On 07/08/13 21:34, intrigeri wrote: > Arne wrote (07 Aug 2013 19:15:21 GMT) : >> Because it is quite unlikely that a normal user of a Linux system is allowed >> to write >> to the device directly. > > On most modern GNU/Linux distros that I know of, the desktop user that > was created at installation time has write access to removable storage > media out-of-the-box. So, I can't call it unlikely.
Yes. And to me, adding `sudo` to the first proposed command will increase the possibility for a user to overwrite some internal disk if typing a wrong device name. >> Furthermore i don't get a specific reason why you are using cat instead of >> dd. >> Maybe because cat is really likely to be already installed but from my >> experiences dd >> is mostly installed as well. > > I tend to think that using `dd' instead of `cat' would at least solve > the "I tried `sudo cat FILE > DEVICE' and it did not work" issue. > sajolida, what do you think? I think there was no strong argument in play when we chose between `dd` or `cat`. If `dd` is easier to prefix with `sudo`, then why not change to `dd`, yes.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ tails-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev
