David Zeuthen wrote:
(I'm not subscribed to fedora-devel so if you want replies from me don't
remove me from the Cc.)
Hmmm, I can't directly CC folks through Gmane, the best I can do is to use
the KNode feature which copies the text into KMail.
An example where 1. is useful includes, funny
Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
[...]
Gah. Allowing packages to pierce the firewall just makes the firewall
redundant.
Not entirely.
I still think that the current firewall situation on Fedora is pretty
much broken. It's a bit like SELinux: it's one of the first features
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 11:02 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 11:58 +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote:
As it is, malware need only sit in the background and wait for e.g. a
PolicyKit-enabled user manager to acquire the authorization for user
creation to be able to easily
On Tue, 2009-06-16 at 16:57 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
Ve haf zer technology, already. :) it's just a case of adding code to
more apps to take advantage of the awesomeness of PolicyKit, and I
believe this is scheduled to happen.
I still have one fairly serious gripe with PolicyKit: If one
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 11:58 +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote:
As it is, malware need only sit in the background and wait for e.g. a
PolicyKit-enabled user manager to acquire the authorization for user
creation to be able to easily install a backdoor account.
Nils, this is somewhat inaccurate
Hi,
This is an accurate description of how things work, thanks to Matthias
for clearing things up on this list. There's more background information
about this particular thing here
http://hal.freedesktop.org/docs/polkit/
http://hal.freedesktop.org/docs/polkit/PolicyKit-1.8.html
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Lennart Poetteringmzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
Gah. Allowing packages to pierce the firewall just makes the firewall
redundant.
True
A firewall is an extra layer of security that
simply hides the actual problem.
Um!? Layered security is a _good thing_. *All*
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Martin Langhoff wrote:
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Lennart Poetteringmzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
Gah. Allowing packages to pierce the firewall just makes the firewall
redundant.
True
A firewall is an extra layer of security that
simply hides the actual problem.
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 5:58 AM, Nils Philippsenn...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 2009-06-16 at 16:57 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
Ve haf zer technology, already. :) it's just a case of adding code to
more apps to take advantage of the awesomeness of PolicyKit, and I
believe this is scheduled to
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 19:09 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 11:02:22AM -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
The retained authorization is only valid for the subject that obtained
it, which will typically be a process (identified by process id and
start time) or a canonical
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 07:09:29PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 11:02:22AM -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
The retained authorization is only valid for the subject that obtained
it, which will typically be a process (identified by process id and
start time) or a
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 7:09 PM, Richard W.M. Jonesrjo...@redhat.com wrote:
Can the malware inject code into the process which gained the
authentication (eg. using ptrace)?
Also, using a new PackageKit the worst you'll be able to do is install
signed software from already configured repos.
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 03:02:53PM -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 19:09 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 11:02:22AM -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
The retained authorization is only valid for the subject that obtained
it, which will typically be
If one application acquires an authorization it automatically authorizes all
other
applications running on the same desktop -- and I think that is a
potential attack vector for malware.
maybe this is about sudo and a like things
but PolicyKit is designed AFAIK to be much fine grained, it does
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 20:53 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 07:09:29PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 11:02:22AM -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
The retained authorization is only valid for the subject that obtained
it, which will typically be
Hi,
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 21:11 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 03:02:53PM -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 19:09 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
Can the malware inject code into the process which gained the
authentication (eg. using ptrace)?
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 18:35:00 -0300
Martín Marqués martin.marq...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/6/15 Casey Dahlin cdah...@redhat.com:
Maybe we should just make the command line more friendly so users
don't mind reaching for it. I vote we add clippy.
You're joking, right?
It's *clippy* - of
Le Lun 15 juin 2009 20:47, Casey Dahlin a écrit :
On 06/14/2009 02:08 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Gah. Allowing packages to pierce the firewall just makes the
firewall
redundant.
Not true. Allowing any listening program to poke a hole in the
firewall would make it redundant. Packages
Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 15.06.09 12:41, Thomas Woerner (twoer...@redhat.com) wrote:
So, what should happen here? Should we leave the firewall enabled in
these cases* by default and require admins to open them? If so, is
there any way that we can make this easier in some
Charles Butterfield wrote:
* My supported NVIDIA card (Quadro NVS 295)
Supported by what? Who said it's supported? If it's NVidia, that's
irrelevant, as their driver is proprietary and NOT supported or included in
Fedora.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
On Sun, 2009-06-14 at 19:36 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
there is an interesting issue;
if you poke a hole in your firewall for all the ports that are listening
automatically. you might as well not have a firewall in the first
place...
