Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #13197 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Jeremy Nicoll - news posts <jn.nntp.scrap007@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-01-03 22:11 +0000 |
| Last post | 2015-01-05 16:43 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 85 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Jeremy Nicoll - news posts <jn.nntp.scrap007@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> - 2015-01-03 22:11 +0000
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-01-03 22:25 +0000
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Grant <omg@grrr.id.au> - 2015-01-04 09:48 +1100
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Jack Strangio <jackstrangio@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-04 01:36 +0000
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-01-04 03:43 +0000
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> - 2015-01-04 21:31 +0000
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Jeremy Nicoll - news posts <jn.nntp.scrap007@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> - 2015-01-05 18:30 +0000
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-01-05 19:17 +0000
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2015-01-05 13:48 -0600
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-01-05 21:04 +0000
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2015-01-05 13:48 -0600
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-01-05 21:08 +0000
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2015-01-05 15:23 -0600
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-01-05 21:29 +0000
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Mladen Gogala <gogala.mladen@gmail.com> - 2015-01-06 01:29 +0000
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> - 2015-01-05 13:22 -0800
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> - 2015-01-05 21:32 +0000
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-03-06 01:44 -0500
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-06 16:19 +0000
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-01-04 12:16 +0000
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-01-04 13:33 +0000
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-01-04 14:00 +0000
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2015-01-04 08:29 -0600
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-01-04 15:06 +0000
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2015-01-04 09:31 -0600
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2015-01-04 09:29 -0800
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-01-04 18:25 +0000
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-01-04 17:56 +0000
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-01-04 18:20 +0000
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-01-04 23:30 +0000
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-01-05 11:15 +0000
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-01-05 12:33 +0000
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-01-05 12:49 +0000
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-01-05 13:10 +0000
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-01-05 13:36 +0000
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Jeremy Nicoll - news posts <jn.nntp.scrap007@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> - 2015-01-05 18:56 +0000
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2015-01-05 15:13 +0100
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2015-01-05 12:31 -0800
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2015-01-05 16:05 +0000
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2015-01-05 18:05 +0100
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-01-05 18:12 +0000
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2015-01-06 09:56 +0100
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2015-01-04 08:21 -0600
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-01-04 18:04 +0000
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Jeremy Nicoll - news posts <jn.nntp.scrap007@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> - 2015-01-05 18:43 +0000
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2015-01-05 13:48 -0600
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-01-05 19:51 +0000
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Johnny <johnny@invalid.net> - 2015-01-04 17:18 -0600
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Johnny <johnny@invalid.net> - 2015-01-04 17:26 -0600
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-01-04 18:57 -0500
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2015-01-04 16:07 -0800
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-01-04 19:57 -0500
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-01-05 01:01 +0000
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-01-04 23:20 -0500
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-01-05 06:49 +0000
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> - 2015-01-04 18:40 -0800
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2015-01-05 16:02 +0000
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2015-01-05 12:42 -0800
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-01-06 04:08 +0000
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2015-01-05 22:01 -0800
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-01-06 06:59 +0000
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2015-01-06 10:00 +0100
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2015-01-06 14:59 +0000
