> On Friday 21 August 2020 at 22:23:16, Hendrik Boom wrote:
>
> > Is there a way for process to ask about its own memory usage?
>
> Assuming the process knows its own PD, try the 24th value in /proc/PID/stat
... or just /proc/self/stat
regards
marc
> I understand the security advantages of using zoom on a laptop not
> much used for anything else. I suppose the sercurity conern is files
> being accessible to intruders. Someone made the interesting suggestion
> of settin up a new account just for zoom.
The concern about using any gratis
> The surviving Devuan core team members will take zero or
> more steps to prove Devuan trustworthy and sysadmins will
> each decide for themselves or with their lawyers whether
> they can continue to use Devuan.
Weirdly enough I trust devuan a bit more after this incident:
- I now know that
> > > > > - Devuan Beowulf will be the next testing, and will follow Ascii
> > > >
> > > > You do realize issues when talking about this on Slashdot, naked and
> > > > petrified?
> > >
> > > I am evidently missing something, but I can't see what.
> >
> > That particular release might be deemed
For months, literally, the supervision list
has been wringing its hands over the very real problem that, for process
dependency purposes, one must know that process X is not only running,
but ready to handle its business. Knowing process X is running isn't
sufficent, because some processes
Hello
* I then argue that in the current world, autocompletion is not
reliable, because since it does not stat(), it cannot hide filenames
the user cannot execute, such as a 0644 file. What your autocompletion
is currently printing is an approximation of the programs you can run,
not an
Hello again
0700 for root-only binaries would hide them from your shell's
autocompletion.
Which would be lots of stat() system calls.
If a shell doesn't make them, then it doesn't verify that a file is
executable either. (I just checked with zsh: it doesn't indeed.)
Sure, few
Me again
So I am going to quote Laurent a bit out of order, sorry about
that, but it seems the best way to explain things:
Now as for other assertions in this thread that the FHS itself is
obsolete and violations of it should not be considered a bad thing, just
no.
I don't think anyone