Well, not exactly. For instance, making it
On Tue, 2009-06-16 at 16:39 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sun, 2009-06-14 at 19:36 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
there is an interesting issue;
if you poke a hole in your firewall for all the ports that are listening
automatically. you might as well not have a firewall in the
On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 12:22 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Casey Dahlincdah...@redhat.com wrote:
The ability for nautilus to prompt for credentials when the user tries to
do something outside his permission level has been missing for far too
long. Its
On Tue, 2009-06-16 at 16:17 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
Its the next circle, the less frequent administrative chore tasks,
that I'm not sure its well defined in terms of which applications need
PolKit support added in. Maybe Nautilus is that circle, maybe its not.
Maybe its not time to start
On 06/16/2009 07:57 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 12:22 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Casey Dahlincdah...@redhat.com wrote:
The ability for nautilus to prompt for credentials when the user tries to do
something outside his
On 15/06/09 01:24, Guido Grazioli wrote:
That said, I agree the wheel group should be enabled with sudo, though
I disagree that the initial install user should be automatically added
to it.
But then again, I hate sudo :P I do most scripting that requires root
access via
Charles Butterfield, Sat, 13 Jun 2009 22:19:17 -0400:
Okay, so I mostly love Fedora. However, here are 4 things that got by
blood really, really boiling, so I thought I'd share my emotions. They
are mostly policy issues, where I think you have gotten it very very
wrong.
DON'T FEED THE
Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Sun, 14.06.09 18:34, Matthew Garrett (m...@redhat.com) wrote:
So, solving this is pretty easy, even for newbies. But I agree that the
error message will not help someone without advanced knowledge. Although
I think people running Samba generally will know where to
Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 06:13:51PM +0200, Julian Aloofi wrote:
So, solving this is pretty easy, even for newbies. But I agree that the
error message will not help someone without advanced knowledge. Although
I think people running Samba generally will know where to look
On Sun, 2009-06-14 at 10:35 +0200, Martin Sourada wrote:
On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 22:19 -0400, Charles Butterfield wrote:
* Samba (outbound) browsing requires firewall mods
I don't know how Samba works, so forgive me if I say obvious stupidity,
but shouldn't *client* work even behind
On Mon, 15.06.09 12:41, Thomas Woerner (twoer...@redhat.com) wrote:
So, what should happen here? Should we leave the firewall enabled in
these cases* by default and require admins to open them? If so, is
there any way that we can make this easier in some
Packagekit-oriented manner? If
Lennart Poettering (mzerq...@0pointer.de) said:
It's not just that ens1371 is shown as unrealistically popular,
es1371 is what either QEMU or VMWare emulates.
Bill
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Jeff Spaleta wrote:
I wonder, Would there be a reliable way to separate out emulated
hardware inside the smolt database reliably so we can get a better
statistical survey of in-service physical hardware devices?
QEMU inserts its name into the CPU string does it not? It could be
sorted that
On Sunday 14 June 2009, Richard Fearn wrote:
We have the wheel group which would fit the bill.
Yeah, I always uncomment the %wheel line in sudoers and then add
myself to that group.
Ditto.
See also https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462161
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 09:57:56PM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009, Mike McGrath wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 15.06.09 09:15, James Morris (jmor...@namei.org) wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 15.06.09 14:47, Dave Jones (da...@redhat.com) wrote:
As already mentioned, smolt never heard of HDA. Either I am blind or
there is no trace at all of HDA devices in this web UI.
Maybe I'm
On 06/15/2009 03:04 PM, Robert Marcano wrote:
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Casey Dahlincdah...@redhat.com wrote:
The problem that does arise is: just because apache is installed doesn't
mean its running. Really, init scripts should open the firewall ports they
need when their service
Casey Dahlin wrote:
Really, init scripts should open the firewall ports they need when
their service comes up (and I'll propose something for upstart 1.0
later today to make that make more sense.)
