Re: Development permissions

[Andrei POPESCU]

On Mi, 22 sep 21, 08:37:42, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Mi, 22 sep 21, 00:15:48, Paul M. Foster wrote:
>  
> > However, I did just read an excellent explanation of the setgid bit, which
> > apparently, sets the GID of a created file to that of the directory, rather
> > than the file's creator. This might work. I haven't tested it yet.
> 
> It works, but it's a pain to setup, because it still needs umask 002 for 
> all users and there are so many places to change the umask.
> 
> This might sound like heresy, but depending on your storage and 
> permissions needs it is much easier to use a NTFS[1] partition as the 
> backend, because you can enforce correct permissions and file/directory 
> masks via mount options.
> 
> I'd be happy to learn about a comparable alternative.

On a quick look bindfs (mentioned elsewhere in the thread) appears to be 
able to do this for any file system supported by the underlying 
operating system.

The performance might even be better compared to NTFS (which also needs 
FUSE for write access).

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[Tom Dial]

On 9/24/21 05:45, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
> I was accused in public of wrongdoing on the
> Debian bug tracking system which is hosted
> on a public, Debian website in response to a
> bug report I made.
> 
> Since Debian's policy is to keep everything
> on its website public, and I was told every
> message I send regarding Debian must be
> put on Debian's public forums, then how
> can I try and work out a disagreement with
> someone in private emails instead of needing
> to expose the dispute in public with all the
> negativity, slander, and defamation that
> might entail?
> 
> I am willing to cooperate with anyone to help
> improve Debian software, but only if they
> agree to not accuse me in public of wrongdoing
> without first discussing the matter with me
> in a private email or other private forum.
> 
> I am not interested in suing Debian for what
> happened to me, but I would not be surprised
> if in the U.S. eventually Debian will get sued
> unless it scrubs its website of some of the
> comments people make about each other on
> Debian public forums.
> 

As far as the US is concerned, a lawsuit might be filed, but the
Communications Decency Act, Section 230 (47 USC 230) is likely to
protect the Debian Project insofar as it is a provider of an information
service in the form of public forums. Under that section, they may
moderate as the administrators or managers think appropriate, including
removal of items they might think defamatory; but moderation is not
required and they are not held liable as "publishers" of what users post.

Individual users might  be sued for allegedly defamatory statements on a
forum. They get no section 230 protection, but the US Constitution's
first amendment and the rather extensive derived jurisprudence protects
a lot of opinionated and arguably rude statements that some might
consider defamatory and that in some countries may be legally actionable
as such.

It is much better, and almost always much more productive, to avoid
personal attacks and maintain polite demeanor in discussions.

Regards,
Tom Dial

> Thoughts?

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[Joe Pfeiffer]

The Wanderer  writes:

> On 2021-09-24 at 14:00, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>
>> Chuck Zmudzinski  writes:
>> 
>>> I was accused in public of wrongdoing on the Debian bug tracking
>>> system which is hosted on a public, Debian website in response to
>>> a bug report I made.
>> 
>> Bug number?
>
> Based on what I've found in digging earlier, as well as the name
> mentioned by Andy Smith in his reply, I think it's probably
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=994899 - specifically.
> the first reply (comment 10).
>
> The key to finding it was learning that you can search bugs.debian.org
> by submitter E-mail address, and trying
>
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?submitter=brchuckz%40netscape.net
>
> based on the address used for posting here.

Ah, thank you.  I looked briefly for a way to search by submitter and
didn't find that.

Re: USB sticks & Debian

[T. J. du Chene]

On Friday, September 24, 2021 7:11:26 PM CDT Bob Bernstein wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2021, T. J. du Chene wrote:
> > Bob, I don't want you to think I am writing you off.
> 
> No worries.
> 
> My concern is not with Windows.
> 
> All best,
While I don't endorse the idea of a wiki, which is it? I might actually be 
able to help you personally.  As a programmer, I have had to make a lot of 
boot usbs.

Re: USB sticks & Debian

[Bob Bernstein]

On Fri, 24 Sep 2021, T. J. du Chene wrote:


Bob, I don't want you to think I am writing you off.


No worries.

My concern is not with Windows.

All best,


--
...a society must incorporate the rationalizing
power symbolized by scientific knowledge, for
otherwise it will be a fatally split society-
split between a powerful elite and the
disenfranchised mass. To this we add now: an
irrational elite is the most dangerous of all.

Holton, Gerald. 1985. On the Integrity of
Science: The Issues Since Bronowski. Leonardo
18 (4), Special Issue: Jacob Bronowski: A
Retrospective (1985): 229-232.

Re: USB sticks & Debian

[T. J. du Chene]

My apologies for the duplicated post.  I think one of my Kmail settings isn't 
quite right.

Bob, I don't want you to think I am writing you off.  

If you are referring to Windows, you can make a Windows 10 USB by formatting 
it NTFS.  Then mount the Windows ISO, and then copy the files from the ISO 
over to it.   Be sure to eject the USB so it completes all writes.

It's pretty straight forward.

What I can't guarantee is that it will work with your firmware.  I know it 
works on my Gigabyte mainboard.

If it is Mac, FreeBSD or something else, I can't be much help, as I haven't 
really dabbled with them.

T.J.

Re: USB sticks & Debian

[T. J. du Chene]

My apologies for the duplicated post.  I think one of my Kmail settings isn't 
quite right.

Bob, I don't want you to think I am writing you off.  

If you are referring to Windows, you can make a Windows 10 USB by formatting 
it NTFS.  Then mount the Windows ISO, and then copying the files from the ISO 
over to it.   Be sure to eject the USB so it completes all writes.

It's pretty straight forward.

What I can't guarantee is that it will work with your firmware.  I know it 
works on my Gigabyte mainboard.

If it is Mac, FreeBSD or something else, I can't be much help, as I haven't 
really dabbled with them.

T.J.

Re: USB sticks & Debian

[T. J. du Chene]

On Friday, September 24, 2021 4:38:38 PM CDT Bob Bernstein wrote:
> Is there a favored HOW-To or wiki page describing the care and
> feeding of USB sticks intended to boot a linux system into some
> other OS?
> 
> Thanks,


I haven't seen an official HOWTO.

There are vastly different methods of formatting a bootable USB for different 
operating systems, especially Windows, that can change with each release.

Windows 10 in particular, is an annoyance.  The archive files on the ISOs are 
often larger than 4GB, which is larger than what standard USB exFat filesystem 
can handle.  They have to be split using the Windows DISM utility, or placed 
on an NTFS formatted drive.  The problem is that not every UEFI BIOS can boot 
from NTFS.

