What a waste of energy this discussion / passive argument is. Supermarkets... hold more threat to your personal ability to operate effectively with privacy and choice.
While you guys prattle endlessly and without end on architectural changes with an OS that has always been your choice to use or not, the real threats to your freedom and choice are being eroded by by the "memes" that just love you continuing to argue...cos you don't really have a practical/pragmatic answer...just piss and wind :-P Fuck sake... its an Open Source world...if you don't like it... spend your energies on change, the code is there...make a change, get some support and fucking do it..... not bullshit never ending discussions with pseudo intellectual quotes and debate that leads absolutely nowhere. Do what YOU think is the right way to go? Answer the problem yourself, and gain support and do what is necessary to make it happen. Hint: Complaining that the "man" and whatever else evil org you chose to lay blame on is a fault really sux. YOU HAVE A CHOICE! Exercise that choice and stop wasting time and effort. The more you blow passive intellectual raspberries at each other and extend such hopeless and energy sucking political debate ... the more your head will slip up your own ass! Last time my head was stuck up my bum I discovered that breathing was, to say the least, difficult. BW On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Rick Moen <[email protected]> wrote: > Quoting Russell Coker ([email protected]): > > > Why not have a $100 bet about your ability to perform the type of > > compromise that you think is the big problem? > > Was it you or some _other_ Russell Coker who claimed that the issue I > actually _did_ describe -- which you then misrepresented -- was a 'minor > issue compared to web browsers, MUAs, and other programs which directly > and predictably accept data from potentially hostile sources'? > > Because, I call bollocks, sir. And I gather that you refuse to put your > money where your mouth is. > > > Now, as to _a_ security problems caused by calls from systemd to other > badly > written Freedesktop.org software, I can give you a particular type of > example immediately, as it is well known, albeit it is not a root > compromise or anything quite like that: My friend Jim Dennis, who was a > co-worker at Linuxcare in 1999 when he co-wrote a book on Linux system > administration > (http://www.amazon.ca/Linux-System-Administration-M-Carling/dp/1562059343) > has a saying that 'Security is the implementation of policy.' By a > functional definition, if a system runs the processes of authorised > users and not those of unauthorised ones, that is good security. > > In typical current systemd-based GNOME systems[1], including recent Arch > Linux ones, systemd intercepts and refuses the superuser's directive to > shutdown or reboot the system if a Freedesktop.org codebase called > PackageKit, to which systemd communicates over D-Bus (as it does with a > thundering herd of other Freesdesktop.org plumbing) unilaterally decides > that shutdown/reboot ought to be non-negotiably deferred because package > operations are underway. > > Now, it's doubtless possible to disable that behaviour one way or > another, but the point is that this behaviour, considered normal with > systemd and the Freedesktop.org suite it continally communicates with, > overrides the judgement of the superuser to shut down. In my book, the > only thing that ought to be more definitive than the root user wielding > the /sbin/shutdown utility is the root user yanking the mains cord. The > superuser needs to be able to shut down NOT and know that it will > happen, for any of a number of reasons. > > > Beyond that, if you actually choose to believe that systemd and > ancillary code (including without limitation all the Freedesktop.org > stuff it chatters with all the time over D-Bus) doesn't have > a vastly greater attack surface than other modern inits, I will regard > that position as self-parodying and don't think I need to demonstrate > anything. > > > [1] Judging by a recent post in this space, this seems perhaps no longer > likely to happen on Debian Jessie, which would be a step forward. > _______________________________________________ > luv-main mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main >
_______________________________________________ luv-main mailing list [email protected] http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main
