[CentOS] Orwell's 1984 from Freedesktop,org?

Fri Jan 23 23:27:41 UTC 2015
Bill Maltby (C4B) <centos4bill at gmail.com>

On Fri, 2015-01-23 at 13:32 -0800, Keith Keller wrote:
> <snip>

> But (getting back a little to the original topic) getting to the 3ware
> web interface should not require root privileges on the client, since
> it's just the browser connecting to the 3ware http(s) listener.  The OP
> seemed to be ranting about a prompt for an administrative password from
> the desktop environment.

Actually, my rant was much more about it interrupting me, without being
asked, to do some updates that I didn't yet request *and* being
persistent about it over time in *my* (not Freedesktop.org's) work
space.

I already get notified of available updates, *without* offensive or
persistent intrusion, by the updates available icon on the panel on my
Gnome desktop. It was suitable IMO.

Before 6.6 broke the runlevel/X multiple session functionality (going
from 3 to 5 results in instability when multiple X sessions are to be
used), causing crashes (another great result from those who "know
better" as they screwed around with "init" and the inittab processing?),
I would then log the users off, drop to run level 3, do an rsync backup
of home, boot and root, do yum updates (sometimes selectively, as in
doing glibc* and kernel stuff first and then re-booting to do the rest)
and then return to the normally scheduled programming.

I like it that way - it's secure, keeps me aware of what is going on on
my machines w/o having to rummage through logs, mail, or worse.

As a concession to the now broken runlevel/X multiple session
processing, I remain in run level 5 and do the backups etc. Not the way
I would prefer.

And now since I filed a bug and reported the crash and provided
narrative and files and have seen 0 movement on the bug, I wonder why I
wasted my time reporting it. If I was missing something I would hope at
least a reply requesting more info or whatever would be forthcoming.

Maybe Rodney Dangeruser "Don't get no respect"? ;) Well, at least
"upstream".

> 
> --keith
Bill