Brian Brunner brian.t.brunner@gai-tronics.com (610)796-5838
thebs413@earthlink.net 11/18/05 09:40AM >>>
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 05:43 -0800, Brian T. Brunner wrote:
1: e-mail is a people skill, you affect people with it. The value of your presentation rises or falls with your skill at presentation.
In environments like this, communication over e-mail is not optional.
This concurs with my asserted point: e-mail is a personal skill.
2: My embedded headless linux targets live in isolated networks, even relative to other computer or network equipment at the target site. At times, the nearest land is 2 miles straight down (ocean floor).
And your point is?
Slightly beyond your grasp? Who, pray tell, is my attacker?
3: These targets are also without anything resembling a linux-aware operator and (ipso facto) must generate NO mail and self-limiting logs of a "usually ignored' type.
Well, that makes a little more sense.
YAYYY! I've passed a cognitive coherence test from somebody whose methods of presentation in e-mail are sufficiently poor that I SIMPLY DON'T CARE whether I pass his tests.
Once again, I depart from this conversation.
******************************************************************* This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.
www.hubbell.com - Hubbell Incorporated
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 06:55 -0800, Brian T. Brunner wrote:
This concurs with my asserted point: e-mail is a personal skill.
If I was being paid to provide help here, I would NOT be providing it in e-mail.
Slightly beyond your grasp? Who, pray tell, is my attacker?
Dude, I have _never_ asked you to explain yourself on RBAC/MAC. That was _other_ people. Please do _not_ attribute what _they_ said to me.
I just said that I _disagree_ with your view that RBAC/MAC makes no sense in some environments you work in. That's all. Why you have to assert for me, for others, etc... in an "absolutist" view has been _my_problem_ with your statements.
What you do for _your_ networks is what _you_ do. Please, please re- read what *I* said and what *OTHERS* said and do not confuse them. I am _not_ "attacking you."
YAYYY!
Huh? So you say that functionality is all that matters, and you don't care if there is any compromise of the system as long as it works? That's basically how I put it, and if you concur, that's fine by me.
I've passed a cognitive coherence test from somebody whose methods of presentation in e-mail are sufficiently poor that I SIMPLY DON'T CARE whether I pass his tests.
As I said, I am not here to judge what you do. But I did not like your belief that some of us who configure RBAC/MAC do it for no reason.
Once again, I depart from this conversation.
Obviously because you can't differentiate between what *I* say and what *OTHERS* say.
That too is a cognitive coherence test that you seem to have _failed_repeatedly_ in your responses in this thread. I should know, I do it to at times, but at least I admit it.
I guess that's why some people just piggyback everything that is said to me, _regardless_ if I said it or not -- because I'll admit to some things. So they hope other people have poor comprehension skills.
The old "moderation" thread comes to mind. But remember, not everyone is dumb here. I would argue a great majority have better comprehension skills than you or I.
On Friday 18 November 2005 09:55, Brian T. Brunner wrote:
Who, pray tell, is my attacker?
The Windows box that just got infected from a floppy disk, CD, or other media, and it is inside your firewall (if you have one). Of course, if all your systems are embedded, or have no network connections, then there is no attacker in the traditional sense.
However, SELinux can provide more protection than that, perhaps even preventing a bug in the code that's running from blowing away critical files, for a possible (even if not probable) example.
Lamar Owen wrote:
On Friday 18 November 2005 09:55, Brian T. Brunner wrote:
Who, pray tell, is my attacker?
The Windows box that just got infected from a floppy disk, CD, or other media, and it is inside your firewall (if you have one). Of course, if all your systems are embedded, or have no network connections, then there is no attacker in the traditional sense.
However, SELinux can provide more protection than that, perhaps even preventing a bug in the code that's running from blowing away critical files, for a possible (even if not probable) example.