A lot depends entirely on the state of the OS in question, and on what your 
computer's firmware can recognise, so writing a definitive Debian document 
would 
be extremely time consuming to maintain.

I do not speak for the Debian Project, but I have always felt that dealing 
with Windows or other OS minutae is outside of the Project's purvue.   
 

I do sympathise with your needs, but Debian has limited resources, and if 
users want to host multiple OSs, then they should do the appropriate reasearch 
for themselves.  

Otherwise, I think it is quite possible it would open a flood of support 
issues, and Debian would end up expending more and more resources to resolve 
problems and maintain documentation for other OSs.

T.J.

Re: USB sticks & Debian

[T. J. du Chene]

On Friday, September 24, 2021 4:38:38 PM CDT Bob Bernstein wrote:
> Is there a favored HOW-To or wiki page describing the care and
> feeding of USB sticks intended to boot a linux system into some
> other OS?
> 
> Thanks,


I haven't seen an official HOWTO.

There are vastly different methods of formatting a bootable USB for different 
operating systems, especially Windows, that can change with each release.

Windows 10 in particular, is an annoyance.  The archive files on the ISOs are 
often larger than 4GB, which is larger than what standard USB exFat filesystem 
can handle.  They have to be split using the Windows DISM utility, or placed 
on an NTFS formatted drive.  The problem is that not every UEFI BIOS can boot 
from NTFS.

A lot depends entirely on the state of the OS in question, and on what your 
computer's firmware can recognise, so writing a definitive Debian document 
would 
be extremely time consuming to maintain.

I do not speak for the Debian Project, but I have always felt that dealing 
with Windows or other OS minutae is outside of the Project's purvue.   
 

I do sympathise with your needs, but Debian has limited resources, and if 
users want to host multiple OSs, then they should do the appropriate reasearch 
for themselves.  

Otherwise, I think it is quite possible it would open a flood of support 
issues, and Debian would end up expending more and more resources to resolve 
problems and maintain documentation for other OSs.

T.J.

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[Thomas Hochstein]

Joe Pfeiffer schrieb:

> Bug number?

994899

USB sticks & Debian

[Bob Bernstein]

Is there a favored HOW-To or wiki page describing the care and 
feeding of USB sticks intended to boot a linux system into some 
other OS?


Thanks,

--
...a society must incorporate the rationalizing
power symbolized by scientific knowledge, for
otherwise it will be a fatally split society-
split between a powerful elite and the
disenfranchised mass. To this we add now: an
irrational elite is the most dangerous of all.

Holton, Gerald. 1985. On the Integrity of
Science: The Issues Since Bronowski. Leonardo
18 (4), Special Issue: Jacob Bronowski: A
Retrospective (1985): 229-232.

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[Jonathan Dowland]

Are you still at it?

Have you not heard of the Streisand effect?


--
Please do not CC me for listmail.

👱🏻  Jonathan Dowland
✎j...@debian.org
🔗   https://jmtd.net

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[The Wanderer]

On 2021-09-24 at 14:00, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:

> Chuck Zmudzinski  writes:
> 
>> I was accused in public of wrongdoing on the Debian bug tracking
>> system which is hosted on a public, Debian website in response to
>> a bug report I made.
> 
> Bug number?

Based on what I've found in digging earlier, as well as the name
mentioned by Andy Smith in his reply, I think it's probably
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=994899 - specifically.
the first reply (comment 10).

The key to finding it was learning that you can search bugs.debian.org
by submitter E-mail address, and trying

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?submitter=brchuckz%40netscape.net

based on the address used for posting here.

-- 
   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



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

running i3. 27 second delay when i start evince unless I start xfce in separate window

[m laks]

i usually start i3 from a terminal when i start up my debian. I recently 
upgraded to sid 
and now when I start evince 
there is a approximately 27 second delay after evince is started before it 
paints a window.
evince is version       40.4-2       

Googling found me this bug report
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dbus/+bug/1852016

which mentions that it happens with lots of gtk2 applications
which is appropriate bug.
interesting the solutions mentioned there of
install appmenu-gtk2-module  and reboot
did not work 
neither did
dbus-launch evince file.pdf
nor did
dbus-launch --exit-with-session evince file.pdf
However, going to another window and starting xfce as boot up then going back 
to my i3 window and evince starts up immediately. 
Of course I have installed appmenu-gtk2 so that might have something to do with 
it as well.
So though i have solved my problem i have to start this background xfce to get 
it to work normally.
interesting bug. Any ideas?
Mitchell 

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[Andy Smith]

Hello,

On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 03:34:28PM -0400, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> My question though is, can emails be deleted from the debian
> archive of the mailing list (and comments from the debian bug
> list?)?

I've seen spam emails deleted from the list archives and from bug
logs; there is even a link to report such. Also when there has been
abusive posting of people's personal information ("doxxing") and
other forms of off-topic trolling in bug reports I am sure I have
seen that be removed from the bug record.

So, the functionality exists to delete from the Debian-hosted side
of things certainly. I take the list FAQ entry to mean that for
practical purposes list postings can't be removed from all the
non-Debian places they will have been archived at.

I really don't know if the powers that be would be receptive to
deleting Chuck's bug though, since some of it was actually on-topic.

Cheers,
Andy

-- 
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[piorunz]

Hello Chuck Zmudzinski.

On 24/09/2021 18:37, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:


However, if Debian refuses to remove defamatory comments,
perhaps Debian could be held liable if Debian refuses to remove
comments at a person's request if the comments truly harm a
person's good reputation and, for example, destroys a person's
ability to get a job in software development, or anywhere else
for that matter. Who would hire me if they read what is now
being said about me by Andy Smith, et. al. on Debian's web
pages. If Debian wants to be sure to avoid such a lawsuit,
I think Debian should remove at least some comments to
completely avoid legal liability. I am sure I could find a lawyer
in the U.S. to try it if I wanted to.


Is this guy for real? I missed all the fun in bug report haha.

We are Debian. We the People. Debian doesn't need US facing legal
entity, which you can sue over, to operate. Or any entity for that
matter. Suing Debian is like suing Bitcoin. Good luck with that lol.
I now quoted your comment in my e-mail. How are you going to remove
content from my sent e-mail?

PS. I wouldn't employ you either.

--
With kindest regards, Piotr.

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian - The universal operating system
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://www.debian.org
⠈⠳⣄

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[piorunz]

On 24/09/2021 20:34, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:


Could you please delete my name / details / remove the mail"

Practically, this is impossible: the mailing lists are archived,
potentially

cached by Google and so on. Unfortunately, there is nothing much we can
do to

ensure that all copies anywhere on the Internet are deleted. Asking to
do this

may only serve to draw further attention - the so-called "Streisand effect"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect




Exactly my thoughts! More Chuck is talking about it, more impossible it
will be to disconnect his name from this calamity.

