Two weeks later and people are still talking about this. Don't we have better ways to use our time? :)
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > False. I said exactly what I meant. It was partly false in fact > (as Andy Tai pointed out, no decision had been made, so the process > is not sufficiently flawed that it is "revolting"). However, I was > revolted, and Tom was being ignored by a frequent poster. (The OP > still has not responded to Tom's criticisms.) So my post was I did, indirectly. I said inode sigs are very weak in terms of security, and the "forensic trace" argument is close to being moot. Having said that, inode sigs are good ways to detect _unintentional_ corruption; and in this case rm -rf (if made atomic) is the reasonable thing to do. Derek _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list Gnu-arch-users@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
