On 24/09/08 01:43, Dustin Kirkland wrote:
> That said, let me throw out another perhaps more controversial
> option... What if we didn't ask, and we just provided ~/Private
> encrypted by default? If unspecified, the mount passphrase is
> randomly generated from 128 bits of /dev/urandom. We can
On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:40:56 +0800
James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The encrypted directory feature is great stuff but I really don't
> think it's worth adding as a question to all server installs for it;
> at least not in the default mode.
I don't see a big use of it server area, but, to
Just my opinion, but I think the secured Private directory is a good idea
and having the question in the installer doesn't add excessive "clutter",
"complexity", or other "c" words to the installation process. :-) I keep
config files, code, etc in a VCS and will move the information into the
~/Pr
I feel compelled to mention one other thing...
Often, LVM encryption is *not* an option for servers where unattended
booting is absolutely required, as LVM encryption requires a
passphrase on startup.
With an encrypted ~/Private, no passphrase is required on boot, but
rather it's mounted/unmounte
On Monday 22 September 2008 21:40:56 James Troup wrote:
> Rick Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > While I think we need to take a very close look at installer
> > usability in the future, I think that adding htis question makes
> > little difference. It is easy to preseed it and avoid all
> > q
Rick Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> While I think we need to take a very close look at installer
> usability in the future, I think that adding htis question makes
> little difference. It is easy to preseed it and avoid all
> questions.
Err, what?
a) if we take that attitude to each new p
