-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 12:19:49PM -0500, The Wanderer wrote: > On 2016-11-20 at 11:46, Joe wrote: > > > On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 15:14:47 +0100 <to...@tuxteam.de> wrote: > > >> Sorry I can't offer more details: I'm not "in" the intricacies of > >> desktop environments. For me, they are too intricate and finicky, > >> therefore I prefer to run without. > >> > >> I mount my media explicitly. > > > > So do I. If I don't want a USB stick mounted, I don't plug it in. > > That's not explicit; it's invoking the implicit mount which your system > is configured to execute upon the device being connected.
Exactly. Perhaps I was too concise. With "explicit" I meant that I always issue the mount command in a command line myself. [a couple of good reasons elided] > I imagine there may be other possibilities... Yes: file system code is not well tested with malicious file systems. There may be an exploit lurking there. If I don't trust the USB stick, I don't mount it right away, but I might want to have a look at the raw data (or perhaps mount it from a VM). > > I don't want any applications or media to autorun, but I do want the > > filesystems mounted. > > That's an entirely reasonable usage pattern, but it is not explicit > mounting, and there are legitimate reasons why someone might want > different behavior. Agreed. The nice thing is that each one of us can have her/his own way :-) regards - -- tomás -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlgx4pUACgkQBcgs9XrR2kbR3wCcDFsQE/NzevtX24rhmRRx68SO u+sAn1sd8r4VK2r9I0W2zggmKxqZRZqM =NfNc -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----