Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #189609 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Urs Thuermann <urs@isnogud.escape.de> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-12-06 23:20 +0100 |
| Last post | 2017-12-07 08:50 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 127 — 38 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user
Embarrassing security bug in systemd Urs Thuermann <urs@isnogud.escape.de> - 2017-12-06 23:20 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2017-12-06 23:50 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz> - 2017-12-07 00:40 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2017-12-07 03:50 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2017-12-07 07:30 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz> - 2017-12-06 23:50 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Dave Sherohman <dave@sherohman.org> - 2017-12-07 10:40 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Tixy <tixy@yxit.co.uk> - 2017-12-07 11:30 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-12-07 11:50 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Jimmy Johnson <field.engineer@gmail.com> - 2017-12-09 03:50 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-12-09 17:50 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Jimmy Johnson <field.engineer@gmail.com> - 2017-12-10 10:00 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-12-10 20:40 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-12-07 11:40 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2017-12-07 16:00 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org> - 2017-12-07 20:30 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-12-08 09:20 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2017-12-08 12:40 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-12-08 13:40 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2017-12-08 21:40 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-12-08 17:10 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2017-12-08 19:10 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Menelaos Maglis <mmaglis@metacom.gr> - 2017-12-08 19:40 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Menelaos Maglis <mmaglis@metacom.gr> - 2017-12-08 19:50 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-12-08 20:50 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2017-12-08 21:20 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-12-09 09:10 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2017-12-09 11:20 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-12-09 19:40 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Dejan Jocic <jodejka@gmail.com> - 2017-12-09 20:30 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2017-12-09 22:00 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Dejan Jocic <jodejka@gmail.com> - 2017-12-10 00:40 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2017-12-10 10:40 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Dejan Jocic <jodejka@gmail.com> - 2017-12-10 11:20 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2017-12-10 12:40 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Dejan Jocic <jodejka@gmail.com> - 2017-12-10 16:10 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2017-12-11 15:10 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2017-12-09 21:10 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2017-12-09 21:10 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-12-08 21:50 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2017-12-08 22:30 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Glenn English <ghe2001@gmail.com> - 2017-12-09 02:50 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2017-12-09 06:50 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-12-09 09:20 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-12-09 09:10 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Christian Seiler <christian@iwakd.de> - 2017-12-15 13:30 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-12-15 14:10 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2017-12-15 16:00 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-12-08 21:50 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-12-08 22:40 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2017-12-09 00:30 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-12-09 10:00 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Dave Sherohman <dave@sherohman.org> - 2017-12-08 10:00 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Cindy-Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> - 2017-12-08 23:40 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2017-12-09 00:30 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2017-12-09 01:20 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2017-12-09 11:40 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2017-12-09 15:30 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2017-12-10 01:00 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2017-12-10 22:20 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-12-09 17:50 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-12-09 18:20 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-12-09 21:20 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-12-10 12:00 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-12-10 17:10 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-12-10 20:40 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2017-12-10 21:30 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-12-10 23:10 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2017-12-11 00:10 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-12-11 00:50 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2017-12-11 12:30 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-12-11 13:40 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-12-11 14:40 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-12-10 21:50 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Eduardo M KALINOWSKI <eduardo@kalinowski.com.br> - 2017-12-11 13:00 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-12-11 13:40 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-12-11 16:30 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-12-10 23:10 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-12-11 01:30 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-12-11 04:40 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-12-11 06:10 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-12-11 07:40 +0100