I'd like to interject here.. this thread has really gone off the deep end, but just chew on this for a little while, and perhaps something good will come out of it. 99% of the time, people get agitated, aggrivated, or ill about things that 1., they have no control over, and 2., in all likelyhood, 99% of the time, those 99% of events will *NEVER* have any impact on you, *so* why even worry with it ? Personal feelings never solve anything unless you happen to be husband and wife, and I don't think any of you fit that category. It's time to move on to other topics, if this thread has not run everybody off already.
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 20:29 -0500, Sam Drinkard wrote:
Lamar Owen wrote:
On Friday 18 November 2005 09:55, Brian T. Brunner wrote:
Who, pray tell, is my attacker?
The Windows box that just got infected from a floppy disk, CD, or other media, and it is inside your firewall (if you have one). Of course, if all your systems are embedded, or have no network connections, then there is no attacker in the traditional sense.
However, SELinux can provide more protection than that, perhaps even preventing a bug in the code that's running from blowing away critical files, for a possible (even if not probable) example.
I'd like to interject here.. this thread has really gone off the deep end, but just chew on this for a little while, and perhaps something good will come out of it. 99% of the time, people get agitated, aggrivated, or ill about things that 1., they have no control over, and 2., in all likelyhood, 99% of the time, those 99% of events will *NEVER* have any impact on you, *so* why even worry with it ? Personal feelings never solve anything unless you happen to be husband and wife, and I don't think any of you fit that category. It's time to move on to other topics, if this thread has not run everybody off already.
---- and I'd like to interject here...
I am quite certain that few if any minds are changed by these debates but I think that it's arbitrary and unfair for some to express their opinions and then someone decides that they can cut off debate because they aren't interested.
I presume you know how to delete emails that are on topics that you aren't interested in.
Everyone should get the opportunity to speak their piece - regardless of whether you agree or not, and if you're not interested in the thread...just delete it.
Craig
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 18:32 -0800, Preston Crawford wrote:
Everyone should get the opportunity to speak their piece - regardless of whether you agree or not, and if you're not interested in the thread...just delete it.
Craig
Now that's crazy talk. :-)
---- insanity is hereditary...I got it from my kids
Craig
On Friday 18 November 2005 21:32, Preston Crawford wrote:
Everyone should get the opportunity to speak their piece - regardless of whether you agree or not, and if you're not interested in the thread...just delete it.
Now that's crazy talk. :-)
May be, but it's still the best advice I've seen all day. Time to exercise kmail's 'mark message as todo' flag.
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 19:09 -0700, Craig White wrote:
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 20:29 -0500, Sam Drinkard wrote:
Lamar Owen wrote:
On Friday 18 November 2005 09:55, Brian T. Brunner wrote:
Who, pray tell, is my attacker?
The Windows box that just got infected from a floppy disk, CD, or other media, and it is inside your firewall (if you have one). Of course, if all your systems are embedded, or have no network connections, then there is no attacker in the traditional sense.
However, SELinux can provide more protection than that, perhaps even preventing a bug in the code that's running from blowing away critical files, for a possible (even if not probable) example.
I'd like to interject here.. this thread has really gone off the deep end, but just chew on this for a little while, and perhaps something good will come out of it. 99% of the time, people get agitated, aggrivated, or ill about things that 1., they have no control over, and 2., in all likelyhood, 99% of the time, those 99% of events will *NEVER* have any impact on you, *so* why even worry with it ? Personal feelings never solve anything unless you happen to be husband and wife, and I don't think any of you fit that category. It's time to move on to other topics, if this thread has not run everybody off already.
and I'd like to interject here...
I am quite certain that few if any minds are changed by these debates but I think that it's arbitrary and unfair for some to express their opinions and then someone decides that they can cut off debate because they aren't interested.
I presume you know how to delete emails that are on topics that you aren't interested in.
Everyone should get the opportunity to speak their piece - regardless of whether you agree or not, and if you're not interested in the thread...just delete it.
Craig
Craig, it's not about being interested or disinterested. The discussion has completely turned into a urinating contest between those that will and those that won't. Yes, I know how to delete things, but is still fills up the mailbox with unnecessary chatter. I don't think I'm alone in wanting the thread to go away either. 3 or 4 days worth is enough. Take it to personal e-mail. I'm in learning stages with CentOS and linux in general. I sure can't learn anything from this conversation other than who can create the longest post.
