On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 16:29:16 -0400
Weedy wrote:
> I don't use auto mounting as a way to mount drives when I plug them in. I
> use it to mount drives with a single click in thunar.
> I work on a lot of data recovery. Which is why I wanted faster NTFS mount
> options.
>
I like the automount but it
On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 06:05:27 -0400
Weedy wrote:
> > You can use the gnome-disks utility to do that.
> >
> > Rui
>
> Ahh, I see I can turn off "Automatic mount options", and then change things
> that get saved to fstab.
>
> I use a lot of external disks temporarily, I was hoping to edit those
>
> And when another user wants to own the device, they should agree the
> first should unmount it, and let others have to ability to ¨grap¨ it.
Or they could use a filesystem which has permissions (SGID
folders are useful) for such corner case scenarios and gives fine
grained control and widely us
On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 22:07:11 +0200
Ivan Lezhnjov Jr. wrote:
> Whatever it is, why does it think I need or want to limit access to the
> mounted device to just one specific user? Especially when you look around and
> realize that standard behavior has been to make the mount accessible by
> anyon
> What does this strict ACL attempt to solve anyway? I'm not against it because
> I don't like ACL or whatever, but the problem here is that I cannot change
> easily enough this configuration.
> Traditionally, Linux/UNIX users/admins are accustomed to managing permissions
> with… permissions!
> I know this might upset the FreeBSD/Solaris/Ubuntu people, but I think
> it's important to clean up the platform we have right now in Linux.
So long as you do realise that you are actually upsetting the vast
MAJORITY of the linux community (not including the rest of unix-like
systems) which may
I agree with a lot of what Michael has said here.
http://davidz25.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/authorization-rules-in-polkit.html
I avoid polkit and don't wish to annoy you further but feel I must say
that I absolutely disagree with the following above all.
"All in all, one can probably assume that t
> I want to implement a policy agent for kde3 and I want to use only dbus calls.
What's so good about dbus. For years Windows has been criticised for
it's abundant use of difficult to secure RPC. (Ever disabled RPC on
Windows?, quite amusing). IPC over usage is worrying. IPC on QNXs
microkernel ma
On Thu, 17 May 2012 13:30:05 +0930
Christopher Chittleborough wrote:
> (to be precise, everything in /sys/block/).
>
Why not simply read /sys/block or any of the other options the unix
philosophy provides then.
> Even in pure ISO C, it's not that hard to get the list of nodes from the
_
On Wed, 09 May 2012 20:26:03 +0200
Stef Bon wrote:
> But howto get the partitiontable from a
/sbin/blkid is an option
___
devkit-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/devkit-devel
On Tue, 8 May 2012 22:16:19 +0100
Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> >>before people wonder any more whether redhat want Linux to be more
> >>difficult to use and
> >>support for financial reasons.
>
> I never said RedHat did anything. I simply regurgitated sentim
A fellow archer and someone who has actually been helpful to me in the
past seems to think I accused redhat purposefully of making things
difficult for users.
>>before people wonder any more whether redhat want Linux to be more difficult
>>to use and
>>support for financial reasons.
I never sai
On Tue, 8 May 2012 13:06:23 -0400
David Zeuthen wrote:
I've sent this seperately in a hope that you might not ignore it.
1./ Do you think installing udisks2 could have had anything to do with
the potential nautilus bug or intended change. i.e. only flashing up
rather than showing my mount points
On Tue, 8 May 2012 13:06:23 -0400
David Zeuthen wrote:
>The fact that you bring companies into
>the mix indicates a poor understanding of how open source communities
>work.
Companies. I was under the impression red hat funded policykit and
polkit directly. I wasn't the person to make the link be
On Tue, 8 May 2012 11:10:26 -0400
David Zeuthen wrote:
> > Better than factually wrong documentation and design. You didn't want
> > to answer any of the valid issues in the first place as others have
> > found.
>
> As I said in the initial mail to you, your so-called "valid issues"
> were eith
On Tue, 8 May 2012 10:03:32 -0400
David Zeuthen wrote:
> factually wrong rants
Better than factually wrong documentation and design. You didn't want
to answer any of the valid issues in the first place as others have
found.
>> Well, if you have such needs, then perhaps you shouldn't be mounting
On Mon, 7 May 2012 20:57:19 -0400
David Zeuthen wrote:
> > That would still allow the user davidz to unmount /boot / etc..
>
> Sure - there's no way for udisks to tell them apart.
>
There is fstab, there is udev which provides all that info
(removable or not) and the kernel, there's also the
On Mon, 7 May 2012 17:57:30 -0400
David Zeuthen wrote:
> after of course putting in your own username in the Identity key.
> That's all there is to it.
>
That would still allow the user davidz to unmount /boot / etc.. That's
not something that fits into my security policy?
> >, it's
> > asking
On Mon, 7 May 2012 15:34:52 +0100
Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> 1./ Why would udisks want modify after safely remove via nautilus or
> thunar.
I'm guessing that's to say unmounted correctly and no fsck needed?
How do I preclude all the other permissions that I assume modify g
I have created my own udev rules and scripts adding the following
functionalities that were missing at the time of design atleast.
Works with read-only root.
Allows custom mount options for any filesystem type.
Automounts any usb plugged in with only udev as a dependency to mount
locations such as
20 matches
Mail list logo