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2015-01-05 14:21 +0100
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-01-05 13:35 +0000
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2015-01-05 15:14 +0100
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-01-05 14:25 +0000
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2015-01-05 16:18 +0100
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2015-01-05 09:35 -0600
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2015-01-05 16:16 +0000
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-01-05 16:20 +0000
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2015-01-05 16:50 +0000
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-01-05 18:12 +0000
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-01-05 19:20 +0000
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-01-05 21:05 +0000
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2015-01-05 23:25 +0100
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-01-05 22:48 +0000
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2015-01-06 19:11 +0100
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-01-06 18:28 +0000
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-01-05 15:50 +0000
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-01-05 16:30 +0000
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-01-05 10:51 -0600
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-01-05 19:20 +0000
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2015-01-05 23:26 +0100
Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-01-05 16:43 -0600
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-04 13:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m8bfg6$upp$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #13204 |
On 04/01/15 12:16, Richard Kettlewell wrote: > Jeremy Nicoll - news posts <jn.nntp.scrap007@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> writes: >> How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised >> changes? >> >> What I mean is, if they install patches or some package whose >> configuration screws things up, and they then can't boot - what then? > > Restore from backup. > The question is pretty carzy to start with. Packages - unless they mess with the kernel/drivers - don't stop the thing booting. Most driver cockups will allow booting in terminal mode and blacklisting or de-installing of the offending driver anyway. New kernels don't *have* to be booted either. The grub gives options to revert to earlier ones. Only time I restore, is during a complete distro upgrade: and then o#nly as a guide to enabling the new distro -- Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. – Erwin Knoll
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-04 14:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tktnnb-r7f.ln1@squidward.dionic.net> |
| In reply to | #13205 |
On 04/01/15 13:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 04/01/15 12:16, Richard Kettlewell wrote: >> Jeremy Nicoll - news posts <jn.nntp.scrap007@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> >> writes: >>> How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised >>> changes? >>> >>> What I mean is, if they install patches or some package whose >>> configuration screws things up, and they then can't boot - what then? >> >> Restore from backup. >> > The question is pretty carzy to start with. > > Packages - unless they mess with the kernel/drivers - don't stop the > thing booting. Buggering up libc? Or as I had with ubuntu + ZFS, deciding the hostid was broken (it was null) and refusing to mount any ZFS volumes. > > Most driver cockups will allow booting in terminal mode and blacklisting > or de-installing of the offending driver anyway. > > New kernels don't *have* to be booted either. The grub gives options to > revert to earlier ones. > > Only time I restore, is during a complete distro upgrade: and then o#nly > as a guide to enabling the new distro > > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-04 08:29 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? |
| Message-ID | <ev-dnUL9U7qv0zTJnZ2dnUU7-XOdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #13206 |
At Sun, 04 Jan 2015 14:00:29 +0000 Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote:
>
> On 04/01/15 13:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> > On 04/01/15 12:16, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> >> Jeremy Nicoll - news posts <jn.nntp.scrap007@wingsandbeaks.org.uk>
> >> writes:
> >>> How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised
> >>> changes?
> >>>
> >>> What I mean is, if they install patches or some package whose
> >>> configuration screws things up, and they then can't boot - what then?
> >>
> >> Restore from backup.
> >>
> > The question is pretty carzy to start with.
> >
> > Packages - unless they mess with the kernel/drivers - don't stop the
> > thing booting.
>
> Buggering up libc?
>
> Or as I had with ubuntu + ZFS, deciding the hostid was broken (it was
> null) and refusing to mount any ZFS volumes.
Well, ZFS is not the default file system. Most naive users will be using
someting safe like ext4 and are unlikely to bugger up libc. See my other post
about 'developers and gurus' possibly messing with non-standard or bleeding
edge packages.
>
> >
> > Most driver cockups will allow booting in terminal mode and blacklisting
> > or de-installing of the offending driver anyway.
> >
> > New kernels don't *have* to be booted either. The grub gives options to
> > revert to earlier ones.