How is that supposed to work when I only want to allow connections to a
service on a whitelist
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 15.06.09 14:47, Dave Jones (da...@redhat.com) wrote:
Are you speaking of the same smolt that lists es1371 as most popular
sound card? i.e. a sound card that has been out of production since
about 10 years now? Somehow I
On 06/14/2009 09:13 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Sun, 2009-06-14 at 14:23 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 6:45 AM, Simo Sorcesso...@redhat.com wrote:
I haven't done a graphical root login in the past 10 years probably and
on multiple distribution. Graphical root login is
Matthew Woehlke wrote:
Configuration is fine, just as long as there /is/ configuration and not
running a service always exposes it to the world with no way to prevent
that. (Prevention by editing init-scripts doesn't count ;-).)
That's terrible. Unfortunately, I noticed after hitting 'send'
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Casey Dahlincdah...@redhat.com wrote:
The ability for nautilus to prompt for credentials when the user tries to do
something outside his permission level has been missing for far too long. Its
annoying to implement, but I'll owe a beer to whoever finally does
On 06/15/2009 04:22 PM, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Casey Dahlincdah...@redhat.com wrote:
The ability for nautilus to prompt for credentials when the user tries to do
something outside his permission level has been missing for far too long.
Its annoying to
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 2:34 AM, Lennart Poetteringmzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
On Sun, 14.06.09 16:11, Jeff Spaleta (jspal...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Lennart Poetteringmzerq...@0pointer.de
wrote:
Are you speaking of the same smolt that lists es1371 as most
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 10:33 PM, Casey Dahlincdah...@redhat.com wrote:
Maybe we should just make the command line more friendly so users don't mind
reaching for it. I vote we add clippy.
yum install hotwire ;)
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Casey Dahlincdah...@redhat.com wrote:
Maybe we should just make the command line more friendly so users don't mind
reaching for it. I vote we add clippy.
I'm not saying that necessarily needs to be friendlier to use but it
may need to be more discoverable as
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 22:19:17 -0400
Charles Butterfield charles.butterfi...@nextcentury.com wrote:
Okay, so I mostly love Fedora. However, here are 4 things that got by
blood really, really boiling, so I thought I'd share my emotions.
They are mostly policy issues, where I think you have
On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 22:19 -0400, Charles Butterfield wrote:
snip
* Root gdm login - gets harder every release - SHAME ON YOU root
nazis!
You can always init 3, login as root and startx if you *really need*
graphical root login (or use su in gnome-terminal or whatever gui
terminal
Hi,
To be honest, I like the Ubuntu way of adding a sudoers entry for the
first user that gets created.
Then suggest it as a feature for F12
That is actually a very good idea.
Ubuntu has an admin group, and users in that group can use sudo due
to this line in sudoers:
%admin ALL=(ALL) ALL
Ubuntu has an admin group, and users in that group can use sudo due
to this line in sudoers:
%admin ALL=(ALL) ALL
I might suggest this as a feature unless anyone else wants to (or
thinks I shouldn't) ?
# grep -n wheel /etc/sudoers
81:## Allows people in group wheel to run all commands
82:#
# grep -n wheel /etc/sudoers
81:## Allows people in group wheel to run all commands
82:# %wheel ALL=(ALL) ALL
85:# %wheel ALL=(ALL) NOPASSWD: ALL
All you have to do is uncomment one line ;)
That's exactly what I do, followed by:
$ usermod -a -G wheel rich
But wouldn't
On Sun, 2009-06-14 at 10:35 +0200, Martin Sourada wrote:
On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 22:19 -0400, Charles Butterfield wrote:
snip
* Root gdm login - gets harder every release - SHAME ON YOU root
nazis!
You can always init 3, login as root and startx if you *really need*
graphical
On Jun 14, 2009, at 5:31, Richard Fearn richardfe...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
To be honest, I like the Ubuntu way of adding a sudoers entry for
the
first user that gets created.
Then suggest it as a feature for F12
That is actually a very good idea.
Ubuntu has an admin group, and users
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 17:45:43 +1000,
Michael Fleming mflem...@thatfleminggent.com wrote:
I've done reinstalls and upgrades and not seen a denial AVC - I believe
if it runs during the installer it would be a permissive / targeted
mode. I did have SELinux break an upgrade but that was many
We have the wheel group which would fit the bill.
Yeah, I always uncomment the %wheel line in sudoers and then add
myself to that group.
Hmmm, having looked at the Features guidelines I'm not sure if this
warrants a feature page or not. It would only involve a change to the
default sudoers
On 14/06/09 16:07, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
snip
However I agree with you that samba is always a pain to setup on new
systems. I do not hate it, but I wish this had been made easier.