--
With kindest regards, Piotr.

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian - The universal operating system
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://www.debian.org
⠈⠳⣄

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[rhkramer]

On Friday, September 24, 2021 01:55:41 PM Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> Can I suggest you read the FAQ posted to this list monthly by me.
> 
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2021/09/msg6.html is the latest
> copy.
> 
> The last point about deleting emails and personal details is relevant,
> here, I think.

I am not the OP, but I went ahead an re-read part of that today.  Re this 
part: 


* One question that comes up on almost all Debian lists from time to time is 
of
  the form: 
  "I have done something wrong / included personal details in an email.
   Could you please delete my name / details / remove the mail"
  
Practically, this is impossible: the mailing lists are archived, potentially 
cached by Google and so on. Unfortunately, there is nothing much we can do to 
ensure that all copies anywhere on the Internet are deleted. Asking to do this
may only serve to draw further attention - the so-called "Streisand effect" 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

My question though is, can emails be deleted from the debian archive of the 
mailing list (and comments from the debian bug list?)?
Thanks!

Re: The future of computing.

[Charlie Gibbs]

On Thu Sep 23 10:39:23 2021 Nicholas Geovanis 
wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 10:15 PM Gene Heskett 
> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday 22 September 2021 22:23:29 Nicholas Geovanis wrote:
>>
>>> No there aren't that many millionaires and billionaires and
>>> They make sure of it.
>>
>> This is true, but I'd also include the mba's who's major lesson
>> to those billionaires is its ok to do it if you don't get caught.
>> And buy them off or do away with the witnesses if you do get caught.
>> Jeffery E. got caught but he was not the king pin, just the
>> disposable front man. Same game continues, new address & phone
>> number.
>
> I don't want to stress the folks on this list, they've got Debian
> releases coming up :-)
>
> So my last comment will be:
>
> I don't see billionaires taking orders from MBAs like you say.
> Just because the Victoria's Secret kingpin did, lots of others
> distrusted Jeff E including Trumpf.
>
> I'm American so I'm embarrassed using French, but :-)

You should be - they don't have a word for entrepreneur.  :-)

> There's this concept of the bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeoisie and
> how they rule modern societies. It's nothing new and it still works.

Indeed.  Those MBAs that Gene refers to are merely the front rank
of a group that is ready and eager to jump in and act just like
those billionaires if they get the chance.  Such people have been
the shock troops for demagogues throughout history.

Nothing discloses real character like the use of power.
It is easy for the weak to be gentle.  Most people can
bear adversity.  But if you wish to know what a man
really is, give him power.  This is the supreme test.
It is the glory of Lincoln that, having almost absolute
power, he never abused it, except on the side of mercy.
  -- Robert Ingersoll
   (The first part is often misattributed to Lincoln.)

--
/~\  Charlie Gibbs  |  Life is perverse.
\ /|  It can be beautiful -
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus |  but it won't.
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |-- Lily Tomlin

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[Joe Pfeiffer]

Chuck Zmudzinski  writes:

> I was accused in public of wrongdoing on the
> Debian bug tracking system which is hosted
> on a public, Debian website in response to a
> bug report I made.

Bug number?

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[Andrew M.A. Cater]

On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 01:37:45PM -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
> On 9/24/2021 8:04 AM, Brad Rogers wrote:
> > On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 07:45:03 -0400
> > Chuck Zmudzinski  wrote:
> > 
> > Hello Chuck,
> > 
> > > happened to me, but I would not be surprised
> > > if in the U.S. eventually Debian will get sued
> > > unless it scrubs its website of some of the
> > In the USA, Section 230 covers this;  Debian can't be held liable for
> > comments made by others using their systems.
> > 
> 
> However, if Debian refuses to remove defamatory comments,
> perhaps Debian could be held liable if Debian refuses to remove
> comments at a person's request if the comments truly harm a
> person's good reputation and, for example, destroys a person's
> ability to get a job in software development, or anywhere else
> for that matter. Who would hire me if they read what is now
> being said about me by Andy Smith, et. al. on Debian's web
> pages. If Debian wants to be sure to avoid such a lawsuit,
> I think Debian should remove at least some comments to
> completely avoid legal liability. I am sure I could find a lawyer
> in the U.S. to try it if I wanted to.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chuck
> 

Hello Chuck,

Can I suggest you read the FAQ posted to this list monthly by me.

https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2021/09/msg6.html is the latest
copy.

The last point about deleting emails and personal details is relevant, here,
I think.

With every good wish, as ever,

Andrew Cater

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[Jim Popovitch]

On Fri, 2021-09-24 at 13:37 -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:

> Who would hire me if they read what is now being said about me by Andy Smith, 
> et. al. on Debian's web pages. 

Lots of people.  Anyone who would not hire you based on your bug report,
or what others have said about you and your but report, are not worth
being employed by.

-Jim P.

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[Peter Ehlert]

Respectful sir, please review what you just wrote on a public facing page.

I for one would not want you in my work place.
Best Wishes with your job search.

BTW: the internet is Forever. It can't be cancelled.

On September 24, 2021 10:38:01 AM Chuck Zmudzinski  
wrote:



On 9/24/2021 8:04 AM, Brad Rogers wrote:

On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 07:45:03 -0400
Chuck Zmudzinski  wrote:

Hello Chuck,


happened to me, but I would not be surprised
if in the U.S. eventually Debian will get sued
unless it scrubs its website of some of the

In the USA, Section 230 covers this;  Debian can't be held liable for
comments made by others using their systems.



However, if Debian refuses to remove defamatory comments,
perhaps Debian could be held liable if Debian refuses to remove
comments at a person's request if the comments truly harm a
person's good reputation and, for example, destroys a person's
ability to get a job in software development, or anywhere else
for that matter. Who would hire me if they read what is now
being said about me by Andy Smith, et. al. on Debian's web
pages. If Debian wants to be sure to avoid such a lawsuit,
I think Debian should remove at least some comments to
completely avoid legal liability. I am sure I could find a lawyer
in the U.S. to try it if I wanted to.

Cheers,

Chuck

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[Chuck Zmudzinski]

On 9/24/2021 8:04 AM, Brad Rogers wrote:

On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 07:45:03 -0400
Chuck Zmudzinski  wrote:

Hello Chuck,


happened to me, but I would not be surprised
if in the U.S. eventually Debian will get sued
unless it scrubs its website of some of the

In the USA, Section 230 covers this;  Debian can't be held liable for
comments made by others using their systems.