Rust? (and a wordsmithing question) (was: Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd) rhkramer@gmail.com - 2017-12-11 15:40 +0100
Re: Rust? (and a wordsmithing question) (was: Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd) Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> - 2017-12-11 16:00 +0100
Re: Rust? (and a wordsmithing question) (was: Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd) rhkramer@gmail.com - 2017-12-11 18:30 +0100
Re: Rust? (and a wordsmithing question) (was: Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd) Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2017-12-11 16:30 +0100
Re: Rust? (and a wordsmithing question) "James H. H. Lampert" <jamesl@touchtonecorp.com> - 2017-12-11 17:40 +0100
Re: Rust? (and a wordsmithing question) David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-12-11 20:10 +0100
Re: Rust? (and a wordsmithing question) <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-12-12 09:30 +0100
Re: Rust? (and a wordsmithing question) "James H. H. Lampert" <jamesl@touchtonecorp.com> - 2017-12-12 17:30 +0100
Re: Rust? (and a wordsmithing question) <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-12-12 17:50 +0100
Re: Rust? (and a wordsmithing question) Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2017-12-12 18:20 +0100
Re: Rust? (and a wordsmithing question) Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2017-12-13 04:40 +0100
Re: Rust? (and a wordsmithing question) (was: Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd) rhkramer@gmail.com - 2017-12-11 18:30 +0100
Re: Rust? (and a wordsmithing question) (was: Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd) David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-12-12 19:10 +0100
UID 1000 on Raspberry Pi (Was: Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd) Jason <electron@emypeople.net> - 2018-01-09 05:10 +0100
Re: UID 1000 on Raspberry Pi (Was: Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd) Christian Groessler <chris@groessler.org> - 2018-01-09 16:00 +0100
Re: UID 1000 on Raspberry Pi (Was: Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd) Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2018-01-09 16:30 +0100
Re: UID 1000 on Raspberry Pi (Was: Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd) Christian Groessler <chris@groessler.org> - 2018-01-09 18:10 +0100
Re: UID 1000 on Raspberry Pi (Was: Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd) Erik Christiansen <dvalin@internode.on.net> - 2018-01-10 04:50 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Menelaos Maglis <mmaglis@metacom.gr> - 2017-12-09 01:40 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Mark Fletcher <mark27q1@gmail.com> - 2017-12-09 03:10 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2017-12-09 10:50 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2017-12-09 16:40 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Tom Furie <tom@furie.org.uk> - 2017-12-09 17:10 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz> - 2017-12-09 22:10 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-12-09 18:20 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2017-12-07 00:00 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2017-12-07 09:40 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Glenn English <ghe2001@gmail.com> - 2017-12-07 00:10 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2017-12-07 00:10 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2017-12-07 03:50 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Michael Lange <klappnase@freenet.de> - 2017-12-07 00:20 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd "James H. H. Lampert" <jamesl@touchtonecorp.com> - 2017-12-07 00:50 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2017-12-07 01:20 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2017-12-07 03:50 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-12-07 02:10 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> - 2017-12-07 03:40 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Eric S Fraga <e.fraga@ucl.ac.uk> - 2017-12-07 08:30 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org> - 2017-12-07 00:50 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Dejan Jocic <jodejka@gmail.com> - 2017-12-07 02:40 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Menelaos Maglis <mmaglis@metacom.gr> - 2017-12-08 10:40 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2017-12-08 13:40 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2017-12-08 20:10 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-12-07 01:10 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd Eric S Fraga <e.fraga@ucl.ac.uk> - 2017-12-07 08:30 +0100
Re: Embarrassing security bug in systemd David Baron <dbaron770@gmail.com> - 2017-12-07 08:50 +0100
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-08 22:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uUynw-11v-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #189693 |
Gene Heskitt writes: > So now, no effort will ever be made to fix the man pages. Hell of a > way to run a train. That doesn't follow. The release note are specific to the release and thus obviously cannot be fixed. The man pages can be fixed in any future release of the subject packages. File bug reports against the relevant packages explaining what you think needs to change. Mention the man pages in the bug title. If the bug is closed without action or marked "won'tfix" (or ignored) then you will have reason to gripe. -- John Hasler jhasler@newsguy.com Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Glenn English <ghe2001@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-09 02:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uUCr7-3zB-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #189695 |
