> Daryll> On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 09:34:59PM -0500, David Feuer wrote:
> >> For what it's worth, I absolutely agree with this. I have the same
> >> impression when I just see the word "dangerous".
>
> Daryll> Why not call a spade a spade and label it BROKEN. I do think
> Daryll> that's stronger
> "Daryll" == Daryll Strauss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Daryll> On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 09:34:59PM -0500, David Feuer wrote:
>> For what it's worth, I absolutely agree with this. I have the same
>> impression when I just see the word "dangerous".
Daryll> Why not call a spade a spade and
> You could just tell people the truth. Something far worse that DANGEROUS.
> Like:
>
> CRIPPLED BY LEGAL DURESS
>
> Or as I come to understand:
>
> The processes that would normally have fixed this driver by now
> are broken by the vigorous defense of Microsoft's IP.
> It will trash your
"Daryll" == Daryll Strauss [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Daryll On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 09:34:59PM -0500, David Feuer wrote:
For what it's worth, I absolutely agree with this. I have the same
impression when I just see the word "dangerous".
Daryll Why not call a spade a spade and label it
Daryll On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 09:34:59PM -0500, David Feuer wrote:
For what it's worth, I absolutely agree with this. I have the same
impression when I just see the word "dangerous".
Daryll Why not call a spade a spade and label it BROKEN. I do think
Daryll that's stronger than
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Alvord) said:
[...]
> If this was a business, and we were knowingly distributing software
> that was known to be dangerous, we would probably be risking legal
> action.
Debatable. It is marked EXPERIMENTAL and DANGEROUS, and not enabled by
default.
> Why are we
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Alvord) said:
[...]
If this was a business, and we were knowingly distributing software
that was known to be dangerous, we would probably be risking legal
action.
Debatable. It is marked EXPERIMENTAL and DANGEROUS, and not enabled by
default.
Why are we
On Sat, 9 Dec 2000, Ren Haddock wrote:
> I think part of the problem is that there are other things labeled
> DANGEROUS that actually do work fairly reliably (offhand, I'm thinking
> off the IDE config stuff..). Perhaps it needs to explicitely say
> 'This is broken and is gauranteed to destroy
On Sat, 09 Dec 2000 21:34:59 -0500, David Feuer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>At 08:12 PM 12/9/2000 -0600, Rene wrote:
>>I think part of the problem is that there are other things labeled
>>DANGEROUS that actually do work fairly reliably (offhand, I'm thinking
>>off the IDE config stuff..).
On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 09:34:59PM -0500, David Feuer wrote:
> At 08:12 PM 12/9/2000 -0600, Rene wrote:
> >I think part of the problem is that there are other things labeled
> >DANGEROUS that actually do work fairly reliably (offhand, I'm thinking
> >off the IDE config stuff..). Perhaps it needs
At 08:12 PM 12/9/2000 -0600, Rene wrote:
>I think part of the problem is that there are other things labeled
>DANGEROUS that actually do work fairly reliably (offhand, I'm thinking
>off the IDE config stuff..). Perhaps it needs to explicitely say
>'This is broken and is gauranteed to destroy your
I think part of the problem is that there are other things labeled
DANGEROUS that actually do work fairly reliably (offhand, I'm thinking
off the IDE config stuff..). Perhaps it needs to explicitely say
'This is broken and is gauranteed to destroy your data. Do not use it'
The 'DANGEROUS' label
On Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 02:38:03AM +0100, willy tarreau wrote:
>
> Perhaps we should more generally display a line at
> boot
> telling if there were EXPERIMENTAL or DANGEROUS code
> compiled in the kernel.
>
Good idea.
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
> Alan has spoken. If DANGEROUS doesn't get their
> attention, what will?
Jeff, I know that, but I was speaking about people who
use these features while they don't know they're
dangerous just because someone else has compiled the
kernel for them. There are people who claim to know
linux better
On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 03:03:22PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> "Jeff V. Merkey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hmm. If this is the case then shouldn't someone point this out. To the
> antitrust lawyers. You present this as a clear case of deliberately
> preventing interoperability between
"Jeff V. Merkey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 02:00:29PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > Agree. We need to disable it, since folks do not read the docs
> > > (obviously). Of course, we could leave it on, and I could start
> > > charging money for these tools -- there's
On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 05:49:00PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
Alan has spoken. If DANGEROUS doesn't get their attention, what
will?
Jeff
> One problem with warnings at compile time is that in many cases, administrators
> use kernels provided by friends or collegues that "know linux better
On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 05:49:00PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> One problem with warnings at compile time is that in many cases, administrators
> use kernels provided by friends or collegues that "know linux better than them".
