Ralf Mardorf schreef op 11-10-2016 21:16:

"These are all practically unused options."

And they are. I have never come across a single file that had the immutable bit set or I would have found out.

If the graphical tools don't support it it won't be much use unless automated system installs use it. Am I to immutibalize all of the files I don't want to be corrupted? Can apt work with that? This is not something a user can do on his own (or her own).

I don't deny that the thing would be useful, in fact it sparks my interest. Besides, what was the topic. Oh yes, ensuring that you don't make drastic errors by mistake. And the reason for that was saying that the user is not protected from destroying his system.

And the reason for that was saying that root access is /easy/ but convenience still is not!! Tough is it, when someone can draw the discussion back to where it started? And the reason for not saying that the user cannot protect itself is not that it would be easy for him to do so regardless. It is because people like you think it is easy and it is not. What I mean is that you won't refuse to acknowledge that this isn't working. If you actually knew what you were talking about.

If a user is not willing to use the provided tools, than the better OS
for such a user is a restricted OS.

You say the user is protected, but now you go to great lengths to say that the user must go to great lengths to protect himself. So the user must obtain root (in a default install of Ubuntu, for example) and then go to great length making the entirety of the filesystem immutable, probably fucking up every other tool out there.

Using Linux requires some amount of
self-responsibility and a minimum of interest in learning how to use

So what would happen to *your* system if you did "sudo rm -rf /*"?

It is pretty clear -I is as dysfynctional as it can get: it prompts you whenever MORE THAN 3 FILES are getting deleted, and won't allow you to differentiate between that, and directories! That is the stupidest thing to do, and that designer probably didn't think much about it. Instead of making a /good/ default and using that as the default (requiring e.g. some --force to override) the default is that -f (that most people use) HAS NO GOOD USE OTHER THAN not telling you that you didn't just delete nothing, you actually deleted nothing. It just won't tell you if a file is missing, that is all it does.

rm -rf  <-- the f is useless for the most part
rm -I   <-- will prompt on more than 3 files
rm -rI  <-- will prompt on more than 3 files, and directories.

When you hit rm -rI * it will only tell you the number of files in the directory, it will not give you their names, or the total amount of files you are going to delete, so it is just very much useless.

It is a useless question and unless you pay specific attention you will force yourself to type "y <enter>" based on nothing more than a /number/. Which will quickly become a repetitive thing rendering the -I question pointless because you will be too fast at pressing "y <enter>" anyway for it to be of any use.

This thing has no intelligence and I would not recommend using it. I very much doubt anyone does.

For using Linux there's no need to become a geek, but Linux is not a
replacement for a restricted OS, for completely clueless users, without
any interest in leraning how to use it.

You speak of Immutable bits and -I flags and then you say we do not need to become a geek. What are you then?

Have you any clue what it does to a person when you tell him to use those options?

We needed to learn how to use
forks and knives and for a much more complex tool, the computer, some
people are not willing to spend at least the same amount of time and
effort as they spend in learning how to use forks and knives.

You are comparing using a fork to recursively setting an Immutable flag that you don't want to be deleted that will have to be removed prior to using a tool like Apt /juust/ because "rm" does not by default provide any sense of useful protection and you call that "not geek stuff". Have you any common sense left in you?

I think you have been in Arch for too long man, it's rotting your brain.

No restricted OS provides that amount of choice as Linux does. To make
it easy for clueless users, some distros, e.g. Ubuntu, provide some

Could you please get off your high horse and venture among people once more?

No Ubuntu system has Immutable flags anywhere. This is the default and what all users will see.

No one uses a tool like rm -I when it is practically pointless to do so.

For some reason "rm -rf" is the only practical choice and everyone uses it, as if it has some magic to it, that "rm -r" does not (the -f practically serves no purpose, but it is more 'rhythmically correct' to write rm -rf instead of rm -r.

The -f should mean "force" but instead it means "Just don't tell me if you haven't done anything actually."

It never actually overrides any prompts that I know of.

You are arguing that Ubuntu users must grow up and become Arch users, prior to being expected, or prior to be allowed to expect, a reasonably functional system.

I was saying about the practical reality NOW that NO USER is protected the way you say he/she is and that ALL of those users have access to sudo, and that ANY hacking tool can get access to their password AND su rights. I was saying that the security of this default Linux system is a joke, there is no security to it at all, and they would be just as prone to viruses and anything else as any Windows user, save for the fact that you normally don't install free wild third party packages, which is a measure of protection, but not much.

Any browser exploit could give anyone root access.

Unless of course perhaps something like AppArmor would prevent it. I mean, I stand corrected in that case, I guess.

But I find very few profiles and I just don't trust it all that much. Maybe the browsers have protection against that. I wouldn't trust it to be sure. I think Linux would be just as vulnerable as Windows if it really was targetted, apart from the fact that Linux can easily introduce a package verification system that runs site wide and just reports corrupted files.

But the point of what I was saying is simply that destroying your system is very easy and you are not protected from that and many users are dead afraid of doing anything to it for fear of making a mistake and the command line itself is just very risky. And even though all of this is that easy to do, we still cannot do certain things that would not even require root privileges. I venture that gvfs goes a long way to solving this but it is actually the wrong solution in the wrong spot.

If it is only accepted by Gnome distributions.

The point was simply: root access is easy for UID 1000 user
* Destroying system is easy for default system
* Command line shell is hard, to know where you are, to never mistype, etc.
* There are no good default protections that need overrides
* Injunctions against users to "stay away from root" probably.
* Wrong rm deletes a file, Linux filesystems do not support undeletion.
* Wrong fstab --> system doesn't boot
* Errors are easy to make and can render complete system unbootable within seconds. * My own system fails to boot at least once a month due to errors or automatic upgrades (errors on my behalf, and automatic updates that mess with it). * It is very easy to break a Linux system -- I can probably give you plenty of ways to do it, let's get creative!!

* I hope I'm allowed to poke fun at stuff --> in reference to https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2012/11/msg01002.html (in which I think you made very valid points).

* Let's a create a "ways to kill Ubuntu" site where we introduce a list of small configuration changes that will render the entire system unbootable ;-). Just to put a little humour into the thing.

I can't remember that I ever read such complaints as your, on the Ubuntu
user list, https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/ .

You are not a developer, so you cannot understand a developer question. You think it is a user support question. It is not. It is a developer question.

I have been banned at ubuntu-users for poking fun at Ralf Mardorf in a previous life.

Also, maybe there are issues with:
* your remembering
* your reading
* your knowing what things are complaints
* your thinking I am an Ubuntu user :P.

But beside that point, if you cannot watch a video (or do not wish to do so) there is nothing further I can say.

Here it is again:


It seems ridiculous without the context. It is 16 seconds long (can almost go on Instagram).

I also do not understand, why a user who is satisfied with Windows,
should use Linux and vice versa.

Where did I say where I was satisfied with Windows?

Should we be *more* satisfied when our system can do *less*? Do you mean that the lack of ability to do stuff in Linux should lead to satisfaction? I hope I have you wrong there. I hope being forced to enter the shell and the command line to do anything and work very hard at accomplishing anything, should not be a satisfying thing.

I hope that a lack of satisfaction with Windows is reason enough for you to be in Linux (for me) but I do not get why I should be satisfied with an *in*ability to do stuff.

Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 

Reply via email to