Sorry. Stefan. Batting 1000.
-Jim
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 1:20 PM James Huddle
wrote:
> Just a quick shout-out to Roderick:
> Thank you for the paper reference. It's probably perfect for my needs,
> but I've been a bit busy, as of late. So no papers, regardless of year
> written.
> One of
Just a quick shout-out to Roderick:
Thank you for the paper reference. It's probably perfect for my needs,
but I've been a bit busy, as of late. So no papers, regardless of year
written.
One of my favorite references is Thompson's "Reflections on Trusting Trust"
so I'm hep to your SuperFly-Era
Hi,
Edgar Pettijohn wrote on Fri, May 17, 2019 at 03:47:41PM -0500:
> On 5/17/19 2:34 PM, Nathan Hartman wrote:
>> In the history of the (Berkeley) Fast File System, has there ever
>> been an attempt to implement DOS-like undelete for FFS/UFS?
>>
>> Maybe that could work for "normal delete"
> you can write a shell script to move given parameters into a special folder
> and make alias rm="that_script"
> and a rc script which empty this folder at boot/shutdown.
That is indeed the recommended approach for those who need it.
An example was published in the O'Reilly book Unix Power
On May 18, 2019 4:08 AM, Solène Rapenne wrote:
>
> Le 2019-05-17 22:47, Edgar Pettijohn a écrit :
> > On May 17, 2019 3:14 PM, gwes wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 5/17/19 2:34 PM, Nathan Hartman wrote:
> >> > On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 12:28 PM ropers wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > In the history
Le 2019-05-17 22:47, Edgar Pettijohn a écrit :
On May 17, 2019 3:14 PM, gwes wrote:
On 5/17/19 2:34 PM, Nathan Hartman wrote:
> On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 12:28 PM ropers wrote:
>
>
> In the history of the (Berkeley) Fast File System, has there ever been
> an attempt to implement DOS-like
On May 17, 2019 3:14 PM, gwes wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/17/19 2:34 PM, Nathan Hartman wrote:
> > On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 12:28 PM ropers wrote:
> >
> >
> > In the history of the (Berkeley) Fast File System, has there ever been
> > an attempt to implement DOS-like undelete for FFS/UFS?
> >
> > Maybe
On 5/17/19 2:34 PM, Nathan Hartman wrote:
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 12:28 PM ropers wrote:
In the history of the (Berkeley) Fast File System, has there ever been
an attempt to implement DOS-like undelete for FFS/UFS?
Maybe that could work for "normal delete" while making available a
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 12:28 PM ropers wrote:
>
> In the history of the (Berkeley) Fast File System, has there ever been
> an attempt to implement DOS-like undelete for FFS/UFS?
> (I understand that for technical reasons, this could require running a
> daemon that remembers just enough metadata
On 17/05/2019, Roderick wrote:
> As far as I know, DOS was not multitasking.
You're mostly correct, except there were task-switchers and there were
some multitasking-capable versions of DOS, notably Novell (ex-DR-) DOS
7. This was not very successful in the marketplace, in part because it
was
On Fri, 17 May 2019, gwes wrote:
You are correct on the surface and very misled as to the underlying concept.
You gave him an excellent answer. I hope many people read it.
He should just read the Unix paper I mentioned in other post. Not
the multiusersystem is a burden, bloat in modern
On 5/16/19 9:05 PM, James Huddle wrote:
First of all, I must say that it is with genuine gratitude that I read your
responses!
Mov
Probably the same reason that you would say "...I might trigger other
people to say some rude things..." Often I feel that by merely stating
my opinion, here, I
First of all, I must say that it is with genuine gratitude that I read your
responses!
Moving on...
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 3:05 PM James Huddle
wrote:
>> What I am trying to do (thank you Troy Martin), is work through
>> the standard answers and missteps toward a more secure OS,
>> starting
On Thu, 16 May 2019, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
Wow. Some might feel offended when somebody, in 2019, asks them
to read a text written in 1975 in order to improve their understanding
of computer security.
Or perhaps he should read this to get an idea of how to write an
init program:
Hi,
Stefan R. Filipek wrote on Wed, May 15, 2019 at 05:20:04PM -0400:
> If you have not already, be sure to read the 1975 paper "The
> Protection of Information in Computer Systems" by Saltzer, et. al., at
> least through section 1 A, for an introduction to computer security.
Wow. Some might
If you have not already, be sure to read the 1975 paper "The
Protection of Information in Computer Systems" by Saltzer, et. al., at
least through section 1 A, for an introduction to computer security.
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 3:05 PM James Huddle wrote:
> What I am trying to do (thank you Troy Martin), is work through
> the standard answers and missteps toward a more secure OS,
> starting with OpenBSD and a flashlight. It is my humble opinion
> that the optimal number of users for (say) a
>What I"m saying is that it takes less work overall to subtract from a
>system in a supportable way than it is to try and handcraft an
>unsupportable system.
If you know the supportable system well and your goal is only
a slight variation of that that system does, then that makes
perfect sense.
On 5/10/2019 1:28 AM, cho...@jtan.com wrote:
Misc User writes:
It is theoretically possible to do that, but you'd have to do -a lot-
of work to get it to do so. It'd be much easier finding a proper
way to accomplish what you want without running single-user.
I wouldn't recommend using single
Misc User writes:
> It is theoretically possible to do that, but you'd have to do -a lot-
> of work to get it to do so. It'd be much easier finding a proper
> way to accomplish what you want without running single-user.
I wouldn't recommend using single user mode to do anything other than
repair
James Huddle on Thursday, May 9, 2019 9:22 AM:
> Is anyone running in single-user mode regularly?
> Is anyone running a web server, for instance, in single-user mode?
This reads a lot like one of those questions where someone asks how to do a
specific thing in a very specific way with a very
On 5/9/2019 9:21 AM, James Huddle wrote:
If the following questions trigger a sense of road rage, you may
safely assume they are not directed to you.
Is anyone running in single-user mode regularly?
Is anyone running a web server, for instance, in single-user mode?
Many thanks in advance.
James Huddle writes:
> If the following questions trigger a sense of road rage, you may
> safely assume they are not directed to you.
>
> Is anyone running in single-user mode regularly?
I regularly boot things into single user mode to fix something or
otherwise engage in acts which could be
If the following questions trigger a sense of road rage, you may
safely assume they are not directed to you.
Is anyone running in single-user mode regularly?
Is anyone running a web server, for instance, in single-user mode?
Many thanks in advance. Shields up.
-Jim
24 matches
Mail list logo