Sam
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 22:07 -0500, Sam Drinkard wrote:
Craig, it's not about being interested or disinterested. The discussion has completely turned into a urinating contest between those that will and those that won't. Yes, I know how to delete things, but is still fills up the mailbox with unnecessary chatter. I don't think I'm alone in wanting the thread to go away either. 3 or 4 days worth is enough. Take it to personal e-mail. I'm in learning stages with CentOS and linux in general. I sure can't learn anything from this conversation other than who can create the longest post.
---- so if there's 10 of you that want the thread to die and there's 1000 people subscribed does that make it significant?
There are a lot of sysadmins on this list - the interchange is interesting in that there is a wide range of opinions.
You may not recall but I actually started the thread about SELinux because I didn't know how to fix 2 issues...1 was benign, 1 was malignant. The thread turned to the philosophical debate and I got my answer from fedora-selinux-list@redhat.com instead. I was a bit put out by that but only because no really bothered to help.
If you are an end user and not a sysadmin, then the entire discussion isn't likely to mean much to you and I'm sorry for the fact that you have to wade through it. On the other hand, I don't have much interest in running mplayer on CentOS because I use fedora for my desktops so I have to wade through that.
I use evolution. I use it in threaded mode. If I log on and see a message thread that I am not interested in, I can <Control>-H (select thread), <Control>-D (delete) and be done with the entire thread. Perhaps you need a different mail client that has more capability. (umm...nope, you use evolution too, looks like you need to update it)
We all have the ability to delete the messages...it takes but a second and it seems to me that your opposition to the continuation of the thread probably has more to do with the participants than the discussion itself - but let me assure you that the participants are very knowledgeable people - perhaps too sarcastic at times but knowledgable.
Sometimes it's worth perusing through useless discussions to help me judge who really knows their stuff and who bluffs and blunders their way through things.
Craig
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005, Craig White wrote:
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 22:07 -0500, Sam Drinkard wrote:
Craig, it's not about being interested or disinterested. The discussion has completely turned into a urinating contest between those that will and those that won't. Yes, I know how to delete things, but is still fills up the mailbox with unnecessary chatter. I don't think I'm alone in wanting the thread to go away either. 3 or 4 days worth is enough. Take it to personal e-mail. I'm in learning stages with CentOS and linux in general. I sure can't learn anything from this conversation other than who can create the longest post.
so if there's 10 of you that want the thread to die and there's 1000 people subscribed does that make it significant?
Maybe the 990 others are sensible enough to not add their own voice to the current noisy mess in order to save whatsever left of this list. At least they didn't join the endless discussion.
There are a lot of sysadmins on this list - the interchange is interesting in that there is a wide range of opinions.
Sure, but do I want to listen to the same opinion (from the same hard-head) 5 times with little added value ? Not really.
If it was just about voicing different opinions, I don't think anyone would disagree.
We all have the ability to delete the messages...it takes but a second and it seems to me that your opposition to the continuation of the thread probably has more to do with the participants than the discussion itself - but let me assure you that the participants are very knowledgeable people - perhaps too sarcastic at times but knowledgable.
It's not about deleting a message or ignoring a thread. It's the time reading and then deciding to delete that is being wasted. You don't know if something is garbage until you actually spend time reading it. (Multiplied by the number of people that do not care)
Plus, the threads make this list's atmosphere very, very unfriendly. And it's not like it happened once or twice. The same people are involved and the same people force their opinion (whenever there's opposition, and there always is). If people could just state their opinion once and leave it at that if someone disagrees all would be fine.
Sometimes it's worth perusing through useless discussions to help me judge who really knows their stuff and who bluffs and blunders their way through things.
And for most it's a waste of time to see people fight and flame. It's not good for the atmosphere, the list or CentOS. Remember this is the main CentOS list where people subscribe to get help and most I see is long threads with people wanting (aching) to be right and defaming other people to get there.
