If it's not the authorities it's the local webmaster. A couple of
months ago I was screwing around (again) and had my COL broken so was
using M$ Outlook on a laptop with no protection. My man called me and
very nicely gave me and told me not to use my Windoze anymore and
get my Linux fixed.
I guess you knew a lot of JPL experts, and Vulcan and dBase...
Dude, I grew up in Huntsville. Lived there for 20+ years. My dad was
a rocket scientist with GE back in the heyday of the space program.
--
.~.Might, Courage, Vision. In Linux We Trust.
/ v \ http://www.linux-sxs.org
/( _ )
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 09:38:31AM -0700, Andrew Mathews wrote:
>
> Congrats. You *did* disable all the built in security features didn't
> you?
ROFLMAO. I couldn't figure out how to set permissions on /dev/motor
properly, though. ;-)
> Ignorance is bliss? It doesn't stop at any borders, eithe
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 09:39:12AM -0500, Net Llama! wrote:
>
> Forget that. How can you even survive without a car, unless you live in
> the middle of a city, and never need to leave that area? I purchased my
> first used car when i was 22, and my first new one when i was 26.
Well, I guess tha
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 02:12:11PM -0500, rels wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> " It reminded me of the one thing about growing up
> in Alabama that still yanks my chain: aggressive ignorance: "I know
> all I want to know and don't want to know anything else." ..."
>
> Must be that so
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 10:15:24PM -0800, Keith Morse wrote:
>
> Your first car? Dude, you used to live in Utah, right? I thought it was
> against the law to live there and not own a car.
Yup, I used to live in Utah. It was a challenge to get around without
a car, but a willingness to deal with
sorry. many typo in the messages:
"save you from"
> note that system crashes may have nothing to do with securiyt, but lousy
> coding and programming. security won't safe you a endless loop or a
> deadlock.
--
Swiftly. Silently. Invisibly. .~. In Linux we trust.
read october issue of linux journal. the column by Mr. David Bandel. :)
I wonder whether there one such steaming relay server for TV signal.
>>You wouldn't know a site where I can download a linux radio station
>>automation program? Would you?
> Now that's a segue.
--
Swiftly. Silently. Invisi
On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Lee wrote:
> You wouldn't know a site where I can download a linux radio station
> automation program? Would you?
>
> Lee
Now that's a segue.
> Keith Morse wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 08:23:11PM -0800
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 21 November 2002 2:50 am, m.w.chang wrote:
> that's exactly what security is about, on a need-to-know basis. sir.
> :)
>
> I repeat: I am not rejecting or ignoring security, but under
> circumstance, like learning something un-related secur
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
" It reminded me of the one thing about growing up
in Alabama that still yanks my chain: aggressive ignorance: "I know
all I want to know and don't want to know anything else." ..."
Must be that some of those transplanted Alabamans relocated to West
GA, as I seem to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 08:23:11PM -0800, Net Llama! wrote:
Wow. Rough day in the 'burgh? ;)
;-) Nope, quite the contrary -- I had a *great* day. I bought my
first car ('93 Mercury Sable with all the trimmings and only 65,000
miles) and spent the afternoon program
You wouldn't know a site where I can download a linux radio station automation
program? Would you?
Lee
Keith Morse wrote:
On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 08:23:11PM -0800, Net Llama! wrote:
Wow. Rough day in the 'burgh? ;)
On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, Keith Morse wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 08:23:11PM -0800, Net Llama! wrote:
> > > Wow. Rough day in the 'burgh? ;)
> >
> > ;-) Nope, quite the contrary -- I had a *great* day. I bought my
> > first car ('93 Mercury Sable
comrade, root is a user, too.
while they have differences, a baby don't learn martial arts until
he/she could balance, walk, jump, and run. sxs -> step-by-step. and that
sex should starts with the origin, ie zero.
But he objects to the distinction between user and root (that's a
security featu
hmm.. wonder if the weapon control system is using a disarmed linux for
speed and size ...
m.w.chang wrote:
you meant the one that's just released by the US Military, that farts
nails onto the road and coughs with shock grenades, and lined with
electrical skins?
--
.~.Swiftly. Silently. In
strangely, I never got enough crash at my DOS PC back then. I write
foxpro programs back then.
note that system crashes may have nothing to do with securiyt, but lousy
coding and programming. security won't safe you a endless loop or a
deadlock.
This reminds me of beginning cryptology classes
you meant the one that's just released by the US Military, that farts
nails onto the road and coughs with shock grenades, and lined with
electrical skins?
ronnie gauthier wrote:
> I've never owned a car either. But ask me about the trucks I've owned.
