500, David Relson wrote:
> > At 11:54 PM 12/7/00, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> No amount of warnings can prevent morons from f**king up. Unix gives
> you enough rope et al. I'm not arguing for remov
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
> I am very firmly against removing something because people do
> not read manuals, what is next fdisk , mkfs ?.
I must say I like the CONFIG_MORON though. By setting that the
(l)user exposes his true identity and leaves little for us to
doubt ;)
Added to the
> Agree. We need to disable it, since folks do not read the docs
> (obviously). Of course, we could leave it on, and I could start
> charging money for these tools -- there's little doubt it would be a
> lucrative business. Perhaps this is what I'll do if the numbers of
> copies keeps growing.
> somewhere in the thousands. Is NTFS write stable enough now in 2.4 to
> fix these problems, if so, can we DISABLE by REMOVING write code in the
It says DANGEROUS in big letters on the configuration option. We are now
down to the level of people who don't understand 'smoking kills you' in big
l
On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 08:19:46AM -0500, David Relson wrote:
> At 11:54 PM 12/7/00, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
>
> >Linux today monitors this list. Some public education may be the best
> >route. How do we post a security advisory warning people that will get
> >posted? I'm sure folks see the D
At 11:54 PM 12/7/00, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>Linux today monitors this list. Some public education may be the best
>route. How do we post a security advisory warning people that will get
>posted? I'm sure folks see the DANGEROUS comments, but they don't seem
>to stick in their heads. Then the
"Peter Samuelson wrote:"
> [Michael Warfield]
> > This thing is not armed and dangerous due to an act of ommision.
> > It's live and active only through three acts of commision.
>
> We could make it *four* acts of commission. (: (: (:
>
> diff -urk~ fs/Config.in
> --- fs/Config.in~ Mon Nov 1
[Michael Warfield]
> This thing is not armed and dangerous due to an act of ommision.
> It's live and active only through three acts of commision.
We could make it *four* acts of commission. (: (: (:
diff -urk~ fs/Config.in
--- fs/Config.in~ Mon Nov 13 01:43:42 2000
+++ fs/Config.in
"Michael H. Warfield" wrote:
> > Agree. We need to disable it, since folks do not read the docs
> > (obviously). Of course, we could leave it on, and I could start
> > charging money for these tools -- there's little doubt it would be a
> > lucrative business. Perhaps this is what I'll do if
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 09:43:24PM -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> Peter Samuelson wrote:
> >
> > [Jeff Merkey]
> > > Do folks not know this NTFS driver will trash hard drives? We need
> > > to alert folks DO NOT USE WRITE NTFS MODE in those versions we know
> > > are busted.
> > Here's an idea
Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Jeff Merkey]
> > Do folks not know this NTFS driver will trash hard drives? We need
> > to alert folks DO NOT USE WRITE NTFS MODE in those versions we know
> > are busted.
>
> Here's an idea: let's make r/w support a separate CONFIG option, and
> label it "DANGEROU
[Jeff Merkey]
> Do folks not know this NTFS driver will trash hard drives? We need
> to alert folks DO NOT USE WRITE NTFS MODE in those versions we know
> are busted.
Here's an idea: let's make r/w support a separate CONFIG option, and
label it "DANGEROUS".
Oh wait, we already do that.
Perhap
Linux/Linus/Anton/Alan,
I am still sending out the NTFS repair tools for Linux trashed volumes,
and I've lost count now relative to how many I've sent out, but it's
somewhere in the thousands. Is NTFS write stable enough now in 2.4 to
fix these problems, if so, can we DISABLE by REMOVING write
39 matches
Mail list logo