On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 9:07 PM, John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> wrote: > Gene Heskitt writes: >> So now, no effort will ever be made to fix the man pages. Hell of a >> way to run a train. > > That doesn't follow. The release note are specific to the release and > thus obviously cannot be fixed. Even if there's an error in the release note? Less than optimal way to run a train. -- Glenn English
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-09 06:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uUGbn-64v-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #189704 |
Glenn writes: > Even if there's an error in the release note? Less than optimal way to > run a train. You can't retroactively fix the release notes: they are part of the already released release. All you can do is publish an errata and correct the error in the next point release. -- John Hasler jhasler@newsguy.com Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-09 09:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uUIwx-7FV-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #189704 |
On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 01:30:17AM +0000, Glenn English wrote: >Even if there's an error in the release note? Less than optimal way to >run a train. Errors and omissions are different things. I'm not responsible for release notes but I suspect if there was something that was glaringly false, it *could* be changed. Let me know if you find one. -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-09 09:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uUImR-7D2-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #189693 |
On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 03:31:54PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote: >On Friday 08 December 2017 14:26:41 Jonathan Dowland wrote: >> No objection there, and I agree that the release notes should probably >> have covered the policy changes. That ship has now sailed >> unfortunately. > >So now, no effort will ever be made to fix the man pages. Hell of a way >to run a train. Release notes and manual pages are completely different things. The systemd manual pages are pretty good, IMHO. But If you'd like to point out specific omissions, they might get fixed. -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christian Seiler <christian@iwakd.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-15 13:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uWXhM-4vO-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #189693 |
Am 2017-12-08 21:31, schrieb Gene Heskett: > On Friday 08 December 2017 14:26:41 Jonathan Dowland wrote: >> No objection there, and I agree that the release notes should probably >> have covered the policy changes. That ship has now sailed >> unfortunately. > > So now, no effort will ever be made to fix the man pages. Hell of a way > to run a train. If you want to update the release notes, please file a bug against the 'release-notes' pseudo-package, ideally (but not necessarily) with the proposed wording change. (But please also check if someone else has already done so, so you don't cause a duplicate.) It _is_ possible to update the release notes after the fact; see e.g. https://bugs.debian.org/865632 for something that was added after the release of Stretch. (And there are other examples, see https://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/ddp/manuals/trunk/release-notes/en/ for a full history of what has been changed in the release notes of Stretch so far, both before and after the release.) Regards, Christian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-15 14:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uWXUu-53m-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #189915 |
On Friday 15 December 2017 07:11:04 Christian Seiler wrote: > Am 2017-12-08 21:31, schrieb Gene Heskett: > > On Friday 08 December 2017 14:26:41 Jonathan Dowland wrote: > >> No objection there, and I agree that the release notes should > >> probably have covered the policy changes. That ship has now sailed > >> unfortunately. > > > > So now, no effort will ever be made to fix the man pages. Hell of a > > way to run a train. > > If you want to update the release notes, please file a bug against the > 'release-notes' pseudo-package, ideally (but not necessarily) with the > proposed wording change. (But please also check if someone else has > already done so, so you don't cause a duplicate.) > > It _is_ possible to update the release notes after the fact; see e.g. > https://bugs.debian.org/865632 for something that was added after the > release of Stretch. (And there are other examples, see > https://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/ddp/manuals/trunk/release-notes/en/ > for a full history of what has been changed in the release notes of > Stretch so far, both before and after the release.) > That is probably enough if the user is smart enough to know how to check, but if I pull a new iso of the install image today, will it be there for reading before I click install when booted to that live iso with no network access? That would seem to require a respin of the iso with a version number increment out in about the third place, and I don't see that being done. I also don't see why a script hasn't been written to do exactly that, the only problem then, and which may be the showstopper, is in the bandwidth needed to update all the mirrors in a timely fashion. Perhaps some bandwidth could be saved by a bittorrent/rsync like approach where only the changes are transmitted/updated? A text addendum, published whenever, makes more sense. But its existence needs to be made widely known. That does not appear to be the case now, leading to this candidate for the longest, most vociferous thread ever. Thats my $0.02, which times 3 would buy a loaf of bread the year I was born. :) > Regards, > Christian Cheers, Gene Heskett -- "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-15 16:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uWZCW-5SJ-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #189921 |