Kind regards, -- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]
Dag Wieers wrote:
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005, Craig White wrote:
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 22:07 -0500, Sam Drinkard wrote:
Craig, it's not about being interested or disinterested. The discussion has completely turned into a urinating contest between those that will and those that won't. Yes, I know how to delete things, but is still fills up the mailbox with unnecessary chatter. I don't think I'm alone in wanting the thread to go away either. 3 or 4 days worth is enough. Take it to personal e-mail. I'm in learning stages with CentOS and linux in general. I sure can't learn anything from this conversation other than who can create the longest post.
so if there's 10 of you that want the thread to die and there's 1000 people subscribed does that make it significant?
Maybe the 990 others are sensible enough to not add their own voice to the current noisy mess in order to save whatsever left of this list. At least they didn't join the endless discussion.
How many members are there? There are only a small number that post messages. I'd be curious to know how many people are subscribed to the list.
Best regards,
Just so you know... I subscribe and read and follow most threads... I rarely post as I bow to other's who are infinately more knowledgable about Linux and Centos.. but, I DO READ and learn.
Dave
-----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org]On Behalf Of Chris Mauritz Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2005 6:10 PM To: CentOS mailing list Subject: Re: [CentOS] [OT][Practices] The Case for RBAC/MAC
Dag Wieers wrote:
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005, Craig White wrote:
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 22:07 -0500, Sam Drinkard wrote:
Craig, it's not about being interested or disinterested. The discussion has completely turned into a urinating contest between those that will and those that won't. Yes, I know how to delete things, but is still fills up the mailbox with unnecessary chatter. I don't think I'm alone in wanting the thread to go away either. 3 or 4 days worth is enough. Take it to personal e-mail. I'm in learning stages with CentOS and linux in general. I sure can't learn anything from this conversation other than who can create the longest post.
so if there's 10 of you that want the thread to die and there's 1000 people subscribed does that make it significant?
Maybe the 990 others are sensible enough to not add their own voice to the current noisy mess in order to save whatsever left of this list. At least they didn't join the endless discussion.
How many members are there? There are only a small number that post messages. I'd be curious to know how many people are subscribed to the list.
Best regards,
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
At least in my case, Dag is right. I've been keeping my mouth shut hoping (against hope) that these guys would finally give the 990 of us a break. Unfortunately, history teaches us that they don't have enough sense to do so.
Marko
On Sat, November 19, 2005 5:30 pm, Dag Wieers said:
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005, Craig White wrote:
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 22:07 -0500, Sam Drinkard wrote:
Craig, it's not about being interested or disinterested. The discussion has completely turned into a urinating contest between those that will and those that won't. Yes, I know how to delete things, but is still fills up the mailbox with unnecessary chatter. I don't think I'm alone in wanting the thread to go away either. 3 or 4 days worth is enough. Take it to personal e-mail. I'm in learning stages with CentOS and linux in general. I sure can't learn anything from this conversation other than who can create the longest post.
so if there's 10 of you that want the thread to die and there's 1000 people subscribed does that make it significant?
Maybe the 990 others are sensible enough to not add their own voice to the current noisy mess in order to save whatsever left of this list. At least they didn't join the endless discussion.
There are a lot of sysadmins on this list - the interchange is interesting in that there is a wide range of opinions.
Sure, but do I want to listen to the same opinion (from the same hard-head) 5 times with little added value ? Not really.
If it was just about voicing different opinions, I don't think anyone would disagree.
We all have the ability to delete the messages...it takes but a second and it seems to me that your opposition to the continuation of the thread probably has more to do with the participants than the discussion itself - but let me assure you that the participants are very knowledgeable people - perhaps too sarcastic at times but knowledgable.
It's not about deleting a message or ignoring a thread. It's the time reading and then deciding to delete that is being wasted. You don't know if something is garbage until you actually spend time reading it. (Multiplied by the number of people that do not care)
Plus, the threads make this list's atmosphere very, very unfriendly. And it's not like it happened once or twice. The same people are involved and the same people force their opinion (whenever there's opposition, and there always is). If people could just state their opinion once and leave it at that if someone disagrees all would be fine.
