Wow

Post #177,634 by drewk 10/4/04 11:57:11 AM Reply	Wow As Yendor already pointed out, the redirection was just a convenient way to get the string into a file without opening an editor. 1) you aren't really blacklisting anything Yes, I'm really blacklisting something. This is how Debian does USB. 2) you should never use trickery to accomplish tasks. It's not using trickery. This is how Debian does USB. Find out how to remove the module from hotplug without tricks. The way to do it in Debian is with the blacklist. As I said, in SuSE I'd just fire up the system config editor and remove USB from hotplug until I was sure it wasn't a problem. And in Debian you do it by entering it in the blacklist. If you really want to use a system config editor to make this entry in the blacklist, it seems easy enough to write one. You shouldn't tear your system apart because on one hardware problem. How is it "tearing my system apart" to prevent a specific module from loading on hotplug? Either fix it or stop using that hardware. Good idea. Send me a Linux driver for an Epson Stylus R200, and another one for an HP ScanJet 3570c. Soon as you do that I'll install them and wipe Wondows from the box. === Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
Post #177,652 by deSitter 10/4/04 1:05:04 PM Reply	Wow There must be something wrong - no sane system would have a blacklist file alone for managing hardware. That's worse than Windows. Can't you reconfigure your kernel to not build that/those module(s)? -drl
Post #177,658 by pwhysall 10/4/04 1:11:12 PM Reply	YUO = TEH FUNNEH Yeah, because compiling your kernel is SO MUCH EASIER than editing a single text file. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #177,659 by drewk 10/4/04 1:11:27 PM Reply	Uhhh ... You called blacklisting a module "hacking my system apart." Now you want me to recompile my kernel to exclude it. The method Greg is talking about is making an entry in a config file that says, "If a usb printer connects, ignore it." === Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
Post #177,678 by deSitter 10/4/04 2:29:13 PM Reply	Re: Uhhh ... Tight policy says only those modules DIRECTLY RELATED to your functioning hardware constellation are allowed to exist on a machine. So before ANYTHING else, you make a kernel and modules tailored exactly to your own world. If you haven't done this, you should. -drl
Post #177,685 by pwhysall 10/4/04 2:36:15 PM Reply	What cack. What "tight policy" is that? The one in place on Planet Ross? Or do you direct end users to configure their kernels themselves (not a single distro recommends this)? In your world, people would have to recompile their kernel just for plugging in a new USB key. Silly. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #177,686 by folkert 10/4/04 2:37:40 PM Reply	He the BREAKS... The whole reason to run Debian. Ease of Update and ability to auto-magically upgrade. Whoops. We got this here new kernel that fixes the Huge open hole, but we can't update it... you aren't running a Stock Distribution Kernel. You are out of luck. -- [link\|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net\|greg], [link\|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry\|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ *i_wethey* No matter how much Microsoft supporters whine about how Linux and other operating systems have just as many bugs as their operating systems do, the bottom line is that the serious, gut-wrenching problems happen on Windows, not on Linux, not on Mac OS. -- [link\|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1622086,00.asp\|source] Here is an example: [link\|http://www.greymagic.com/security/advisories/gm001-ie/\|Executing arbitrary commands without Active Scripting or ActiveX when using Windows]
Post #177,694 by deSitter 10/4/04 2:53:48 PM Reply	Ha that is so rich Sacrifice system tightness in the interest of laziness. OK fine. Yeah. Right. -drl
Post #177,698 by pwhysall 10/4/04 2:58:42 PM Reply	"System tightness" means nothing... ...because the system is there to do precisely one thing: Get The Job Done. If you sacrifice that on the altar of "system tightness", then you have failed as an admin. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #177,704 by folkert 10/4/04 3:10:56 PM Reply	I don't think you under stand. Right off the BAT, you prove you are inferior at administration. You cannot use the tools provided, or work with them to make you life easier. You once asked me why I nearly always take the Road less easily taken. I didn;t care to answer it then. I sorta will now. Well, you don't seem to understand, when I take the road less taken, it IS for a reason. Those reasons might be anywhere from; just because I have the ability to, or Maybe, just maybe I am taking the long-term easy way out. I'll let you try to understand why I as a very Seasoned Senior Network and Systems Analyst to the routes I do. I'll tell you one thing, it isn't becuse Microsoft has forced me. -- [link\|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net\|greg], [link\|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry\|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ *i_wethey* No matter how much Microsoft supporters whine about how Linux and other operating systems have just as many bugs as their operating systems do, the bottom line is that the serious, gut-wrenching problems happen on Windows, not on Linux, not on Mac OS. -- [link\|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1622086,00.asp\|source] Here is an example: [link\|http://www.greymagic.com/security/advisories/gm001-ie/\|Executing arbitrary commands without Active Scripting or ActiveX when using Windows]
Post #177,725 by ben_tilly 10/4/04 4:20:08 PM Reply	And why not? Your "tightness" is an artificial aesthetic value of yours. Unless you can translate it into a value someone else cares about, it deserves to be sacrificed if it conflicts with any value that people care more about. By contrast "takes less work" is a value that is very real and has directly measurable consequences. That which takes less work is more likely to happen. Costs less to do. And frees people's time so that they can focus on more important things. Sure, you might waste some system resources. Do I care? Should I care? No. Not if those system resources cost less than the time saved. The one thing that I should care about is whether time and energy saved now will cost me more later. If you can demonstrate that then you have a point. But if you can't, then it is clear to me how little value I should place on system "tightness". Cheers, Ben About the use of language: it is impossible to sharpen a pencil with a blunt axe. It is equally vain to try to do it with ten blunt axes instead. -- Edsger W. Dijkstra

Welcome to IWETHEY!