Re: [DNG] Bad UEFI: was Systemd at work: rm -rf EFI

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,

Re: [DNG] Memory management strategies.

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

Re: [DNG] Bad UEFI: was Systemd at work: rm -rf EFI

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 > >

Re: [DNG] Bad UEFI: was Systemd at work: rm -rf EFI

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

Re: [DNG] Bad UEFI: was Systemd at work: rm -rf EFI

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

Re: [DNG] Bad UEFI: was Systemd at work: rm -rf EFI

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

Re: [DNG] Bad UEFI: was Systemd at work: rm -rf EFI

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

Re: [DNG] Semi OT: Mailman, Lurker and referencing messages

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'

Re: [DNG] Memory management strategies.

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

Re: [DNG] Semi OT: Mailman, Lurker and referencing messages

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

[DNG] Memory management strategies.

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

Re: [DNG] Systemd at work: rm -rf EFI

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

Re: [DNG] Systemd at work: rm -rf EFI

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

Re: [DNG] systemd is haunting me

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

Re: [DNG] Systemd at work: rm -rf EFI

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

Re: [DNG] systemd is haunting me

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. >> >>