However, if Debian refuses to remove defamatory comments,
perhaps Debian could be held liable if Debian refuses to remove
comments at a person's request if the comments truly harm a
person's good reputation and, for example, destroys a person's
ability to get a job in software development, or anywhere else
for that matter. Who would hire me if they read what is now
being said about me by Andy Smith, et. al. on Debian's web
pages. If Debian wants to be sure to avoid such a lawsuit,
I think Debian should remove at least some comments to
completely avoid legal liability. I am sure I could find a lawyer
in the U.S. to try it if I wanted to.

Cheers,

Chuck

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[Chuck Zmudzinski]

On 9/24/2021 8:04 AM, Brad Rogers wrote:

On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 07:45:03 -0400
Chuck Zmudzinski  wrote:

Hello Chuck,


happened to me, but I would not be surprised
if in the U.S. eventually Debian will get sued
unless it scrubs its website of some of the

In the USA, Section 230 covers this;  Debian can't be held liable for
comments made by others using their systems.



I am already satisfied that Debian has officially offered
to hear my side of the story and scrub the public
facing web pages that legitmetely offend me.

Debian won't be held liable in this case because
Andy Smith et al who have accused me of being
"damned" on the public forums do not officially
speak for Debian.

Cheers,

Chuck

Re: Postgresql ODBC driver not found

[Henning Follmann]

On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 11:55:00PM +0200, Pierre Couderc wrote:
> Thenk you, Henning, thank you Gregory .
> 
> On 9/23/21 5:49 PM, Gregory Seidman wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 08:18:45AM -0400, Henning Follmann wrote:
> > > 
> > I don't see where you ask for the PostgreSQL ODBC connection in particular.
> > Maybe I'm the one missing something?
> You are right, I am not trying to connect (not soon) but trying to get the
> list of available drivers !
> > 
> > > isql "PostgreSQL Unicode"  
> > > 
> > > and perform a minimum check like:
> > > select 1;
> > 
> SQL> select 1
> ++
> | ?column?   |
> ++
> | 1  |
> ++
> SQLRowCount returns 1
> 1 rows fetched
> 
> SQL> quit
> 
> 
> unixodbc seems to work...

yes

> 
> I put here the full c++ source and the full result :
>

and I see you do not do any error checking.
This would be a first step to find out where it fails.

I added some code...

> 
> #include 
> #include 
> #include 
> #pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wendif-labels"
> #pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wwrite-strings"
> 
> #define TDBG clock_t ttdbg=clock();float
> ftdbg=((float)ttdbg)/CLOCKS_PER_SEC;
> #define DBG_(fmt, args...) {TDBG fprintf(stdout,string( string("D%5.1f:ln
> %d:%s(): ")+fmt).c_str(),ftdbg,__LINE__, __func__, ##args);fflush(stdout);}
> 
> using namespace std;
> extern "C"
> {
> #include 
> #include 
> }
> int main(int argc, char **argv)
> {
>     DBG_("Start  : Compile time :  __DATE__ __TIME__\n");
>     SQLHENV env;
>     SQLCHAR driver[256];
>     SQLCHAR attr[256];
>     SQLSMALLINT driver_ret;
>     SQLSMALLINT attr_ret;
>     SQLUSMALLINT direction;
>     SQLRETURN ret;
>
   ret = 
>     SQLAllocHandle(SQL_HANDLE_ENV, SQL_NULL_HANDLE, &env);
   if (ret != SQL_SUCCESS && ret != SQL_SUCCESS_WITH_INFO) { {
   /* most likely the odbc env is not set up properly
  write error message and bail */
  cerr << "Failed to allocate handle" << endl;
  return -1;
  }

  ret =
>     SQLSetEnvAttr(env, SQL_ATTR_ODBC_VERSION, (void *) SQL_OV_ODBC3, 0);
  /* again, even this function is not guaranteed to succeed
 test ! */
> 
>     cout << env<     direction = SQL_FETCH_FIRST;

/* again here you just use the return value for your loop
   I think it might be helpful to test for SQL_SUCCESS and
   in case it fails to actually handle the error
   for error codes check:
   
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/odbc/reference/syntax/sqldrivers-function?view=sql-server-ver15
   */
   
>     while(SQL_SUCCEEDED (ret = SQLDrivers(env, direction,
>                 driver, sizeof(driver),
> &driver_ret,
>                 attr, sizeof(attr), &attr_ret)))
> {
>         direction = SQL_FETCH_NEXT;
>         printf("%s - %s\n", driver, attr);
>         if (ret == SQL_SUCCESS_WITH_INFO) printf("\tdata truncation\n");
>     }
>     return 0;
> }
> 
> 
> Result :
> 
> nous@pcouderc:~/projets//build$ ./ttest
> D  0.0:ln 33:main(): Start  : Compile time :  __DATE__ __TIME__
> 0x55b0948ffed0
> nous@pcouderc:~/projets//build$
> 
> and meson.build for completeness :
> 
> project('ttest','cpp', default_options : ['cpp_std=c++17'],
>     version : '0.1')
> cpp = meson.get_compiler('cpp')
> libiodbc_dep = cpp.find_library('libiodbc')
> incdirs = include_directories('/usr/include/iodbc')
> executable('ttest', 'main.cpp', dependencies : [libiodbc_dep],
> include_directories : incdirs)
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Henning Follmann   | hfollm...@itcfollmann.com

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[Jonathan Carter]

Hi Chuck

On 2021/09/24 13:45, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:

I was accused in public of wrongdoing on the
Debian bug tracking system which is hosted
on a public, Debian website in response to a
bug report I made.

Since Debian's policy is to keep everything
on its website public, and I was told every
message I send regarding Debian must be
put on Debian's public forums, then how
can I try and work out a disagreement with
someone in private emails instead of needing
to expose the dispute in public with all the
negativity, slander, and defamation that
might entail?

I am willing to cooperate with anyone to help
improve Debian software, but only if they
agree to not accuse me in public of wrongdoing
without first discussing the matter with me
in a private email or other private forum.

I am not interested in suing Debian for what
happened to me, but I would not be surprised
if in the U.S. eventually Debian will get sued
unless it scrubs its website of some of the
comments people make about each other on
Debian public forums.


