On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 09:23:11PM +0200, Arvid Ephraim Picciani wrote:
> On Monday 23 June 2008 19:47:23 Aaron Griffin wrote:
> > I have never NOT admitted it.
> > Our packages tend to be about "sane
> > defaults". Period.
>
> thanks
>
> > It's always been this way.
>
> really? i remember ba
On Monday 23 June 2008 23:16:22 bardo wrote:
> > Right thats the phylosphical problem i have. I believe the apache project
> > knows alot more about apache then some random bash hackers who call
> > themself "distro developers" .
>
> Sorry for replying on this point, I really shouldn't, but I coul
I'm sorry, the first mail was incomplete.
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 9:23 PM, Arvid Ephraim Picciani
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 23 June 2008 19:47:23 Aaron Griffin wrote:
>> I think you're confused
>> because "sane defaults" usually coincides with "defaults from
>> upstream". Not all upst
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 9:23 PM, Arvid Ephraim Picciani
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I think you're confused
>> because "sane defaults" usually coincides with "defaults from
>> upstream". Not all upstream maintainers are sane.
>
> Right thats the phylosphical problem i have. I believe the apache p
On Monday 23 June 2008 19:47:23 Aaron Griffin wrote:
> I have never NOT admitted it.
> Our packages tend to be about "sane
> defaults". Period.
thanks
> It's always been this way.
really? i remember back when i was in irc that people got slapped around
pretty badly for asking for such blasph
On Mon 2008-06-23 18:48, Arvid Ephraim Picciani wrote:
> On Monday 23 June 2008 16:59:30 Aaron Griffin wrote:
> > I agree with Simo and Jan here. While we could easily take the "do it
> > yourself" road, I always preferred the "sane defaults" side of Arch,
> > myself. That is - install some crap an
El Monday 23 June 2008 18:48:12 Arvid Ephraim Picciani escribió:
> On Monday 23 June 2008 16:59:30 Aaron Griffin wrote:
> > I agree with Simo and Jan here. While we could easily take the "do it
> > yourself" road, I always preferred the "sane defaults" side of Arch,
> > myself. That is - install so
Le Mon, 23 Jun 2008 19:14:58 +0200,
Arvid Ephraim Picciani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> On Monday 23 June 2008 19:10:30 Pierre Chapuis wrote:
>
> > [1] http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/misc/security_tips.html#serverroot
>
> that link states exactly the oposit of what you where saing before.
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Arvid Ephraim Picciani
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes this is debian "out of the box ease". And i would really apprechiate if
> you finally admit it. You not willing to take a clear position is quite
> painfull and weakens the position of any fork that may come u
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 13:14, Arvid Ephraim Picciani wrote:
> that link states exactly the oposit of what you where saing before.
> no user owned files anywhere. all owned by root.
The link states that all the directories should be owned by root, no
On Monday 23 June 2008 19:16:28 Aaron Griffin wrote:
> Not to be snide, but your emails are always confrontational.
yeah well are YOU sitting here running server farms with arch?
if you would, you would be as pissed as me. ask glenn.
For a desktop machine, who the heck cares if they crash, but m
On Monday 23 June 2008 19:10:30 Pierre Chapuis wrote:
> [1] http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/misc/security_tips.html#serverroot
that link states exactly the oposit of what you where saing before.
no user owned files anywhere. all owned by root.
--
best regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Arvid E
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:48 AM, Arvid Ephraim Picciani
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 23 June 2008 16:59:30 Aaron Griffin wrote:
>> I agree with Simo and Jan here. While we could easily take the "do it
>> yourself" road, I always preferred the "sane defaults" side of Arch,
>> myself. That
Le Mon, 23 Jun 2008 18:48:12 +0200,
Arvid Ephraim Picciani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> so this is the official announcment that the vanilla-style-do-it-yourself for
> professional engineers and manual readers is no more, and that in future
> there will be rather debian-style-out-of-the-box s
On Monday 23 June 2008 16:59:30 Aaron Griffin wrote:
> I agree with Simo and Jan here. While we could easily take the "do it
> yourself" road, I always preferred the "sane defaults" side of Arch,
> myself. That is - install some crap and it works out-of-the-box in a
> pretty decent manner. It's a v
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Simo Leone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 06:36:41PM +0200, Arvid Ephraim Picciani wrote:
>>
>> before a specific point in arch history we used to tell people that making a
>> system "secure" and "easy" is the job of a sysadmin.
>>
>> For peopl
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 06:36:41PM +0200, Arvid Ephraim Picciani wrote:
>
> before a specific point in arch history we used to tell people that making a
> system "secure" and "easy" is the job of a sysadmin.
>
> For people who like a default "security" without rtfm, there is always debian.
>
On Sun, 2008-06-22 at 18:36 +0200, Arvid Ephraim Picciani wrote:
> > > Why not just use nobody for programs that need their own user, as a sane
> > > default. Any smart admin should create any groups and users himself when
> > > necessairy. And prevents cluttering of unnecessairy users/groups. For
On Sun, 2008-06-22 at 18:04 +0200, RedShift wrote:
> Pierre Schmitz wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > as mentioned in the apache thread I would like to use a dedicated
> > user/group
> > for our different webserver packages. To achieve this I'd like to add the
> > user/group http to our filesystem package
Pierre Schmitz wrote:
Hi,
as mentioned in the apache thread I would like to use a dedicated user/group
for our different webserver packages. To achieve this I'd like to add the
user/group http to our filesystem package. (It allready contains them for
mail and ftp)
According to
http://wiki.
20 matches
Mail list logo