> >
> > Only time I restore, is during a complete distro upgrade: and then o#nly
> > as a guide to enabling the new distro
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
--
Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software -- Custom Software Services
http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Linux Administration Services
heller@deepsoft.com -- Webhosting Services
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-04 15:06 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? |
| Message-ID | <4h1onb-kih.ln1@squidward.dionic.net> |
| In reply to | #13208 |
On 04/01/15 14:29, Robert Heller wrote: > At Sun, 04 Jan 2015 14:00:29 +0000 Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote: > >> >> On 04/01/15 13:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> On 04/01/15 12:16, Richard Kettlewell wrote: >>>> Jeremy Nicoll - news posts <jn.nntp.scrap007@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> >>>> writes: >>>>> How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised >>>>> changes? >>>>> >>>>> What I mean is, if they install patches or some package whose >>>>> configuration screws things up, and they then can't boot - what then? >>>> >>>> Restore from backup. >>>> >>> The question is pretty carzy to start with. >>> >>> Packages - unless they mess with the kernel/drivers - don't stop the >>> thing booting. >> >> Buggering up libc? >> >> Or as I had with ubuntu + ZFS, deciding the hostid was broken (it was >> null) and refusing to mount any ZFS volumes. > > Well, ZFS is not the default file system. Most naive users will be using > someting safe like ext4 and are unlikely to bugger up libc. See my other post > about 'developers and gurus' possibly messing with non-standard or bleeding > edge packages. True about ZFS - it is an option. However, the original statement was: "Packages - unless they mess with the kernel/drivers - don't stop the thing booting." Which I trivially refuted with: "Buggering up libc?". It's unlikely a good distro running with STABLE repos will bugger up libc but it remains a possibility. Feck all use booting a kernel if you can't get userland off the ground...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-04 09:31 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? |
| Message-ID | <peOdnXHOEqp8wTTJnZ2dnUU7-dOdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #13210 |
At Sun, 04 Jan 2015 15:06:44 +0000 Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote:
>
> On 04/01/15 14:29, Robert Heller wrote:
> > At Sun, 04 Jan 2015 14:00:29 +0000 Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On 04/01/15 13:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> >>> On 04/01/15 12:16, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> >>>> Jeremy Nicoll - news posts <jn.nntp.scrap007@wingsandbeaks.org.uk>
> >>>> writes:
> >>>>> How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised
> >>>>> changes?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What I mean is, if they install patches or some package whose
> >>>>> configuration screws things up, and they then can't boot - what then?
> >>>>
> >>>> Restore from backup.
> >>>>
> >>> The question is pretty carzy to start with.
> >>>
> >>> Packages - unless they mess with the kernel/drivers - don't stop the
> >>> thing booting.
> >>
> >> Buggering up libc?
> >>
> >> Or as I had with ubuntu + ZFS, deciding the hostid was broken (it was
> >> null) and refusing to mount any ZFS volumes.
> >
> > Well, ZFS is not the default file system. Most naive users will be using
> > someting safe like ext4 and are unlikely to bugger up libc. See my other post
> > about 'developers and gurus' possibly messing with non-standard or bleeding
> > edge packages.
>
> True about ZFS - it is an option.
And thus something for expert use.
>
> However, the original statement was:
>
> "Packages - unless they mess with the kernel/drivers - don't stop the
> thing booting."
>
>
> Which I trivially refuted with:
>
> "Buggering up libc?".
>
> It's unlikely a good distro running with STABLE repos will bugger up
> libc but it remains a possibility.
Exactly my point... Normally, a *naive* user will be using a main stream
distro running with STABLE reposositories. And the people managing those
reposositories follow a QA process to pretty much prevent 'buggering up libc'
(or similar problems). The same cannot always be said of people running with
unstable *experimental* distros or reposositories, but usually people doing
that are developers or gurus who presumably know what they are doing and have
taken proper precautions.
>
> Feck all use booting a kernel if you can't get userland off the ground...
>
>
--
Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software -- Custom Software Services
http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Linux Administration Services
heller@deepsoft.com -- Webhosting Services
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-04 09:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vOudnV52u-Lh5TTJnZ2dnUU7-fWdnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #13212 |
On 1/4/2015 7:31 AM, Robert Heller wrote:
...
> Exactly my point... Normally, a *naive* user will be using a main stream
> distro running with STABLE reposositories. And the people managing those
> reposositories follow a QA process to pretty much prevent 'buggering up libc'
> (or similar problems). The same cannot always be said of people running with
> unstable *experimental* distros or reposositories, but usually people doing
> that are developers or gurus who presumably know what they are doing and have
> taken proper precautions.
I used to run unstable and testing with Debian as my Linux desktop
machine, but it was too much for me to keep up as a BUSY worker ant.