Sometimes it's worth perusing through useless discussions to help me judge who really knows their stuff and who bluffs and blunders their way through things.
And for most it's a waste of time to see people fight and flame. It's not good for the atmosphere, the list or CentOS. Remember this is the main CentOS list where people subscribe to get help and most I see is long threads with people wanting (aching) to be right and defaming other people to get there.
Kind regards, -- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power] _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 18:17 -0500, Marko A. Jennings wrote:
At least in my case, Dag is right. I've been keeping my mouth shut hoping (against hope) that these guys would finally give the 990 of us a break. Unfortunately, history teaches us that they don't have enough sense to do so.
I'm just tired of seeing RBAC/MAC principles, as well as the SELinux approach, being mis-represented here. I _never_ had a problem with anyone disabling it (that was _other_ people), but I do _not_ like the continued "inaccuracy of assumptions" being thrown around here.
If you don't want to use SELinux, don't. But do _not_:
A) Try to make all sorts of analysis based on either user services or kernel services that grant privilege -- SELinux does not, just like NetFilter doesn't either, they only remove privileges
B) Continually say it does nothing for your what you do, because there are others who are using it, and they do take advantage of what it offers.
C) Call an "enterprise distro" released for SMBs as well as enterprises as 'broken' merely because it offers compatibility issues with more "general" usage
D) Recognize that other UNIX flavors _have_ implemented RBAC/MAC, and if companies like Red Hat do not force the issue, many SMBs and enterprises _will_ consider moving back to other UNIX flavors (like Solaris)
E) Our newest entry: Comparisons to the NT RBAC/MAC model (which is actually not bad -- but it was _never_ followed by Microsoft's own applications division)
Honestly, at this point with things like "E", I think people really need to _stop_ "reaching" for "excuses" that *I* never called for. If you feel you need to answer _other_ people because they said something about how you aren't a good admin, etc..., etc..., etc... get over it.
Until then, I think it's a sad world when people want to continually defense a position from -- and I'm sorry -- ignorance of what SELinux is. Just forget it exists and I'll be happy. Until then, the continuous "musical positions/assumptions" are growing old.
This will be my last post in this OT/Practices thread on the matter.
On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 23:30 +0100, Dag Wieers wrote:
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005, Craig White wrote:
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 22:07 -0500, Sam Drinkard wrote:
Craig, it's not about being interested or disinterested. The discussion has completely turned into a urinating contest between those that will and those that won't. Yes, I know how to delete things, but is still fills up the mailbox with unnecessary chatter. I don't think I'm alone in wanting the thread to go away either. 3 or 4 days worth is enough. Take it to personal e-mail. I'm in learning stages with CentOS and linux in general. I sure can't learn anything from this conversation other than who can create the longest post.
so if there's 10 of you that want the thread to die and there's 1000 people subscribed does that make it significant?
Maybe the 990 others are sensible enough to not add their own voice to the current noisy mess in order to save whatsever left of this list. At least they didn't join the endless discussion.
---- that's certainly possible ----
There are a lot of sysadmins on this list - the interchange is interesting in that there is a wide range of opinions.
Sure, but do I want to listen to the same opinion (from the same hard-head) 5 times with little added value ? Not really.
If it was just about voicing different opinions, I don't think anyone would disagree.
---- there are a few that will argue an obtuse tangential point or a ridiculous proposition rather than give up and even leave the impression that they might have been wrong and there are those on this list that can't fathom advice that they believe in their heart to be wrong.
So they go on and on. I have barely participated and it should be obvious to the participants that it is long past time to let go but unless we conspire to shout people down, they have a right to speak their piece. Most of them have been respectful. ----
We all have the ability to delete the messages...it takes but a second and it seems to me that your opposition to the continuation of the thread probably has more to do with the participants than the discussion itself - but let me assure you that the participants are very knowledgeable people - perhaps too sarcastic at times but knowledgable.