You can (and we'd appreciate it if you would) contact the Debian Community 
team directly (which would not be public) at:


commun...@debian.org

Please include the details like the relevant bug numbers and as much other 
detail as possible.


thanks,

-Jonathan

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[Chuck Zmudzinski]

On 9/24/2021 10:10 AM, Jonathan Carter wrote:

Hi Chuck

On 2021/09/24 13:45, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:

I was accused in public of wrongdoing on the
Debian bug tracking system which is hosted
on a public, Debian website in response to a
bug report I made.

Since Debian's policy is to keep everything
on its website public, and I was told every
message I send regarding Debian must be
put on Debian's public forums, then how
can I try and work out a disagreement with
someone in private emails instead of needing
to expose the dispute in public with all the
negativity, slander, and defamation that
might entail?

I am willing to cooperate with anyone to help
improve Debian software, but only if they
agree to not accuse me in public of wrongdoing
without first discussing the matter with me
in a private email or other private forum.

I am not interested in suing Debian for what
happened to me, but I would not be surprised
if in the U.S. eventually Debian will get sued
unless it scrubs its website of some of the
comments people make about each other on
Debian public forums.


You can (and we'd appreciate it if you would) contact the Debian 
Community team directly (which would not be public) at:


commun...@debian.org

Please include the details like the relevant bug numbers and as much 
other detail as possible.


thanks,

-Jonathan


It is Bug #994899, I ask that you remove every message except for my 
original bug report
from the public facing servers. I leave it to the package maintainers to 
decide things
like bug severity, etc. I think it is clear from why I want this if you 
read the whole
bug report. Please read the bug report with all its messages, and I was 
especially upset
that I was accused of being "not good" = bad, and just plain "wrong," 
and "ranting," etc.
If you have any more questions, please reply to me privately and 
off-list. Also read the
message Andy Smith posted in response to my post on the debian-user 
mailing list:


https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2021/09/msg00790.html

I do not ask you to remove that message unless you think you should, but 
I cite it

as evidence that there is a problem within the Debian community about not
observing just plain common decency and respect for other persons.

Thank you,

Chuck Zmudzinski

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[Chuck Zmudzinski]

On 9/24/2021 9:19 AM, Andy Smith wrote:

On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 07:45:03AM -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:

I was accused in public of wrongdoing on the Debian bug tracking
system

That is an interesting point of view, but I think you were simply
accused of being factually wrong and creating a poor quality bug
report. It was your choice to take that extremely personally.


how can I try and work out a disagreement with someone in private
emails instead of needing to expose the dispute in public with all
the negativity, slander, and defamation that might entail?

You were not asked to continue a disagreement in public, you were
asked to provide several pieces of factual information about your
setup and experience so that you could be helped.

My advice is to do that and only that. I see that you already
started doing it, but you still could not resist surrounding that
with large amounts of extraneous emotive text. And now it's leaked
onto debian-user.

Just write facts in the bug report that are relevant to the bug and
not he-said she-said he did this to me, they lied about this. blah
blah. If you can't, then just stop, as you already suggested you
would.


I am willing to cooperate with anyone to help improve Debian
software, but only if they agree to not accuse me in public of
wrongdoing without first discussing the matter with me in a
private email or other private forum.

You may be surprised to find that you get no takers for your "allow
me to rant in your ear but you must never disagree with me"
collaboration style.


I am not interested in suing Debian for what happened to me, but I
would not be surprised if in the U.S. eventually Debian will get
sued unless it scrubs its website of some of the comments people
make about each other on Debian public forums.

Debian doesn't exist as a US entity, so good luck with that. Even
writing about theoretically suing Debian because you can't write a
coherent bug report makes you look like the worst kind of Internet
laughing stock.


Thoughts?

I followed the bug you reported and thought that Diederik's response
to you was exactly on the mark. I also was in the IRC channel where
Diederik spent considerable time asking other developers questions
just so that Diederik could help solve your bug report. I feel very
sorry for Diederik that this effort was spent only to get this sort
of tantrum from you.

That you interpreted Diederik's advice as an attack I think says
more about you than anything else and I recommend that you stop this
overreaction now before you leave even more of a damning impression
of yourself.

After seeing what you have put Diederik through I would have
absolutely no desire to spend effort helping you on a future problem
and I think that is likely to be the view of others also. This
behaviour is not helping your cause.


I have no "cause" I am pursuing. I submitting the bug
report to help make Debian better. It does not reflect
well on the Debian community if this is the way it
treats someone who tries to help.

All the best,

Chuck

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[Chuck Zmudzinski]

On 9/24/2021 9:19 AM, Andy Smith wrote:

On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 07:45:03AM -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:

I was accused in public of wrongdoing on the Debian bug tracking
system

That is an interesting point of view, but I think you were simply
accused of being factually wrong and creating a poor quality bug
report. It was your choice to take that extremely personally.


how can I try and work out a disagreement with someone in private
emails instead of needing to expose the dispute in public with all
the negativity, slander, and defamation that might entail?

You were not asked to continue a disagreement in public, you were
asked to provide several pieces of factual information about your
setup and experience so that you could be helped.

My advice is to do that and only that. I see that you already
started doing it, but you still could not resist surrounding that
with large amounts of extraneous emotive text. And now it's leaked
onto debian-user.

Just write facts in the bug report that are relevant to the bug and
not he-said she-said he did this to me, they lied about this. blah
blah. If you can't, then just stop, as you already suggested you
would.


I am willing to cooperate with anyone to help improve Debian
software, but only if they agree to not accuse me in public of
wrongdoing without first discussing the matter with me in a
private email or other private forum.

You may be surprised to find that you get no takers for your "allow
me to rant in your ear but you must never disagree with me"
collaboration style.


I am not interested in suing Debian for what happened to me, but I
would not be surprised if in the U.S. eventually Debian will get
sued unless it scrubs its website of some of the comments people
make about each other on Debian public forums.

Debian doesn't exist as a US entity, so good luck with that. Even
writing about theoretically suing Debian because you can't write a
coherent bug report makes you look like the worst kind of Internet
laughing stock.


Thoughts?

I followed the bug you reported and thought that Diederik's response
to you was exactly on the mark. I also was in the IRC channel where
Diederik spent considerable time asking other developers questions
just so that Diederik could help solve your bug report. I feel very
sorry for Diederik that this effort was spent only to get this sort
of tantrum from you.

That you interpreted Diederik's advice as an attack I think says
more about you than anything else and I recommend that you stop this
overreaction now before you leave even more of a damning impression
of yourself.




After seeing what you have put Diederik through I would have
absolutely no desire to spend effort helping you on a future problem
and I think that is likely to be the view of others also. This
behaviour is not helping your cause.

Regards,
Andy


In your opinion, I am "damned." I sure am glad you are not God.

