On 7 February 2013, at 21:37, Tanstaafl wrote: > ... >> I believe he is correct and /dev/shm is irrelevant for this discussion. > > Ok, thanks, but... and no offense... > > I am not willing to gamble on breaking a remotely accessed server based on > someone's 'I believe that this is correct' comment.
<facile response> You wouldn't have to worry about it, had you ensured out-of-band access! </facile response>