It's not about deleting a message or ignoring a thread. It's the time reading and then deciding to delete that is being wasted. You don't know if something is garbage until you actually spend time reading it. (Multiplied by the number of people that do not care)
Plus, the threads make this list's atmosphere very, very unfriendly. And it's not like it happened once or twice. The same people are involved and the same people force their opinion (whenever there's opposition, and there always is). If people could just state their opinion once and leave it at that if someone disagrees all would be fine.
---- I think you can drop a personal note to them directly. I certainly have ----
Sometimes it's worth perusing through useless discussions to help me judge who really knows their stuff and who bluffs and blunders their way through things.
And for most it's a waste of time to see people fight and flame. It's not good for the atmosphere, the list or CentOS. Remember this is the main CentOS list where people subscribe to get help and most I see is long threads with people wanting (aching) to be right and defaming other people to get there.
---- well - I know for certain that perhaps only 1 or 2 of them will ever actually say...yeah, you're right. Those things just are never gonna happen here. On the positive side...there hasn't been any flaming going on either.
Craig
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 19:09 -0700, Craig White wrote:
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 20:29 -0500, Sam Drinkard wrote:
<snip>
I'd like to interject here.. this thread has really gone off the deep end, but just chew on this for a little while, and perhaps something good will come out of it. 99% of the time, people get agitated, aggrivated, or ill about things that 1., they have no control over, and 2., in all likelyhood, 99% of the time, those 99% of events will *NEVER* have any impact on you, *so* why even worry with it ? Personal feelings never solve anything unless you happen to be husband and wife, and I don't think any of you fit that category. It's time to move on to other topics, if this thread has not run everybody off already.
and I'd like to interject here...
I am quite certain that few if any minds are changed by these debates but I think that it's arbitrary and unfair for some to express their opinions and then someone decides that they can cut off debate because they aren't interested.
I presume you know how to delete emails that are on topics that you aren't interested in.
Everyone should get the opportunity to speak their piece - regardless of whether you agree or not, and if you're not interested in the thread...just delete it.
Craig
I could be wrong, but I took Sam's post as a suggestion. It seemed perfectly reasonable to me even though I've been interested in the thread because if I am patient and wade through the necessary repetition I get introduced to a lot of concepts and details that I've not been exposed to.
I did not see a threat (and actual apparent follow-through) to block or remove anyone, as we have seen in the past.
So I just wanted to say I think nothing was wrong with the *suggestion* made.
Bill
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 19:09 -0700, Craig White wrote:
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 20:29 -0500, Sam Drinkard wrote:
<snip>
I'd like to interject here.. this thread has really gone off the deep end, but just chew on this for a little while, and perhaps something good will come out of it. 99% of the time, people get agitated, aggrivated, or ill about things that 1., they have no control over, and 2., in all likelyhood, 99% of the time, those 99% of events will *NEVER* have any impact on you, *so* why even worry with it ? Personal feelings never solve anything unless you happen to be husband and wife, and I don't think any of you fit that category. It's time to move on to other topics, if this thread has not run everybody off already.
and I'd like to interject here...
I am quite certain that few if any minds are changed by these debates but I think that it's arbitrary and unfair for some to express their opinions and then someone decides that they can cut off debate because they aren't interested.
I presume you know how to delete emails that are on topics that you aren't interested in.
Everyone should get the opportunity to speak their piece - regardless of whether you agree or not, and if you're not interested in the thread...just delete it.
Craig
I could be wrong, but I took Sam's post as a suggestion. It seemed perfectly reasonable to me even though I've been interested in the thread because if I am patient and wade through the necessary repetition I get introduced to a lot of concepts and details that I've not been exposed to.
I did not see a threat (and actual apparent follow-through) to block or remove anyone, as we have seen in the past.
So I just wanted to say I think nothing was wrong with the *suggestion* made.
Bill
-
Brian T. Brunner -
Bryan J. Smith -
Chris Mauritz -
Craig White -
Dag Wieers -
David Campbell -
Lamar Owen -
Marko A. Jennings -
Preston Crawford -
Sam Drinkard -
William L. Maltby