All the best,

Chuck

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[Brad Rogers]

On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 07:45:03 -0400
Chuck Zmudzinski  wrote:

Hello Chuck,

>happened to me, but I would not be surprised
>if in the U.S. eventually Debian will get sued
>unless it scrubs its website of some of the

In the USA, Section 230 covers this;  Debian can't be held liable for
comments made by others using their systems.

-- 
 Regards  _
 / )  "The blindingly obvious is never immediately apparent"
/ _)rad   "Is it only me that has a working delete key?"
Tell the dinosaurs they just won't survive
The History Of The World (Part 1) - The Damned


pgpeWZtpT5he4.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: foolish problem with installer: can't load firmware

[tomas]

On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 01:42:50PM -, Curt wrote:
> On 2021-09-24,   wrote:
> >
> > As soon as there is non-free software in it, all bets are up.
> 
> Actually, the idiom is, and rest assured I'm chiming in purely informatively
> here, as I myself navigate in a foreign tongue *avec plus ou moins de
> bonheur*, "all bets are off."

En fait. Merci :)

> It's the jig, normally, that is up.
> 
> :-)

;-)

Cheers
 - t


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Development permissions

[tomas]

On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 04:06:10PM +0300, Reco wrote:
>   Hi.
> 
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 01:59:58PM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 12:27:56PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > > FUSE = slow + CPU wastage
> > > 
> > > Using a filesystem the way it was intended is much cleaner solution.
> > 
> > On the flip side, using an in-kernel file system is running code
> > in kernel space which was conceived and written in happier times.
> 
> I cannot see what's exactly wrong with ext4 these days.
> Unless you have something against IBM/RH that is.

About IBM, I'll shut up. Too much Smeagol for me ;-) But this is
unrelated. RedHat is, in my eyes, a cool company, whithin the
constraints they are subjected to. But this, too, is unrelated.

> And by using FUSE one does not get a magical safeguard against kernel
> panics and processes in D-state.
> 
> 
> > Back then you could more or less safely assume that a file system
> > image wasn't out to kill you. These days, though...
> 
> Oh. Citation needed. Curious minds want to know.
> How exactly one can produce a filesystem image that tries to get you?
> Just in case, I'm asking out of mere curiosity, not with an intent on
> using said image on somebody ;)

I'll leave the word to Dave Chinner [1], who should know a thing or
two more about file systems than we both do. Thing is nowadays I [2]
can engineer an ext4 file system image in an USB stick exploiting
some vulnerability in the file system code and presto, I'm in your
kernel code whenever you mount the thing. FUSE provides (at least)
some mitigation to that, by providing a much narrower interface
to the kernel.

Cheers

[1] https://lwn.net/ml/linux-kernel/20180524004931.GB23861@dastard/
[2] A "generic" "I": in reality, it might take me a couple of years
   to learn what I have to to pull that off.

 - t


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Development permissions

[Andy Smith]

Hello,

On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 04:06:10PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 01:59:58PM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > Back then you could more or less safely assume that a file system
> > image wasn't out to kill you. These days, though...
> 
> Oh. Citation needed. Curious minds want to know.

I've repeatedly read kernel developers say that there are no safety
guarantees about mounting a filesystem that someone else has made.
In this article, Theodore TS'o (the primary developer of ext*) is
quoted as saying that ext4 and XFS currently aren't safe in that
regard:

https://lwn.net/Articles/796687/

> How exactly one can produce a filesystem image that tries to get you?

You would craft invalid metadata that caused bad things to happen
when it's mounted. Just because the kernel can't make such metadata
itself doesn't mean that an attacker can't write it to an image.

The article is about a new filesystem, where it was pointed out that
it would be trivial to craft an image that crashed the kernel. That
was considered a bug and fixed, but existing Linux filesystem
developers admit that there are similar bugs in incredibly popular
existing filesystems on Linux, so to demand that a new filesystem
didn't have that problem would be a double standard. Others
preferred to see it as standards being raised.

Cheers,
Andy

-- 
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

Re: foolish problem with installer: can't load firmware

[Curt]

On 2021-09-24,   wrote:
>
> As soon as there is non-free software in it, all bets are up.

Actually, the idiom is, and rest assured I'm chiming in purely informatively
here, as I myself navigate in a foreign tongue *avec plus ou moins de
bonheur*, "all bets are off."

It's the jig, normally, that is up.

:-)

Re: OT: Copyrights and patents (was: Re: The future of computing.)

[rhkramer]

Thanks -- some comments below (I guess I had a brain or consciousness -worm 
(analagous to an earworm) and had to dig deeper).  ;-)

On Friday, September 24, 2021 03:45:28 AM Michael Lange wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Sep 2021 07:22:17 -0400
> rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Something like that, but doesn't sound quite right (wish I had a better
> > memory).  Previously copyrighted works are coming into the "public
> > domain" year by year, about 95 years after -- oh, maybe it is after the
> > author's death?  Maybe there is an alternate path to copyright
> > expiring?  Not sure how it works if a corporation owns a copyright -- I
> > don't think it is perpetual.
> 
> according to
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries%27_copyright_lengths
> 
> it's typically Life + 70 years in the U.S., the U.K. and the E.U.
> (though, depending on the country, in some cases copyright duration may be
> different); in other countries from a quick glance the range seems to be
> from 0 (Marshall Islands), Life (Kosovo) to Life + 100 years (Mexico),
> with Life + 50 years and Life + 70 years being the most common.

Thanks.  Some more from other Wikipedia articles clarifies some things for me.

from: 

   * [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries%27_copyright_lengths]
[List of countries' copyright lengths]] -- 
` 
Copyright terms based on authors' deaths[a]

Life + 70 years (works published since 1978 or unpublished works)[236]  

Copyright terms based on publication and creation dates[a]  

95 years from publication or 120 years from creation whichever is shorter 
(anonymous works, pseudonymous works, or works made for hire, published since 
1978)[237]

95 years from publication for works published 1964–77; 28 (if copyright not 
renewed) or 95 years from publication for works published 1924–63 (Copyrights 
prior to 1925 have expired, not including copyrights on sound recordings fixed 
prior to February 15, 1972, covered only under state laws.)[238] 
'

Thus, a copyright held by a corporation expires in: 95 years from publication 
or 120 years from creation whichever is shorter (I guess maybe it could be 70 
years after the author's death if originally created by an author and then 
sold to a corporation???)

This varies by country and is subjec to the "rule of the shorter term":

   * [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_the_shorter_term][Rule of the 
shorter term]]
`
The rule of the shorter term, also called the comparison of terms, is a 
provision in international copyright treaties. The provision allows that 
signatory countries can limit the duration of copyright they grant to foreign 
works under national treatment to no more than the copyright term granted in 
the country of origin of the work.
'

Aside, somewhere else (in Wikipedia) I found that the original term for a 
copyright was 14 years with a possible renewal for an additional 14 years.