> If an admin uses a kernel in which write support has been activated
One problem with warnings at compile time is that in many cases, administrators
use kernels provided by friends or collegues that "know linux better than them".
If an admin uses a kernel in which write support has been activated to mount
an NTFS file system without providing any option, he will
One problem with warnings at compile time is that in many cases, administrators
use kernels provided by friends or collegues that "know linux better than them".
If an admin uses a kernel in which write support has been activated to mount
an NTFS file system without providing any option, he will
On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 05:49:00PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
One problem with warnings at compile time is that in many cases, administrators
use kernels provided by friends or collegues that "know linux better than them".
If an admin uses a kernel in which write support has been activated to
On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 05:49:00PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
Alan has spoken. If DANGEROUS doesn't get their attention, what
will?
Jeff
One problem with warnings at compile time is that in many cases, administrators
use kernels provided by friends or collegues that "know linux better
On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 03:03:22PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
"Jeff V. Merkey" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hmm. If this is the case then shouldn't someone point this out. To the
antitrust lawyers. You present this as a clear case of deliberately
preventing interoperability between NT and
Alan has spoken. If DANGEROUS doesn't get their
attention, what will?
Jeff, I know that, but I was speaking about people who
use these features while they don't know they're
dangerous just because someone else has compiled the
kernel for them. There are people who claim to know
linux better
On Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 02:38:03AM +0100, willy tarreau wrote:
Perhaps we should more generally display a line at
boot
telling if there were EXPERIMENTAL or DANGEROUS code
compiled in the kernel.
Good idea.
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
I think part of the problem is that there are other things labeled
DANGEROUS that actually do work fairly reliably (offhand, I'm thinking
off the IDE config stuff..). Perhaps it needs to explicitely say
'This is broken and is gauranteed to destroy your data. Do not use it'
The 'DANGEROUS' label
At 08:12 PM 12/9/2000 -0600, Rene wrote:
I think part of the problem is that there are other things labeled
DANGEROUS that actually do work fairly reliably (offhand, I'm thinking
off the IDE config stuff..). Perhaps it needs to explicitely say
'This is broken and is gauranteed to destroy your
On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 09:34:59PM -0500, David Feuer wrote:
At 08:12 PM 12/9/2000 -0600, Rene wrote:
I think part of the problem is that there are other things labeled
DANGEROUS that actually do work fairly reliably (offhand, I'm thinking
off the IDE config stuff..). Perhaps it needs to
On Sat, 09 Dec 2000 21:34:59 -0500, David Feuer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 08:12 PM 12/9/2000 -0600, Rene wrote:
I think part of the problem is that there are other things labeled
DANGEROUS that actually do work fairly reliably (offhand, I'm thinking
off the IDE config stuff..). Perhaps it
On Sat, 9 Dec 2000, Ren Haddock wrote:
I think part of the problem is that there are other things labeled
DANGEROUS that actually do work fairly reliably (offhand, I'm thinking
off the IDE config stuff..). Perhaps it needs to explicitely say
'This is broken and is gauranteed to destroy your
>I agree that if you give a mentally unbalanced person a firearm, they might
>shoot themselves with it. I am suggesting we take away their firearm. Write
>support for NTFS is useful for migrating from Linux to NT, R/O support is
>useful for migrating NT to Linux. We won't be giving anything
On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 12:42:45PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> "Jeff V. Merkey" wrote:
>
> We don't need any messages. If (DANGEROUS) is not sufficient, then
> disable the feature unconditionally. Someone hacking on the code will
> be smart enough to enable the stuff while they are debugging.
"Jeff V. Merkey" wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 02:00:29PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > Agree. We need to disable it, since folks do not read the docs
> > > (obviously). Of course, we could leave it on, and I could start
> > > charging money for these tools -- there's little doubt it would
On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 01:55:43PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
> > somewhere in the thousands. Is NTFS write stable enough now in 2.4 to
> > fix these problems, if so, can we DISABLE by REMOVING write code in the
>
> It says DANGEROUS in big letters on the configuration option. We are now
> down to
On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 02:00:29PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Agree. We need to disable it, since folks do not read the docs
> > (obviously). Of course, we could leave it on, and I could start
> > charging money for these tools -- there's little doubt it would be a
> > lucrative business.
On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 03:34:09PM +0100, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
[...]
> Maybe that can prevent pupils^H^H^H^H^Heople from shooting their
> foots...
Nothing can "prevent" them from shooting themselves in the foot,
even taking away their guns and ammunition (removing it from
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> They'd prolly blast through it without reading (You don't think they
> read teh MS agreement when istalling windows do you?) but I bet we
> could argue that they accepted the agreement to protect us.
tristate 'NTFS file system support (read only)' CONFIG_NTFS_FS
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > I am very firmly against removing something because people do
> > not read manuals, what is next fdisk , mkfs ?.