Wow. Rough day in the 'burgh? ;)
--
S
besies, what is security without a disarmed linux?
you need a control to know what's secured and what's not.
Robert Black Eagle wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> For something like that, you can still obtain CP/M.
>>fine. yes. agree, but I still want a demilitarized l
that's exactly what security is about, on a need-to-know basis. sir. :)
I repeat: I am not rejecting or ignoring security, but under
circumstance, like learning something un-related security in linux, I
want all weapons and defense off. that's all.
> in Alabama that still yanks my chain: aggress
don't worry. that un-secured linux would not reacheable from the outside
world. you woulnd't even knowa bout its existence.
> Please mail me when you've finished learning security without
> implementing it so I can flush the iptables rule concerning your IP
> address range. :-p
--
Swiftly. S
do I need to learn how to secure security? :)
> This gets weirder by the day. A better analogy would be that learning
> linux with security is like having a key to the lock on your house.
--
Swiftly. Silently. Invisibly. .~. In Linux we trust.
/ v \
news://
At 11:12 20/11/2002 +0800, you wrote:
many thanks. hmm.. will try it..
so the "a" group attributes can totallly disarm the beast?
hmm...how about owner and group names? Certain daemons insist on
comparing names (ie, gid and uid).
>>>now you said it: DOS is ... "an educational" ... "toy".
>>>I wa
I've never owned a car either. But ask me about the trucks I've owned.
On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:15:24 -0800 (PST)
Keith Morse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 08:23:11PM -0800, Net Llama! wrote:
>> > Wow. Rough day in the 'burg
On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 08:23:11PM -0800, Net Llama! wrote:
> > Wow. Rough day in the 'burgh? ;)
>
> ;-) Nope, quite the contrary -- I had a *great* day. I bought my
> first car ('93 Mercury Sable with all the trimmings and only 65,000
> miles) a
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 08:23:11PM -0800, Net Llama! wrote:
> Wow. Rough day in the 'burgh? ;)
;-) Nope, quite the contrary -- I had a *great* day. I bought my
first car ('93 Mercury Sable with all the trimmings and only 65,000
miles) and spent the afternoon programming radio stations and figu
Wow. Rough day in the 'burgh? ;)
On 11/20/02 20:20, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 04:44:40PM +0800, m.w.chang wrote:
hm... i think the only option is for me to hack the kernel source my
self..hoho.. anyway, I repeat: I just want the house, no lock.
All of the metaphors a
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 04:44:40PM +0800, m.w.chang wrote:
>
> hm... i think the only option is for me to hack the kernel source my
> self..hoho.. anyway, I repeat: I just want the house, no lock.
All of the metaphors and analogies are cute, but they obscure the
basic point: even if you create y
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 19 November 2002 8:42 pm, Bill Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 08:51:15PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 09:02:34AM +0800, m.w.chang wrote:
> >> now you said it: DOS is ... "an educational" ... "toy".
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
All he really has to do is log in as root every time -- stupid, but
that's what he wants. Then he can "chmod -R 777 /" and everything that
can break will.
On Tuesday 19 November 2002 7:51 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 09:0
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
For something like that, you can still obtain CP/M.
On Tuesday 19 November 2002 7:05 pm, m.w.chang wrote:
> fine. yes. agree, but I still want a demilitarized linux.
> I will join the army later. :)
>
> > Filesystem security is a part of Linux. If yo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
This reminds me of beginning cryptology classes where almost everyone
comes up with an "unbreakable encryption routine" which is quickly
shown to be an elementary and extremely easy "code" to break. Programs
in linux that do not do such neat things
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Try LFS (linux from scratch). Writing your own personalized distro is
a wonderful educational experience.
On Tuesday 19 November 2002 7:02 pm, m.w.chang wrote:
> now you said it: DOS is ... "an educational" ... "toy".
> I want one for linux.
>
> > f
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
This gets weirder by the day. A better analogy would be that learning
linux with security is like having a key to the lock on your house.
On Tuesday 19 November 2002 7:00 pm, m.w.chang wrote:
> to put it in an even more simple, if not ulgy way, exec
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 06:42:04PM -0800, Bill Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 08:51:15PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 09:02:34AM +0800, m.w.chang wrote:
> >>
> >> now you said it: DOS is ... "an educational" ... "toy".
> >> I want one for linux.
> >
> >I to
AND>... that option should include ZERO security. ZERO... nothing.
it's also a valid state.