Logging into X as root? I can't comment on this as I didn't ever feel
the need to do that. I didn't know it was
The way it is done right now, you have a system that might give too
few permissions to some users. If that causes a problem, you'll notice
it, and you can correct it in a very simple way (uncomment one line
and add a user to a group).
However, if we change the default, you have a system that
On Sun, 2009-06-14 at 15:59 +0100, Richard Fearn wrote:
We have the wheel group which would fit the bill.
Yeah, I always uncomment the %wheel line in sudoers and then add
myself to that group.
Hmmm, having looked at the Features guidelines I'm not sure if this
warrants a feature page or
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 05:10:14PM +0200, Mathieu Bridon (bochecha) wrote:
However, if we change the default, you have a system that may be
giving too much permissions to some users depending on your taste. And
the worse part is that you (as an admin) might not even know it !
The semantics of
Am Sonntag, den 14.06.2009, 17:10 +0200 schrieb Mathieu Bridon
The way it is done right now, you have a system that might give too
few permissions to some users. If that causes a problem, you'll notice
it, and you can correct it in a very simple way (uncomment one line
and add a user to a
The way it is done right now, you have a system that might give too
few permissions to some users. If that causes a problem, you'll notice
it, and you can correct it in a very simple way (uncomment one line
and add a user to a group).
However, if we change the default, you have a system that
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Julian
Aloofijulian.fedorali...@googlemail.com wrote:
Am Sonntag, den 14.06.2009, 17:10 +0200 schrieb Mathieu Bridon
Samba (outbound) browsing requires firewall mods
So, solving this is pretty easy, even for newbies. But I agree that the
error message will
Charles Butterfield wrote:
...
Does it help if more people (dis)agree? I will add my voice.
- I like a root login option, especially when first setting
up the system, as it is helpful to do things as root. I
consciously choose to use root and realize that I MYSELF
could be exposing MY OWN
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009, Lennart Poettering wrote:
The way it is done right now, you have a system that might give too
few permissions to some users. If that causes a problem, you'll notice
it, and you can correct it in a very simple way (uncomment one line
and add a user to a group).
However, if
On Sun, 2009-06-14 at 10:52 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 18:34:52 +0100
I think this is actually a problem that needs solving. We have
several network services that are either installed by default or
might be expected to be part of a standard setup, but which don't
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 15:59:58 +0100
Richard Fearn richardfe...@gmail.com wrote:
We have the wheel group which would fit the bill.
Yeah, I always uncomment the %wheel line in sudoers and then add
myself to that group.
Hmmm, having looked at the Features guidelines I'm not sure if this
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Paul Woutersp...@xelerance.com wrote:
That said, I agree the wheel group should be enabled with sudo, though
I disagree that the initial install user should be automatically added
to it.
Should sudo be treated in this case any differently than su? I think
wheel
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 20:08:31 +0200,
Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
enabled by default, like we currently do. If an application cannot be
trusted then it should not be allowed to listen on a port by default
in the first place. A firewall is an extra layer of security that
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 10:45:09AM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
* Samba (outbound) browsing requires firewall mods
I don't know how Samba works, so forgive me if I say obvious stupidity,
but shouldn't *client* work even behind closed firewall (like with any
other services like ssh, ftp,
On 6/13/2009 10:19 PM, Charles Butterfield wrote:
Okay, so I mostly love Fedora. However, here are 4 things that got by
blood really, really boiling, so I thought I’d share my emotions. They
are mostly policy issues, where I think you have gotten it very very wrong.
Just installed F11
2009/6/14 Richard Fearn richardfe...@gmail.com:
# grep -n wheel /etc/sudoers
81:## Allows people in group wheel to run all commands
82:# %wheel ALL=(ALL) ALL
85:# %wheel ALL=(ALL) NOPASSWD: ALL
All you have to do is uncomment one line ;)
That's exactly what I do,
Le dimanche 14 juin 2009 à 20:08 +0200, Lennart Poettering a écrit :
I still think that the current firewall situation on Fedora is pretty
much broken. It's a bit like SELinux: it's one of the first features
most people disable.
For the people I know disabling the firewall is very low under
Michael Fleming mflem...@thatfleminggent.com writes:
With the likes of sudo / ConsoleKit / console-helper et. al you should
never, ever need to run an extended session as root. Your day-to-day
work can be done perfectly well as a standard non-privileged user, the
applications that *need*
inode0 ino...@gmail.com writes:
Actually, I am strongly against the way Fedora forces the creation of
the first user without allowing the admin to set the uid/gid of the
user. That is a different annoying issue.