>
> I must say I like the CONFIG_MORON though. By setting that the
> (l)user exposes his true
You know, couldn't we do something like prompting the (l)user with an
disclaimer/agreement or something when selecting the option or maybe
even when doing a make dep?
They'd prolly blast through it without reading (You don't think they
read teh MS agreement when istalling windows do you?) but I
On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 02:43:42PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 08:19:46AM -0500, David Relson wrote:
> > At 11:54 PM 12/7/00, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> No amount of warnings can prevent morons from f**king up. Unix gives
> you enough rope et al. I'm not arguing for
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
> I am very firmly against removing something because people do
> not read manuals, what is next fdisk , mkfs ?.
I must say I like the CONFIG_MORON though. By setting that the
(l)user exposes his true identity and leaves little for us to
doubt ;)
Added to
> Agree. We need to disable it, since folks do not read the docs
> (obviously). Of course, we could leave it on, and I could start
> charging money for these tools -- there's little doubt it would be a
> lucrative business. Perhaps this is what I'll do if the numbers of
> copies keeps growing.
> somewhere in the thousands. Is NTFS write stable enough now in 2.4 to
> fix these problems, if so, can we DISABLE by REMOVING write code in the
It says DANGEROUS in big letters on the configuration option. We are now
down to the level of people who don't understand 'smoking kills you' in big
On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 08:19:46AM -0500, David Relson wrote:
> At 11:54 PM 12/7/00, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
>
> >Linux today monitors this list. Some public education may be the best
> >route. How do we post a security advisory warning people that will get
> >posted? I'm sure folks see the
At 11:54 PM 12/7/00, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>Linux today monitors this list. Some public education may be the best
>route. How do we post a security advisory warning people that will get
>posted? I'm sure folks see the DANGEROUS comments, but they don't seem
>to stick in their heads. Then
At 11:54 PM 12/7/00, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
Linux today monitors this list. Some public education may be the best
route. How do we post a security advisory warning people that will get
posted? I'm sure folks see the DANGEROUS comments, but they don't seem
to stick in their heads. Then they
On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 08:19:46AM -0500, David Relson wrote:
At 11:54 PM 12/7/00, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
Linux today monitors this list. Some public education may be the best
route. How do we post a security advisory warning people that will get
posted? I'm sure folks see the DANGEROUS
somewhere in the thousands. Is NTFS write stable enough now in 2.4 to
fix these problems, if so, can we DISABLE by REMOVING write code in the
It says DANGEROUS in big letters on the configuration option. We are now
down to the level of people who don't understand 'smoking kills you' in big
Agree. We need to disable it, since folks do not read the docs
(obviously). Of course, we could leave it on, and I could start
charging money for these tools -- there's little doubt it would be a
lucrative business. Perhaps this is what I'll do if the numbers of
copies keeps growing.
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
I am very firmly against removing something because people do
not read manuals, what is next fdisk , mkfs ?.
I must say I like the CONFIG_MORON though. By setting that the
(l)user exposes his true identity and leaves little for us to
doubt ;)
Added to the
On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 02:43:42PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 08:19:46AM -0500, David Relson wrote:
At 11:54 PM 12/7/00, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
No amount of warnings can prevent morons from f**king up. Unix gives
you enough rope et al. I'm not arguing for removal
You know, couldn't we do something like prompting the (l)user with an
disclaimer/agreement or something when selecting the option or maybe
even when doing a make dep?
They'd prolly blast through it without reading (You don't think they
read teh MS agreement when istalling windows do you?) but I
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
I am very firmly against removing something because people do
not read manuals, what is next fdisk , mkfs ?.
I must say I like the CONFIG_MORON though. By setting that the
(l)user exposes his true identity and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
They'd prolly blast through it without reading (You don't think they
read teh MS agreement when istalling windows do you?) but I bet we
could argue that they accepted the agreement to protect us.
tristate 'NTFS file system support (read only)' CONFIG_NTFS_FS
On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 03:34:09PM +0100, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
[...]
Maybe that can prevent pupils^H^H^H^H^Heople from shooting their
foots...
Nothing can "prevent" them from shooting themselves in the foot,
even taking away their guns and ammunition (removing it from the
"Jeff V. Merkey" wrote:
On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 02:00:29PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
Agree. We need to disable it, since folks do not read the docs
(obviously). Of course, we could leave it on, and I could start
charging money for these tools -- there's little doubt it would be a
On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 02:00:29PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
Agree. We need to disable it, since folks do not read the docs
(obviously). Of course, we could leave it on, and I could start
charging money for these tools -- there's little doubt it would be a
lucrative business. Perhaps this
On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 12:42:45PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
"Jeff V. Merkey" wrote:
We don't need any messages. If (DANGEROUS) is not sufficient, then
disable the feature unconditionally. Someone hacking on the code will
be smart enough to enable the stuff while they are debugging.