> And I see a value for a demilitarized linux. In fact, the kernel should
> have claer docuemnts about all the security hooks if it's to be accepted
> by the world. Then every government can design her own
hm... i think the only option is for me to hack the kernel source my
self..hoho.. anyway, I repeat: I just want the house, no lock.
And I see a value for a demilitarized linux. In fact, the kernel should
have claer docuemnts about all the security hooks if it's to be accepted
by the world. Then e
m.w.chang wrote:
> sir, I want the house, not the lock. I beg your pardon.
Too bad. Get over it. Nobody wants a house without locks, everyone has
the same concerns. Remove yours, sell them, do whatever, just don't
expect many people to view it as either logical or reasonable. Will you
put your mon
many thanks. hmm.. will try it..
so the "a" group attributes can totallly disarm the beast?
hmm...how about owner and group names? Certain daemons insist on
comparing names (ie, gid and uid).
>>>now you said it: DOS is ... "an educational" ... "toy".
>>>I want one for linux.
>>I told you how:
>>#
Slackware got basic secuirty system, too. I want to turn off the
master-arm switch. :)
> I disagree. Linux comes with a lot of training wheels - otherwise
> everyone would still be running Slackware (not that that's a bad idea
> in itself, but it would scare off a lot of Newbies).
that's just th
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 09:02:34AM +0800, m.w.chang wrote:
>
> now you said it: DOS is ... "an educational" ... "toy".
> I want one for linux.
I told you how:
# chmod -R 666 /
This creates a wide open filesystem where any user can do anything.
When it breaks, and it *will* most assuredly break,
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 09:06:34AM +0800, m.w.chang wrote:
>
> agree. if these guys had gone through the days of DOS, I believe they
> would be better users. I suspected that some users didn't even know how
> to spell their name in english alphabets. :)
I'm sure I don't know how to spell my name
Which Is true Lonni ... Only trying to make a point on where to start
..along with some simple
rules to help the un-initiated. 'Sides ( ;-> ) I dunno nuthin' 'bout
xinetd ...
Net Llama! wrote:
On 11/19/02 15:38, Ben Duncan wrote:
Some VERY Simple rules. Turn off ALL network Services not needed
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 08:51:15PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 09:02:34AM +0800, m.w.chang wrote:
>>
>> now you said it: DOS is ... "an educational" ... "toy".
>> I want one for linux.
>
>I told you how:
>
># chmod -R 666 /
>
>This creates a wide open filesystem where
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 09:35:14 -0500 (EST) Net Llama!
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, m.w.chang wrote:
> > again, not when I am new to linux. do you know how intimidating
> > for a newbie when they see doors and doors of obstacles to setup a
> > simple home server behind a hardware
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 09:04:17AM +0800, m.w.chang wrote:
>I am sorry, at this stage, I prefer to learn the programming and coding
>that *created* security. I don't learn security because of security,
>general. :)
>
>When I could control security by proper programming and coding, I got
>secuity a
Thank you. I am still a hobbyists.. . I can handle the consequence.
but it seems that since too much effort has been put into linux
securiyt, no one wanted to turn them off by a master-arm switch (as in a
jet fighter). Too bad... and that again will slow me down...
I prefer to switch on securi
Some VERY Simple rules. Turn off ALL network Services not needed to
run the system (this is done in
the inetd.conf file). Cancel, trash or otherwise do away with daemon
process you DO NOT need.
With the FEW remaining services in networking - run them thru wrappers.
From there on, build the iptabl
On 11/19/02 15:38, Ben Duncan wrote:
Some VERY Simple rules. Turn off ALL network Services not needed to run
the system (this is done in
the inetd.conf file). Cancel, trash or otherwise do away with daemon
That's not entirely true. In fact, its completely untrue on some
systems. Only inetd s
m.w.chang wrote:
when I want to use the security system, I would surely appreciate that.
but at some point in learning linux, just like your life, you wouldn't
want to be distracted by security measures.
Nonsense. That's akin to saying that a first time homeowner shouldn't
have to deal with t
to put it in an even more simple, if not ulgy way, execuse me,
learning linux with security =
having sex in front of a police officer and a doctor.
Myles Green wrote:
> I think you are missing the point MW, learning Linux without the
> security features would be like learning to operate an autom
now you said it: DOS is ... "an educational" ... "toy".
I want one for linux.
