On 9 May 2009, at 16:23, Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Saturday 09 May 2009 15:13:35 Stroller wrote:
On 9 May 2009, at 13:41, Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
Am Samstag, 9. Mai 2009 12:20:46 schrieb Stroller:
This is Gentoo, so you as the user define the rules. And for _me_,
it definitely
_is_ a rule.
Cou
Francesco Talamona wrote:
> On Saturday 09 May 2009, Dale wrote:
>
>> I was talking about with just a plain file system. I read in a
>> install guide somewhere when I was installing ages ago that having
>> /boot on a separate partition, and not always mounted, was a good
>> security practice.
On Saturday 09 May 2009, Dale wrote:
> I was talking about with just a plain file system. I read in a
> install guide somewhere when I was installing ages ago that having
> /boot on a separate partition, and not always mounted, was a good
> security practice. That way no one could alter the kerne
Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sat, 09 May 2009 08:15:09 -0500, Dale wrote:
>
>
>> I was talking about with just a plain file system. I read in a install
>> guide somewhere when I was installing ages ago that having /boot on a
>> separate partition, and not always mounted, was a good security
>> pra
On Sat, 09 May 2009 08:15:09 -0500, Dale wrote:
> I was talking about with just a plain file system. I read in a install
> guide somewhere when I was installing ages ago that having /boot on a
> separate partition, and not always mounted, was a good security
> practice. That way no one could alt
On Saturday 09 May 2009 15:13:35 Stroller wrote:
> On 9 May 2009, at 13:41, Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
> > Am Samstag, 9. Mai 2009 12:20:46 schrieb Stroller:
> >>> This is Gentoo, so you as the user define the rules. And for _me_,
> >>> it definitely
> >>> _is_ a rule.
> >>
> >> Could you possibly expla
Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
> Am Samstag, 9. Mai 2009 14:46:39 schrieb Dale:
>
>
>> Wasn't there a security reason for this setup at one time? If you put
>> /boot on a separate partition, then the only time it needed to be
>> mounted was to update the kernel or edit grub/lilo. That was what I was
>
On 9 May 2009, at 13:41, Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
Am Samstag, 9. Mai 2009 12:20:46 schrieb Stroller:
This is Gentoo, so you as the user define the rules. And for _me_,
it definitely
_is_ a rule.
Could you possibly explain why, please?
Because it eliminates the need for an initramfs (which I
Am Samstag, 9. Mai 2009 14:46:39 schrieb Dale:
> Wasn't there a security reason for this setup at one time? If you put
> /boot on a separate partition, then the only time it needed to be
> mounted was to update the kernel or edit grub/lilo. That was what I was
> reading when I installed Gentoo
Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
> Am Samstag, 9. Mai 2009 12:20:46 schrieb Stroller:
>
>
>>> This is Gentoo, so you as the user define the rules. And for _me_,
>>> it definitely
>>> _is_ a rule.
>>>
>> Could you possibly explain why, please?
>>
>
> Because it eliminates the need for an initram
Am Samstag, 9. Mai 2009 12:20:46 schrieb Stroller:
> > This is Gentoo, so you as the user define the rules. And for _me_,
> > it definitely
> > _is_ a rule.
>
> Could you possibly explain why, please?
Because it eliminates the need for an initramfs (which I used until a few
weeks ago), even if y
11 matches
Mail list logo