Hmm... Does it?
I installed F11 (i386, with netinstall) recently and it didn't
I didn't say the wheel group was a nonsense or a problem. I was
responding to Richard who wanted the line to be uncommented (harmless
per se) AND the first user to be added to the wheel group by default.
I've since changed my mind :-)
For example, a « add to the wheel group » checkbox in
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 05:45:43PM +1000, Michael Fleming wrote:
Ich bin ein secure user and you should be too. Logging in as root into
X directly (or the console for that matter) is a *bad idea*.
Erm, logging as root on the console is a bad idea? _You've_ obviously
not got any machines
Who says the first created user is root-equivalent?
It wouldn't be root-equivalent. You have to explicitly use sudo, and
enter your password when you do use it. It's not the same as a root
prompt.
In any case, I like Mathieu Bridon's idea of having a firstboot option.
Rich
--
Dnia 2009-06-14, o godz. 22:12:47
Krzysztof Halasa k...@pm.waw.pl napisał(a):
a false feeling that the non-privileged account doesn't need the same
level of protection as the root account needs.
The feeling isn't false - overtaking a root-run program is potentially more
harmful to the system,
Richard Fearn richardfe...@gmail.com writes:
Who says the first created user is root-equivalent?
It wouldn't be root-equivalent. You have to explicitly use sudo, and
enter your password when you do use it. It's not the same as a root
prompt.
It is from a security person POV.
If an attacker
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 6:45 AM, Simo Sorcesso...@redhat.com wrote:
I haven't done a graphical root login in the past 10 years probably and
on multiple distribution. Graphical root login is meaningless.
Let me ask you a question as an example to better define the
expectation on behavior that
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009, Lennart Poettering wrote:
much broken. It's a bit like SELinux: it's one of the first features
most people disable.
False.
Most people leave SELinux enabled, according to the smolt stats which have
been collecting since the F8 era.
Fedora is the only big distro that
On Mon, 15.06.09 09:15, James Morris (jmor...@namei.org) wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009, Lennart Poettering wrote:
much broken. It's a bit like SELinux: it's one of the first features
most people disable.
False.
Most people leave SELinux enabled, according to the smolt stats which have
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Are you speaking of the same smolt that lists es1371 as most popular
sound card? i.e. a sound card that has been out of production since
about 10 years now? Somehow I have serious doubts about the validity
of the smolt data.
I've previously
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Lennart Poetteringmzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
Are you speaking of the same smolt that lists es1371 as most popular
sound card? i.e. a sound card that has been out of production since
about 10 years now? Somehow I have serious doubts about the validity
of the
That said, I agree the wheel group should be enabled with sudo, though
I disagree that the initial install user should be automatically added
to it.
But then again, I hate sudo :P I do most scripting that requires root
access via root logins directly with ssh and keys.
i completely agree
On Sun, 14.06.09 16:11, Jeff Spaleta (jspal...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Lennart Poetteringmzerq...@0pointer.de
wrote:
Are you speaking of the same smolt that lists es1371 as most popular
sound card? i.e. a sound card that has been out of production since
about
On Sun, 2009-06-14 at 15:11 -0400, Chuck Anderson wrote:
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 10:45:09AM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
* Samba (outbound) browsing requires firewall mods
I don't know how Samba works, so forgive me if I say obvious stupidity,
but shouldn't *client* work even behind
On Sun, 2009-06-14 at 14:23 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 6:45 AM, Simo Sorcesso...@redhat.com wrote:
I haven't done a graphical root login in the past 10 years probably and
on multiple distribution. Graphical root login is meaningless.
Let me ask you a question as
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 15.06.09 09:15, James Morris (jmor...@namei.org) wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009, Lennart Poettering wrote:
much broken. It's a bit like SELinux: it's one of the first features
most people disable.
False.
Most people leave
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009, Mike McGrath wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 15.06.09 09:15, James Morris (jmor...@namei.org) wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009, Lennart Poettering wrote:
much broken. It's a bit like SELinux: it's one of the first features
most
On 6/14/09, Charles Butterfield charles.butterfi...@nextcentury.com wrote:
[...]
Root gdm login - gets harder every release - SHAME ON YOU root nazis!
Interesting. Godwin's law right from the start of a thread? I must buy
a lottery ticket today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
91 matches
Mail list logo