I agree that if you give a mentally unbalanced person a firearm, they might
shoot themselves with it. I am suggesting we take away their firearm. Write
support for NTFS is useful for migrating from Linux to NT, R/O support is
useful for migrating NT to Linux. We won't be giving anything up. I
"Peter Samuelson wrote:"
> [Michael Warfield]
> > This thing is not armed and dangerous due to an act of ommision.
> > It's live and active only through three acts of commision.
>
> We could make it *four* acts of commission. (: (: (:
>
> diff -urk~ fs/Config.in
> --- fs/Config.in~ Mon Nov
[Michael Warfield]
> This thing is not armed and dangerous due to an act of ommision.
> It's live and active only through three acts of commision.
We could make it *four* acts of commission. (: (: (:
diff -urk~ fs/Config.in
--- fs/Config.in~ Mon Nov 13 01:43:42 2000
+++ fs/Config.in
"Michael H. Warfield" wrote:
> > Agree. We need to disable it, since folks do not read the docs
> > (obviously). Of course, we could leave it on, and I could start
> > charging money for these tools -- there's little doubt it would be a
> > lucrative business. Perhaps this is what I'll do
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 09:43:24PM -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> Peter Samuelson wrote:
> >
> > [Jeff Merkey]
> > > Do folks not know this NTFS driver will trash hard drives? We need
> > > to alert folks DO NOT USE WRITE NTFS MODE in those versions we know
> > > are busted.
> > Here's an
Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Jeff Merkey]
> > Do folks not know this NTFS driver will trash hard drives? We need
> > to alert folks DO NOT USE WRITE NTFS MODE in those versions we know
> > are busted.
>
> Here's an idea: let's make r/w support a separate CONFIG option, and
> label it
[Jeff Merkey]
> Do folks not know this NTFS driver will trash hard drives? We need
> to alert folks DO NOT USE WRITE NTFS MODE in those versions we know
> are busted.
Here's an idea: let's make r/w support a separate CONFIG option, and
label it "DANGEROUS".
Oh wait, we already do that.
Linux/Linus/Anton/Alan,
I am still sending out the NTFS repair tools for Linux trashed volumes,
and I've lost count now relative to how many I've sent out, but it's
somewhere in the thousands. Is NTFS write stable enough now in 2.4 to
fix these problems, if so, can we DISABLE by REMOVING write
Linux/Linus/Anton/Alan,
I am still sending out the NTFS repair tools for Linux trashed volumes,
and I've lost count now relative to how many I've sent out, but it's
somewhere in the thousands. Is NTFS write stable enough now in 2.4 to
fix these problems, if so, can we DISABLE by REMOVING write
[Jeff Merkey]
Do folks not know this NTFS driver will trash hard drives? We need
to alert folks DO NOT USE WRITE NTFS MODE in those versions we know
are busted.
Here's an idea: let's make r/w support a separate CONFIG option, and
label it "DANGEROUS".
Oh wait, we already do that.
Perhaps
Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Jeff Merkey]
Do folks not know this NTFS driver will trash hard drives? We need
to alert folks DO NOT USE WRITE NTFS MODE in those versions we know
are busted.
Here's an idea: let's make r/w support a separate CONFIG option, and
label it "DANGEROUS".
Oh
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 09:43:24PM -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Jeff Merkey]
Do folks not know this NTFS driver will trash hard drives? We need
to alert folks DO NOT USE WRITE NTFS MODE in those versions we know
are busted.
Here's an idea: let's make
"Michael H. Warfield" wrote:
Agree. We need to disable it, since folks do not read the docs
(obviously). Of course, we could leave it on, and I could start
charging money for these tools -- there's little doubt it would be a
lucrative business. Perhaps this is what I'll do if the
[Michael Warfield]
This thing is not armed and dangerous due to an act of ommision.
It's live and active only through three acts of commision.
We could make it *four* acts of commission. (: (: (:
diff -urk~ fs/Config.in
--- fs/Config.in~ Mon Nov 13 01:43:42 2000
+++ fs/Config.in
"Peter Samuelson wrote:"
[Michael Warfield]
This thing is not armed and dangerous due to an act of ommision.
It's live and active only through three acts of commision.
We could make it *four* acts of commission. (: (: (:
diff -urk~ fs/Config.in
--- fs/Config.in~ Mon Nov 13
73 matches
Mail list logo