Gene writes: > That is probably enough if the user is smart enough to know how to > check, but if I pull a new iso of the install image today, will it be > there for reading before I click install when booted to that live iso > with no network access? If your new ISO is the latest point release it will include all the changes that went into that point release. The previous point release, however, is what it is. -- John Hasler jhasler@newsguy.com Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-08 21:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uUxKN-yn-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #189683 |
On Friday 08 December 2017 13:09:06 Menelaos Maglis wrote: > >> > Basically, it was a completely inconsistent mess before systemd. > >> > Now you at least have a central place where you can configure > >> > your system behaviour. > > > > In the past, we had *no consistency*: inittab had one thing, display > > managers another, ACPI scripts another...if you wanted a specific > > policy, you had to change three or more separate systems. > > > > Along came [a new system] which provided a single place to define a > > consistent policy. > > systemd provides a single place to define a consistent policy, > provided your system uses systemd. Which until now I have never seen its supposed advantages touted. Maybe I don't subscribe to the right lists? rant mode on! Couldn't a lot of the hatred for systemd have been avoided if it was adequately discussed/described in the first place? Had it been accompanied by an adequate description, and a clear but concise man page, including how to change it if you didn't like the defaults, would have made this take it or go run windows attitude a hell of a lot easier to accept. I can say the same for pam. I just read the man page for the umptyieth time, but not a single character was devoted to how to change its behavior, and its blocking me from doing things on jessie or stretch that were/are Just Doable on wheezy. synaptics-pkexec for instance, absolutely no reason I am denied that for jessie and stretch, but in both cases I am forced to do it from the machines own keyboard even if most any other gfx using program can be run from here over an ssh -Y login. On a home network thats behind a firewall that has not been penetrated in 15 years, such restrictions are the same stuff usually found on the ground behind the male of the bovine specie. I have previously asked how to fix that, and been /universally/ ignored. So where do I find out how to fix that? > In anycase, it should be a documented configuration option to allow > for alternative use cases. A universal wish I suspect. But it seems to be a bigger secret than the winderz 10 source code. I am not a migrant from the M$ camp, so quit treating me like one. The ONLY machine I own that ever had windows on it, because 12 years ago if you wanted a portable "lappy" you could take on the road when playing visiting fireman at some broadcast facility that had technical fires to be put out, you bought it with xp on it. But xp got nuked for mandrake after I spent a week or more trying to make the windows driver actually work with a bcm4318 radio it had. But netgear sells several usb dongles that just work with linux. /rant off Cheers, Gene Heskett -- "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-08 22:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uUyxc-14w-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #189692 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 03:29:20PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote: [...] > Which until now I have never seen its supposed advantages touted. Maybe I > don't subscribe to the right lists? Hey, to each her/his own... > rant mode on! > > Couldn't a lot of the hatred for systemd have been avoided if it was > adequately discussed/described in the first place? Had it been > accompanied by an adequate description, and a clear but concise man > page, including how to change it if you didn't like the defaults, would > have made this take it or go run windows attitude a hell of a lot easier > to accept. Not a fan of systemd here (have outed myself this way clearly enough, I think), but systemd is pretty well documented, for sure. Cheers - -- t -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlorAPMACgkQBcgs9XrR2kaDVQCfUmnXy+HjVf1NoY9Y0LCrpPVq Q+AAn1Uz2NPvP8b6Thtji4baOBh4uSNB =EdQz -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-09 00:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uUAfE-2eA-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #189696 |
tomas writes: > Not a fan of systemd here (have outed myself this way clearly enough, > I think), but systemd is pretty well documented, for sure. Is the Debian default configuration of Systemd also well documented? -- John Hasler jhasler@newsguy.com Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-09 10:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uUJ9f-7Sb-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #189698 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 05:04:51PM -0600, John Hasler wrote: > tomas writes: > > Not a fan of systemd here (have outed myself this way clearly enough, > > I think), but systemd is pretty well documented, for sure. > > Is the Debian default configuration of Systemd also well documented? This enough for you? https://wiki.debian.org/systemd Try a search on that wiki: https://wiki.debian.org/FrontPage?action=fullsearch&context=180&value=systemd&titlesearch=Titles or similar. No, lack of documentation is not something you could blame onto systemd (or its surroundings). Cheers - -- t -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlorn+wACgkQBcgs9XrR2kaUVACfRP1XGRnK4J4IYKCT+rP6K8JA XcIAn1d+xRcIhp1VSVA4A6LcZEU/t1W9 =S08x -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Sherohman <dave@sherohman.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-08 10:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uUmFH-1Gc-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #189643 |