When I did a clean installation from scratch, I went to stable. Yes, it
is outdated (the bad side effects for those who want the newer versions)
but dang it is so stable and rarely broken! :/
--
"You feel the faint grit of ants beneath your shoes, but keep on walking
because in this world you have to decide what you're willing to kill."
--Tony Hoagland from "Candlelight"
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-04 18:25 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? |
| Message-ID | <b5donb-e3o.ln1@squidward.dionic.net> |
| In reply to | #13212 |
On 04/01/15 15:31, Robert Heller wrote: >> True about ZFS - it is an option. > > And thus something for expert use. > I will take the honourable gentleman back in time to around 2002 ish - when SuSe 7.2 had ReiserFS as an option for / And one of my colleagues thought it was a Good Idea (TM) to enable it. A few months later there was some considerable swearing from me as a moderate and increasing number of lab PCs failed to boot as /sbin/init was fucked - containing fragments of /etc/passwd and other occasionally recognisable files. So another case where boot failure was possible without the kernel failing. We are not arguing probabilities - I am merely providing a number of singular examples to disprove the statement that "only kernel failure will break the boot sequence". I've seen as many userland failures break booting as I have kernel failures.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-04 17:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m8buta$h4v$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #13206 |
On 2015-01-04, Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote: > On 04/01/15 13:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 04/01/15 12:16, Richard Kettlewell wrote: >>> Jeremy Nicoll - news posts <jn.nntp.scrap007@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> >>> writes: >>>> How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised >>>> changes? >>>> >>>> What I mean is, if they install patches or some package whose >>>> configuration screws things up, and they then can't boot - what then? >>> >>> Restore from backup. >>> >> The question is pretty carzy to start with. >> >> Packages - unless they mess with the kernel/drivers - don't stop the >> thing booting. > > Buggering up libc? But that would have come out in rudimentary testing by the distro. Yes, YOU could bugger up libc by your own playing around with the source. It is extremely doubtful the distro could. > > Or as I had with ubuntu + ZFS, deciding the hostid was broken (it was > null) and refusing to mount any ZFS volumes. Unless / was zfs that should still boot, and you could remount them when the system came up (of course with systemd, that is not necessarily true anymore, unless you put "nofail" as an option for every mounted partition except / into /etc/fstab) > >> >> Most driver cockups will allow booting in terminal mode and blacklisting >> or de-installing of the offending driver anyway. >> >> New kernels don't *have* to be booted either. The grub gives options to >> revert to earlier ones. >> >> Only time I restore, is during a complete distro upgrade: and then o#nly >> as a guide to enabling the new distro >> >> >> >> >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-04 18:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4sconb-kun.ln1@squidward.dionic.net> |
| In reply to | #13218 |
On 04/01/15 17:56, William Unruh wrote: > On 2015-01-04, Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote: >> On 04/01/15 13:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> On 04/01/15 12:16, Richard Kettlewell wrote: >>>> Jeremy Nicoll - news posts <jn.nntp.scrap007@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> >>>> writes: >>>>> How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised >>>>> changes? >>>>> >>>>> What I mean is, if they install patches or some package whose >>>>> configuration screws things up, and they then can't boot - what then? >>>> >>>> Restore from backup. >>>> >>> The question is pretty carzy to start with. >>> >>> Packages - unless they mess with the kernel/drivers - don't stop the >>> thing booting. >> >> Buggering up libc? > > But that would have come out in rudimentary testing by the distro. > Yes, YOU could bugger up libc by your own playing around with the > source. It is extremely doubtful the distro could. I did not say it wasn't doubtful. I said it was possible - in direct rebuttal to TNP's statement that only a broken kernel would break booting. That's it... And it's not just the distros - and upgrade of libc that is broken mid progress by a power outage, full disk etc could be also at risk of breaking the system. > >> >> Or as I had with ubuntu + ZFS, deciding the hostid was broken (it was >> null) and refusing to mount any ZFS volumes. > > Unless / was zfs that should still boot, and you could remount them when > the system came up (of course with systemd, that is not necessarily true > anymore, unless you put "nofail" as an option for every mounted > partition except / into /etc/fstab) Well - the system was unusable in a normal way as /homes/ was on ZFS. However, because I am not a complete moron, I made sure the OS itself was not on ZFS so recovery was reasonably straightforward once the error had been located. But again, a rebuttal to "only a kernel can break booting". Nope - a moderate number of serious failures in userland can too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-04 23:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m8cie6$4t3$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #13222 |