Aside, somewhere else (in Wikipedia) I found that the original term for a 
patent was up to 14 years (duration established / varied for each patent) with 
a possible renewal for an additonal 7 years.

My brainworm seems satisfied ;-)

Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[Andy Smith]

On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 07:45:03AM -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
> I was accused in public of wrongdoing on the Debian bug tracking
> system

That is an interesting point of view, but I think you were simply
accused of being factually wrong and creating a poor quality bug
report. It was your choice to take that extremely personally.

> how can I try and work out a disagreement with someone in private
> emails instead of needing to expose the dispute in public with all
> the negativity, slander, and defamation that might entail?

You were not asked to continue a disagreement in public, you were
asked to provide several pieces of factual information about your
setup and experience so that you could be helped.

My advice is to do that and only that. I see that you already
started doing it, but you still could not resist surrounding that
with large amounts of extraneous emotive text. And now it's leaked
onto debian-user.

Just write facts in the bug report that are relevant to the bug and
not he-said she-said he did this to me, they lied about this. blah
blah. If you can't, then just stop, as you already suggested you
would.

> I am willing to cooperate with anyone to help improve Debian
> software, but only if they agree to not accuse me in public of
> wrongdoing without first discussing the matter with me in a
> private email or other private forum.

You may be surprised to find that you get no takers for your "allow
me to rant in your ear but you must never disagree with me"
collaboration style.

> I am not interested in suing Debian for what happened to me, but I
> would not be surprised if in the U.S. eventually Debian will get
> sued unless it scrubs its website of some of the comments people
> make about each other on Debian public forums.

Debian doesn't exist as a US entity, so good luck with that. Even
writing about theoretically suing Debian because you can't write a
coherent bug report makes you look like the worst kind of Internet
laughing stock.

> Thoughts?

I followed the bug you reported and thought that Diederik's response
to you was exactly on the mark. I also was in the IRC channel where
Diederik spent considerable time asking other developers questions
just so that Diederik could help solve your bug report. I feel very
sorry for Diederik that this effort was spent only to get this sort
of tantrum from you.

That you interpreted Diederik's advice as an attack I think says
more about you than anything else and I recommend that you stop this
overreaction now before you leave even more of a damning impression
of yourself.

After seeing what you have put Diederik through I would have
absolutely no desire to spend effort helping you on a future problem
and I think that is likely to be the view of others also. This
behaviour is not helping your cause.

Regards,
Andy

-- 
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

Re: Development permissions

[Reco]

Hi.

On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 11:47:20AM +0200, Alex Mestiashvili wrote:
> On 9/24/21 11:27 AM, Reco wrote:
> > Hi.
> > 
> > On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 10:22:00AM +0200, Alex Mestiashvili wrote:
> > > On 9/22/21 8:53 AM, Reco wrote:
> > > > Hi.
> > > > 
> > > > On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 11:09:41PM -0400, Paul M. Foster wrote:
> > > > > Without setting directory and file permissions to 777, how do you
> > > > > allow the above? What combinations of groups, directory
> > > > > owners/permissions and file owners/permissions might make this
> > > > > possible?
> > > > 
> > > > Solution #1:
> > > > 
> > > > 1) Make a group, add users to it.
> > > > 2) Chgrp directory to the group from step 1.
> > > > 3) Set directory permissions to 2770 (i.e. you will need setgid on
> > > > directory), or 2775 if you need world-readable directory.
> > > > 4) Ensure users' umask is set to 0007.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Solution #2:
> > > > 
> > > > Set ACL to u::rwx on a directory, and make sure it made to the
> > > > "default" set of permissions (i.e. you'll need setfacl -d).
> > > 
> > > In addition to umask and acl, there is also a FUSE based bindfs.
> > 
> > FUSE = slow + CPU wastage
> 
> Well, fast enough and CPU time is cheap ;)

An old argument. How exactly I can replace CPU on my Raspberry Pi 1B
which is still in service and doing its job?


> Setting umask might be insecure/problematic for non-unix people.
> Not every filesystem support ACL.

Every filesystem that's worthy of such title does support ACL.
Inperfect filesystems do not indeed, but replacing a filesystem is much
easier than replacing a CPU.


> Bindfs is just another useful tool...

That's something I agree with. Every tool has its purpose, and surely
bindfs has one too. But using a tool outside of its purpose instantly
transforms a tool to a kludge.


> > Using a filesystem the way it was intended is much cleaner solution.
> ACL is a workaround for the "intended unix permissions" isn't?

That's one option about it. Another one is ACL is an evolution of POSIX
filesystem permissions.
Whichever you prefer, of course.

Reco

Re: Development permissions

[Reco]

Hi.

On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 01:59:58PM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 12:27:56PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > FUSE = slow + CPU wastage
> > 
> > Using a filesystem the way it was intended is much cleaner solution.
> 
> On the flip side, using an in-kernel file system is running code
> in kernel space which was conceived and written in happier times.

I cannot see what's exactly wrong with ext4 these days.
Unless you have something against IBM/RH that is.

And by using FUSE one does not get a magical safeguard against kernel
panics and processes in D-state.


> Back then you could more or less safely assume that a file system
> image wasn't out to kill you. These days, though...

Oh. Citation needed. Curious minds want to know.
How exactly one can produce a filesystem image that tries to get you?
Just in case, I'm asking out of mere curiosity, not with an intent on
using said image on somebody ;)

Reco

Re: foolish problem with installer: can't load firmware

[tomas]

On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 04:23:28AM -0400, lou wrote:

[...]

> i don't think your lecture is convincing

OK.

> some claim they can read binary or reverse-engineer
> 
> forcing user to use some ink might violate anti-monopoly law

This sounds like someone pro-regulations...
> 
> if printer maker don't enjoy monopoly, user can choose other printer

...while this more like pro-unrestricted market.

So you're hedging your bets, aren't you ;-)

> excluding non-free firmware in official image make little difference
> to hardware manufacturers

It's not about making a difference to hardware manufacturers.
It's about making a difference to you and me, i.e. the users.

If I download an official Debian and copy it to an USB stick,
I *know* I can give it away, sell it, modify it without getting
into legal hassle.

> it only cause inconvenience to user

As soon as there is non-free software in it, all bets are up.
So keeping the repositories clearly separate is a service
to us.

Cheers
 - t


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Development permissions

[tomas]

On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 12:27:56PM +0300, Reco wrote:

[...]