On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 09:37:25AM -0500, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 03:03:44AM -0600, Dave Sherohman wrote: > > > > I no longer have any non-systemd machines handy to verify this on, but > > my memory is that I have *always* been able to use halt/poweroff/reboot > > commands from the console without requiring sudo or entering a password, > > and I've been using Debian since 2000ish, well before systemd was even a > > gleam in some programmer's eye. /sbin/shutdown may have also been > > freely available at the console, but I don't remember that one clearly, > > since I didn't use it all that often once I discovered the others. > > > I just did a fresh install of wheezy (7.11) with all defaults. Here is > what happened: > > testuser@debian:~$ cat /etc/debian_version > 7.11 > testuser@debian:~$ /sbin/reboot > reboot: must be superuser. > testuser@debian:~$ ls -l /sbin/reboot > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 Jul 14 2013 /sbin/reboot -> halt > testuser@debian:~$ ls -l /sbin/halt > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 15184 Jul 14 2013 /sbin/halt > > The situation is basically the same for /sbin/shutdown. Well, then. I stand corrected. Thanks for reminding me of what I'd forgotten! -- Dave Sherohman
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cindy-Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-08 23:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uUztf-1Et-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #189635 |
On 12/7/17, Dave Sherohman <dave@sherohman.org> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 11:26:45AM +1300, Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote: >> Special privileges have been granted to console users for as long as I >> can >> remember, long before systemd, because they have physical access to the >> machine. Console users typically are also permitted to mount, unmount, >> and >> eject removable media, and have access to audio devices. > > I think this is a key point that's been overlooked in the complaints > about this behavior: It has nothing to do with systemd. > > I no longer have any non-systemd machines handy to verify this on, but > my memory is that I have *always* been able to use halt/poweroff/reboot > commands from the console without requiring sudo or entering a password, > and I've been using Debian since 2000ish, well before systemd was even a > gleam in some programmer's eye. /sbin/shutdown may have also been > freely available at the console, but I don't remember that one clearly, > since I didn't use it all that often once I discovered the others. > > But, then, even if I'm remembering incorrectly, it's still a policy > matter, not a technical one. If the policy was changed at the same time > as Debian switched to systemd, that's just a coincidence of timing and > the same policy change could have happened while still under sysvinit. I do remember having to give a password, but I don't remember how long ago now. And I have too much open right now to test drive whether mine does it or not these days.. :) I do understand everyone's rationale for why they like or dislike either way. Something I did *not* understand when I saw it in operation was why a password was needed at the terminal but not from within the GUI's "Applications > Log Out" menu path. I think I finally came to the (potentially misguided) a-sumption that one rationale *might* have something to do with having to sit here in person to click the GUI's menu path but maybe not for the terminal and/or other (?) hackable routes....... :) Cindy :) -- Cindy-Sue Causey Talking Rock, Pickens County, Georgia, USA * runs with duct tape *
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe <joe@jretrading.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-09 00:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uUAfE-2eA-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #189697 |
On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 17:12:18 -0500 Cindy-Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> wrote: > > I do remember having to give a password, but I don't remember how long > ago now. And I have too much open right now to test drive whether mine > does it or not these days.. :) > As I did the other day. I've tried it now (up-to-date unstable) and it works for a non-root user. > I do understand everyone's rationale for why they like or dislike > either way. Something I did *not* understand when I saw it in > operation was why a password was needed at the terminal but not from > within the GUI's "Applications > Log Out" menu path. > Yes, it's not so much *what* happens, as how it's different now than it was, and how few regular Debian users seemed to know about it. Only the developers seemed to be aware of the issue. As I said, I do glance through changelogs to look for real gotchas that affect me (not really many of them) and I don't recall seeing a warning about this. And it *should* have been a warning, not just a tiny footnote, because it's a [small] security measure being turned off by default. That shouldn't happen during an upgrade without a reasonable attempt to warn users. > I think I finally came to the (potentially misguided) a-sumption that > one rationale *might* have something to do with having to sit here in > person to click the GUI's menu path but maybe not for the terminal > and/or other (?) hackable routes....... :) I think there's a case for asking which way to set it during an expert install or during the upgrade that reversed the default setting. We are asked about root/non-root permission for the man pages. -- Joe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-09 01:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uUB21-2QD-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #189699 |