> > I said it was possible - in direct rebuttal to TNP's statement that only > a broken kernel would break booting. > My point was that in a stable distro those other things simply do not happen. The only time the distro boys get caught out is by a hardware/driver/kernel combo that they weren't able to test. The ;point being that the OP was asking the naive question,. not tge super in depth 'is it theoretically possible' question. I can stop a computer booting any time. I just take a sledge hammer to it. Its theoretically possible after all. -- Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. – Erwin Knoll
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-05 11:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1b8qnb-ne9.ln1@squidward.dionic.net> |
| In reply to | #13241 |
On 04/01/15 23:30, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> >> I said it was possible - in direct rebuttal to TNP's statement that only >> a broken kernel would break booting. >> > My point was that in a stable distro those other things simply do not > happen. I will agree if you lessen the statement to "usually do not happen" ;-) I've had a failing SSD and many instances of ReiserFS breaking (in 2002 ish) cause damage to /sbin/init and thus break the system - so it's more than a theoretical possibilty It was of course fixable as the damage was so localised. > The only time the distro boys get caught out is by a > hardware/driver/kernel combo that they weren't able to test. > > The ;point being that the OP was asking the naive question,. not tge > super in depth 'is it theoretically possible' question. > > I can stop a computer booting any time. I just take a sledge hammer to > it. Its theoretically possible after all. > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-05 12:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m8e0bo$1du$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #13255 |
On 05/01/15 11:15, Tim Watts wrote: > On 04/01/15 23:30, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> >>> >>> I said it was possible - in direct rebuttal to TNP's statement that only >>> a broken kernel would break booting. >>> >> My point was that in a stable distro those other things simply do not >> happen. > > I will agree if you lessen the statement to "usually do not happen" ;-) > > I've had a failing SSD and many instances of ReiserFS breaking (in 2002 > ish) cause damage to /sbin/init and thus break the system - so it's more > than a theoretical possibilty > what nooob would ever use reiserFS? AND you have selectively quoted me. I explicitly said that reinstalling an OS wont fix dodgy hardware. > It was of course fixable as the damage was so localised. > >> The only time the distro boys get caught out is by a >> hardware/driver/kernel combo that they weren't able to test. >> >> The ;point being that the OP was asking the naive question,. not tge >> super in depth 'is it theoretically possible' question. >> >> I can stop a computer booting any time. I just take a sledge hammer to >> it. Its theoretically possible after all. >> >> >> > -- Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. – Erwin Knoll
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-05 12:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fsdqnb-mhd.ln1@squidward.dionic.net> |
| In reply to | #13256 |
On 05/01/15 12:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 05/01/15 11:15, Tim Watts wrote: >> On 04/01/15 23:30, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> I said it was possible - in direct rebuttal to TNP's statement that >>>> only >>>> a broken kernel would break booting. >>>> >>> My point was that in a stable distro those other things simply do not >>> happen. >> >> I will agree if you lessen the statement to "usually do not happen" ;-) >> >> I've had a failing SSD and many instances of ReiserFS breaking (in 2002 >> ish) cause damage to /sbin/init and thus break the system - so it's more >> than a theoretical possibilty >> > > what nooob would ever use reiserFS? My colleague! Who then left and thus I ended up doing the swearing. Remember, it's easy to say with hindsight, but back in 2001-2 it looked like a pretty decent new idea when the alternative was ext2! > AND you have selectively quoted me. I explicitly said that reinstalling > an OS wont fix dodgy hardware. Did I - in that case, my apologies. I though were were talking about only kernel upgrades putting booting at risk?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-05 13:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m8e2g8$5fb$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #13257 |