> FUSE = slow + CPU wastage
> 
> Using a filesystem the way it was intended is much cleaner solution.

On the flip side, using an in-kernel file system is running code
in kernel space which was conceived and written in happier times.

Back then you could more or less safely assume that a file system
image wasn't out to kill you. These days, though...

Cheers
 - t


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

[Chuck Zmudzinski]

I was accused in public of wrongdoing on the
Debian bug tracking system which is hosted
on a public, Debian website in response to a
bug report I made.

Since Debian's policy is to keep everything
on its website public, and I was told every
message I send regarding Debian must be
put on Debian's public forums, then how
can I try and work out a disagreement with
someone in private emails instead of needing
to expose the dispute in public with all the
negativity, slander, and defamation that
might entail?

I am willing to cooperate with anyone to help
improve Debian software, but only if they
agree to not accuse me in public of wrongdoing
without first discussing the matter with me
in a private email or other private forum.

I am not interested in suing Debian for what
happened to me, but I would not be surprised
if in the U.S. eventually Debian will get sued
unless it scrubs its website of some of the
comments people make about each other on
Debian public forums.

Thoughts?

Re: Development permissions

[Alex Mestiashvili]

On 9/24/21 11:27 AM, Reco wrote:

Hi.

On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 10:22:00AM +0200, Alex Mestiashvili wrote:

On 9/22/21 8:53 AM, Reco wrote:

Hi.

On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 11:09:41PM -0400, Paul M. Foster wrote:

Without setting directory and file permissions to 777, how do you
allow the above? What combinations of groups, directory
owners/permissions and file owners/permissions might make this
possible?


Solution #1:

1) Make a group, add users to it.
2) Chgrp directory to the group from step 1.
3) Set directory permissions to 2770 (i.e. you will need setgid on
directory), or 2775 if you need world-readable directory.
4) Ensure users' umask is set to 0007.


Solution #2:

Set ACL to u::rwx on a directory, and make sure it made to the
"default" set of permissions (i.e. you'll need setfacl -d).


In addition to umask and acl, there is also a FUSE based bindfs.


FUSE = slow + CPU wastage


Well, fast enough and CPU time is cheap ;)
Setting umask might be insecure/problematic for non-unix people.
Not every filesystem support ACL.
Bindfs is just another useful tool...



Using a filesystem the way it was intended is much cleaner solution.


ACL is a workaround for the "intended unix permissions" isn't?

Old unix concepts from 1970 don't really meet expectation of apple fan 
boys and people used to rich NTFS permissions...




Reco

Re: Development permissions

[Reco]

Hi.

On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 10:22:00AM +0200, Alex Mestiashvili wrote:
> On 9/22/21 8:53 AM, Reco wrote:
> > Hi.
> > 
> > On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 11:09:41PM -0400, Paul M. Foster wrote:
> > > Without setting directory and file permissions to 777, how do you
> > > allow the above? What combinations of groups, directory
> > > owners/permissions and file owners/permissions might make this
> > > possible?
> > 
> > Solution #1:
> > 
> > 1) Make a group, add users to it.
> > 2) Chgrp directory to the group from step 1.
> > 3) Set directory permissions to 2770 (i.e. you will need setgid on
> > directory), or 2775 if you need world-readable directory.
> > 4) Ensure users' umask is set to 0007.
> > 
> > 
> > Solution #2:
> > 
> > Set ACL to u::rwx on a directory, and make sure it made to the
> > "default" set of permissions (i.e. you'll need setfacl -d).
> 
> In addition to umask and acl, there is also a FUSE based bindfs.

FUSE = slow + CPU wastage

Using a filesystem the way it was intended is much cleaner solution.

Reco

Re: Development permissions

[Alex Mestiashvili]

On 9/22/21 8:53 AM, Reco wrote:

Hi.

On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 11:09:41PM -0400, Paul M. Foster wrote:

Without setting directory and file permissions to 777, how do you
allow the above? What combinations of groups, directory
owners/permissions and file owners/permissions might make this
possible?


Solution #1:

1) Make a group, add users to it.
2) Chgrp directory to the group from step 1.
3) Set directory permissions to 2770 (i.e. you will need setgid on
directory), or 2775 if you need world-readable directory.
4) Ensure users' umask is set to 0007.


Solution #2:

Set ACL to u::rwx on a directory, and make sure it made to the
"default" set of permissions (i.e. you'll need setfacl -d).

Reco



In addition to umask and acl, there is also a FUSE based bindfs.

Re: foolish problem with installer: can't load firmware

[lou]

On 9/22/21 2:32 AM, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:


Of course. Lots and lots. This doesn't mean it is a good thing.
Think of that American tractor company (John Deere) where you
can't exchange parts yourself because the built-in software will
notice and refuse to work. And changing that would be a copyright
violation... Think of those inkjet cartridges which have a chip
to stop you from refilling them with your own ink.

Taking always the "practical" route will lead us into full
dependency on three to four big corporations in a very short
time. We as consumers do have a bit of responsibility, too.

End or lecture ;-D

Cheers
  - t


i don't think your lecture is convincing

some claim they can read binary or reverse-engineer

forcing user to use some ink might violate anti-monopoly law

if printer maker don't enjoy monopoly, user can choose other printer

excluding non-free firmware in official image make little difference to 
hardware manufacturers


it only cause inconvenience to user

Re: OT: Copyrights and patents (was: Re: The future of computing.)

[Michael Lange]

Hi,

On Thu, 23 Sep 2021 07:22:17 -0400
rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:

(...)

> > But the law today gives me
> > automatic copyright over what I write without additional public
> > notice, I think for 90 years after I die.
> 
> Something like that, but doesn't sound quite right (wish I had a better 
> memory).  Previously copyrighted works are coming into the "public
> domain" year by year, about 95 years after -- oh, maybe it is after the
> author's death?  Maybe there is an alternate path to copyright
> expiring?  Not sure how it works if a corporation owns a copyright -- I
> don't think it is perpetual.

according to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries%27_copyright_lengths

it's typically Life + 70 years in the U.S., the U.K. and the E.U.
(though, depending on the country, in some cases copyright duration may be
different); in other countries from a quick glance the range seems to be
from 0 (Marshall Islands), Life (Kosovo) to Life + 100 years (Mexico),
with Life + 50 years and Life + 70 years being the most common.

Have a nice day,

Michael

.-.. .. ...- .   .-.. --- -. --.   .- -. -..   .--. .-. --- ... .--. . .-.

Power is danger.
-- The Centurion, "Balance of Terror", stardate 1709.2