On Fri 08 Dec 2017 at 23:06:00 +0000, Joe wrote: > On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 17:12:18 -0500 > Cindy-Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I do remember having to give a password, but I don't remember how long > > ago now. And I have too much open right now to test drive whether mine > > does it or not these days.. :) > > > As I did the other day. I've tried it now (up-to-date unstable) and it > works for a non-root user. Without policykit-1 installed it doesn't; no rebooting or powering off with /sbin/reboot or /sbin/poweroff for a user. CTRL+ALT+DEL from a terminal reboots. That's the same behaviour as sysvinit. -- Brian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe <joe@jretrading.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-09 11:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uUKI1-v1-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #189700 |
On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 23:56:44 +0000 Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> wrote: > On Fri 08 Dec 2017 at 23:06:00 +0000, Joe wrote: > > > On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 17:12:18 -0500 > > Cindy-Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > I do remember having to give a password, but I don't remember how > > > long ago now. And I have too much open right now to test drive > > > whether mine does it or not these days.. :) > > > > > As I did the other day. I've tried it now (up-to-date unstable) and > > it works for a non-root user. > > Without policykit-1 installed it doesn't; no rebooting or powering > off with /sbin/reboot or /sbin/poweroff for a user. CTRL+ALT+DEL > from a terminal reboots. That's the same behaviour as sysvinit. > Yes, I understand that, the point is that the first installation of policykit-1, which I did not explicitly request, did not ask me if I wanted non-root users to be able to reboot, or indeed about anything else it might control. Not that it matters on any of my machines, I'd just like to have been told that it was changing, and given the option to keep it as it was had I needed to. -- Joe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-09 15:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uUOiB-2S4-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #189714 |
On Sat 09 Dec 2017 at 10:12:16 +0000, Joe wrote: > On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 23:56:44 +0000 > Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> wrote: > > > On Fri 08 Dec 2017 at 23:06:00 +0000, Joe wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 17:12:18 -0500 > > > Cindy-Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I do remember having to give a password, but I don't remember how > > > > long ago now. And I have too much open right now to test drive > > > > whether mine does it or not these days.. :) > > > > > > > As I did the other day. I've tried it now (up-to-date unstable) and > > > it works for a non-root user. > > > > Without policykit-1 installed it doesn't; no rebooting or powering > > off with /sbin/reboot or /sbin/poweroff for a user. CTRL+ALT+DEL > > from a terminal reboots. That's the same behaviour as sysvinit. > > > > Yes, I understand that, the point is that the first installation of > policykit-1, which I did not explicitly request, did not ask me if I > wanted non-root users to be able to reboot, or indeed about anything > else it might control. Not that it matters on any of my machines, I'd > just like to have been told that it was changing, and given the option > to keep it as it was had I needed to. The Terms and Conditions of installing a Debian package include (as I'm sure you are aware) accepting the Depends: and Recomends: lines. What is in these lines can be accepted or rejected and, in the case of Recommends:, adjusted to suit your needs. Installing the package necessarily involves making an explicit request for other packages. Being asked about choices on installing policykit would probably have involved a patch for the package and a debconf notice informing users about this and other changes over previous system behaviour. Apart from the notice perhaps getting involved, the option to keep previous behaviour would be of no importance to new users. -- Brian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-10 01:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uUXcd-8nd-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #189716 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 2017-12-09 at 09:10, Brian wrote: > The Terms and Conditions of installing a Debian package include (as > I'm sure you are aware) accepting the Depends: and Recomends: lines. > What is in these lines can be accepted or rejected and, in the case > of Recommends:, adjusted to suit your needs. Installing the package > necessarily involves making an explicit request for other packages. No, it doesn't. That's the exact distinction between "explicit" and "implicit". -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-10 22:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uVhaV-4wm-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #189738 |
On Sat 09 Dec 2017 at 18:36:46 -0500, The Wanderer wrote: > On 2017-12-09 at 09:10, Brian wrote: > > > The Terms and Conditions of installing a Debian package include (as > > I'm sure you are aware) accepting the Depends: and Recomends: lines. > > What is in these lines can be accepted or rejected and, in the case > > of Recommends:, adjusted to suit your needs. Installing the package > > necessarily involves making an explicit request for other packages. > > No, it doesn't. That's the exact distinction between "explicit" and > "implicit". Indeed. I used Joes's original word because I wasn't in a nit-picking mood. -- Brian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web