> flipper babies show the service wasn't worth the ultimate price. DOS *is* a toy,
> perhaps an educational one. At the end of the day, however, if you don't learn
> a little about file system security, you aren't learn
fine. yes. agree, but I still want a demilitarized linux.
I will join the army later. :)
> Filesystem security is a part of Linux. If you're not learning about it,
> then you're nor learning Linux. Period.
>
--
Swiftly. Silently. Invisibly. .~. In Linux we trust.
I am sorry, at this stage, I prefer to learn the programming and coding
that *created* security. I don't learn security because of security,
general. :)
When I could control security by proper programming and coding, I got
secuity automagically.
> There's no chicken & egg about it. You either l
sir, I want the house, not the lock. I beg your pardon.
I am/was not looking for a job on linux security.
>> when I want to use the security system, I would surely appreciate that.
>> but at some point in learning linux, just like your life, you wouldn't
> Nonsense. That's akin to saying that a f
agree. if these guys had gone through the days of DOS, I believe they
would be better users. I suspected that some users didn't even know how
to spell their name in english alphabets. :)
> Then they should stick with M$ products. Linux doesn't have training
> wheels.
>
--
Swiftly. Silently.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 19 November 2002 5:50 am, m.w.chang wrote:
> again, not when I am new to linux. do you know how intimidating for a
> newbie when they see doors and doors of obstacles to setup a simple
> home server behind a hardware firewall+router? Most ne
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 11:23:28AM +0800, m.w.chang wrote:
>
> sorry, i just want to avoid the hussles related to file system access
> control (FSAC) or security when learning linux as starters. out of my
> linux learning experience, many times, I was hinderd by all these
> security things.
Unde
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I'm truly feeling puzzled. I was not distracted so much as confused by
the security measures at first. Eventually (after several new viruses
went around) I appreciated them and it didn't take long to get used to
them. In a few cases, it is a bit
I think you are missing the point MW, learning Linux without the
security features would be like learning to operate an automobile
without learning the traffic regulations - you get from point A to
point B but cause many problems for others along the way.
Look at it this way - if YOU don't have
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, m.w.chang wrote:
> again, not when I am new to linux. do you know how intimidating for a
> newbie when they see doors and doors of obstacles to setup a simple home
> server behind a hardware firewall+router? Most newbies are not ready for
> the hussles at the *Very* beginning.
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, m.w.chang wrote:
> when I want to use the security system, I would surely appreciate that.
> but at some point in learning linux, just like your life, you wouldn't
> want to be distracted by security measures.
Filesystem security is a part of Linux. If you're not learning abo
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, m.w.chang wrote:
>
> It's another chicken and egg question. One thing I know: I am not making
> money out of selling security. :)
There's no chicken & egg about it. You either learn security from the
start, or you don't. M$ isn't making money from security either. Funny
how
again, not when I am new to linux. do you know how intimidating for a
newbie when they see doors and doors of obstacles to setup a simple home
server behind a hardware firewall+router? Most newbies are not ready for
the hussles at the *Very* beginning.
More research into viruses, trojans and wo
when I want to use the security system, I would surely appreciate that.
but at some point in learning linux, just like your life, you wouldn't
want to be distracted by security measures.
> I am truly puzzled by this. I enjoyed the convenience of having my
> "user" account (I back up my productio
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 18 November 2002 9:23 pm, m.w.chang wrote:
> sorry, i just want to avoid the hussles related to file system access
> control (FSAC) or security when learning linux as starters. out of
> my linux learning experience, many times, I was hinderd
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
More research into viruses, trojans and worms might convince you
otherwise.
On Monday 18 November 2002 8:25 pm, m.w.chang wrote:
> got your point, but *IF* the right users and processes could be
> guaranteed, then the file system should be modified m
It's another chicken and egg question. One thing I know: I am not making
money out of selling security. :)
>> linux learning experience, many times, I was hinderd by all these
>> security things.
> If you don't learn about how the filesystem works from the start, then
> you never will.
>
--
My understanding of computer systems told me that network ports are just
a memory or register. So memory security should encompass all these
networking stuffs. networking servers are provided by services inside
memory. YOU wrote the right process (with StackGuard?), you got
networking security auto
On 11/18/02 19:23, m.w.chang wrote:
sorry, i just want to avoid the hussles related to file system access
control (FSAC) or security when learning linux as starters. out of my
linux learning experience, many times, I was hinderd by all these
security things.
If you don't learn about how the fil
last voice...
another app: tablet pc. the hardware, not the M$ craps. Tablet pc that's
as thin as a paper notebook is going to be useful. all these tablets
connected to a SECURED desktop server.