On 05/01/15 12:49, Tim Watts wrote: > On 05/01/15 12:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 05/01/15 11:15, Tim Watts wrote: >>> On 04/01/15 23:30, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I said it was possible - in direct rebuttal to TNP's statement that >>>>> only >>>>> a broken kernel would break booting. >>>>> >>>> My point was that in a stable distro those other things simply do not >>>> happen. >>> >>> I will agree if you lessen the statement to "usually do not happen" ;-) >>> >>> I've had a failing SSD and many instances of ReiserFS breaking (in 2002 >>> ish) cause damage to /sbin/init and thus break the system - so it's more >>> than a theoretical possibilty >>> >> >> what nooob would ever use reiserFS? > > My colleague! Who then left and thus I ended up doing the swearing. > > Remember, it's easy to say with hindsight, but back in 2001-2 it looked > like a pretty decent new idea when the alternative was ext2! > >> AND you have selectively quoted me. I explicitly said that reinstalling >> an OS wont fix dodgy hardware. > > Did I - in that case, my apologies. I though were were talking about > only kernel upgrades putting booting at risk? Exactly. nothing to do with a dodgy SSD causing ReiserFS to be unable to be mountable. -- Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. – Erwin Knoll
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-05 13:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <7kgqnb-c2f.ln1@squidward.dionic.net> |
| In reply to | #13258 |
On 05/01/15 13:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > Exactly. nothing to do with a dodgy SSD causing ReiserFS to be unable to > be mountable. ReiserFS and the SSD are unrelated. (NB not many SSDs around in 2002!)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeremy Nicoll - news posts <jn.nntp.scrap007@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-05 18:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mpro.nhpwm100466cv01jg@wingsandbeaks.org.uk.invalid> |
| In reply to | #13264 |
Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote: >ReiserFS and the SSD are unrelated. (NB not many SSDs around in 2002!) We (at a UK bank) had (very expensive) 'solid state dasd' in production use around ten years earlier than that for critical files eg the JES2 checkpoint & systems-wide enqueue propogation. -- Jeremy C B Nicoll - my opinions are my own. Email sent to my from-address will be deleted. Instead, please reply to newsreplyaaa@wingsandbeaks.org.uk replacing "aaa" by "284".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-05 15:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <m8e666$sc4$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #13256 |
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >what nooob would ever use reiserFS? ReiserFS used to be the default fs at least in some SuSE releases during the zero years. So every noob used it. Greetings Marc -- -------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! ----- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | http://www.zugschlus.de/ Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-05 12:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <m8esaf$5hn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #13265 |
On 01/05/2015 06:13 AM, Marc Haber wrote: > The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> what nooob would ever use reiserFS? > > ReiserFS used to be the default fs at least in some SuSE releases > during the zero years. So every noob used it. > > Greetings > Marc > Also Knoppix now wants it if you consider a Knoppix install. Some compact distros want to see a Knoppix file system, what ever that may be. bliss
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | notbob <notbob@nothome.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-05 16:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <cgvr31F41ktU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #13256 |
On 2015-01-05, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > what nooob would ever use reiserFS? I used it for yrs and am not a noob. I bailed on rfs3 when it was discovered that rfs would lose data over time. nb
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-05 18:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <m8eg8r$fjc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #13277 |
On Monday 05 January 2015 17:05, notbob conveyed the following to
comp.os.linux.misc...
> On 2015-01-05, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> what nooob would ever use reiserFS?
>
> I used it for yrs and am not a noob. I bailed on rfs3 when it was
> discovered that rfs would lose data over time.
I too have used reiserfs. As soon as it came out in Mandrake, I started
using it, because it was the first (and at that time, the only) Linux
filesystem with B-trees and journaling. Later on XFS ─ which I like
very much ─ became available, and then I started using that instead.
--
= Aragorn =
http://www.linuxcounter.net - registrant #223157
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web