--
Swiftly. Silently. Invisibly. .~. In Linux we trust.
/ v \
ne
you got a better example than me.
throwing myself out of the door... :)
> Before we beat this guy up and toss him out the back door...
> But it's really not a bad idea... maybe one of the embedded kernels can be put
> to task?
>
--
Swiftly. Silently. Invisibly. .~. In Linux we trust.
note. for the exactly same rationale behind my orignial question,
I want a no-security NTFS support as well..
so the brand and crapness (scale 0-10) of the OS (be it linux or M$) is
irrelevant. :)
> Unfortunately (a) the default security settings on the w2k machines seem to
> be too open, (b) th
left out the word "NOT". sorry. sorry.
.. not just about ...
> That's why I said linux (if not open-source computing) is about security
> only.
--
Swiftly. Silently. Invisibly. .~. In Linux we trust.
/ v \
news://news.hkpcug.org /( _ )\ http://www.lin
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 18:37:15 -0800 Net Llama! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/18/02 18:22, m.w.chang wrote:
> >
> >>>if security can be quarateed at network port level, and that only I
> >>>could login the machine at console, is there a need for file system
> >>>security?
> >>
> >>Security c
sorry, i just want to avoid the hussles related to file system access
control (FSAC) or security when learning linux as starters. out of my
linux learning experience, many times, I was hinderd by all these
security things.
You see, for a really newbie, their primary interest is NOT security,
but
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 06:47:16PM -0800, Net Llama! wrote:
> What is "memory security"???
Something like StackGuard.
Kurt
--
7:30, Channel 5: The Bionic Dog (Action/Adventure)
The Bionic Dog gets a hormonal short-circuit and violates the
Mann Act with an interstate Greyhound bus
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 10:29:52AM +0800, m.w.chang wrote:
> hmm let's put things this way.
Okay.
> if the education system is working perfectly, do we need law enforcement
> and military units to catch failures? No one should be committing crimes
> or terrorism, right?
Mmm, no, I don't thin
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 10:22:20AM +0800, m.w.chang wrote:
>
>
> >>if security can be quarateed at network port level, and that only I
> >>could login the machine at console, is there a need for file system
> >>security?
> > Security can't be guaranteed. With what you've just described, you
> >
What is "memory security"???
On 11/18/02 18:29, m.w.chang wrote:
hmm let's put things this way.
if the education system is working perfectly, do we need law enforcement
and military units to catch failures? No one should be committing crimes
or terrorism, right?
That's the scenario I wanted
On 11/18/02 18:25, m.w.chang wrote:
got your point, but *IF* the right users and processes could be
guaranteed, then the file system should be modified more for speed+size
and less for security.
How can you guarentee what every user & process on the system might do?
At any rate, where did you
On 11/18/02 18:22, m.w.chang wrote:
if security can be quarateed at network port level, and that only I
could login the machine at console, is there a need for file system
security?
Security can't be guaranteed. With what you've just described, you
don't want Linux or Unix at all. You might a
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 10:22:20AM +0800, m.w.chang wrote:
>
>
>>>if security can be quarateed at network port level, and that only I
>>>could login the machine at console, is there a need for file system
>>>security?
>> Security can't be guaranteed. With what you've just described, you
>> don't
hmm let's put things this way.
if the education system is working perfectly, do we need law enforcement
and military units to catch failures? No one should be committing crimes
or terrorism, right?
That's the scenario I wanted to talk about. In linux, the file system
security seems to be used
got your point, but *IF* the right users and processes could be
guaranteed, then the file system should be modified more for speed+size
and less for security.
the only last thing that scared me is those stack or buffer attacks
which could enable a remote users to drop into a root prompt. I have no
>>if security can be quarateed at network port level, and that only I
>>could login the machine at console, is there a need for file system
>>security?
> Security can't be guaranteed. With what you've just described, you
> don't want Linux or Unix at all. You might as well use Windows 2000
> or
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 09:54:52AM +0800, m.w.chang wrote:
>
> is it possible to turn off all the permission support in ext2fs?
No.
> will that speed up disk access actually?
Probably not.
> if security can be quarateed at network port level, and that only I
> could login the machine at conso
On 11/18/02 17:54, m.w.chang wrote:
is it possible to turn off all the permission support in ext2fs?
Not as far as I know.
will that speed up disk access actually?
Does it in windoze? ;)
In all seriousness, filesystem permissions are not a measurable cause of
disk IO issues. The type of
88 matches
Mail list logo
