Sat, 14 May 2016 19:47:59 +0100 Kevin Chadwick <m8il1i...@gmail.com> > > Finally, the read only file systems on a writable medium susceptible > > to all sorts of failure modes is a silly silly useless trick. This > > does not provide any real technical benefit but your own discomfort. > > Pipe it down a bit will you. I use ro root, /dev in tmpfs and /usr ro > as well as any partition where writes do not happen at any time. It is > called defence in depth.
It is called self induced inconvenience by deviation from functional state of the file system. You're a hazard to your data set, Kevin. > Consider a potential bug in tar when run as > root, damaged /usr or / is easily fixed with OpenBSD (one of it's ace > cards) but I have been saved time by ro root before, though I forget the > details and probably just a testing system. When considering doas, > etc., I believe a ro mount to be far simpler than DACs even if they are > well tested. It is also quite reassuring to see clean clean clean clean > after a power failure. Of course a hard drive head could have crashed > onto that area, but very unlikely and I'm not sure fsck would catch > that anyway. You forgot the ha-ha bit. Now seriously go consult with a specialist. > UPS do fail too btw. I had to rip some cheap APC ones out because > they caused more downtime than they saved! Did you just copy paste this line from somewhere? You can't handle a battery replacement, and you're advising read only file system mounts. > > Except just this time now, when your self managing became a bug report, > > which is not a bug, and you insisted on your way of having it reported. > > > > Now admit it, you support yourself when you make incompatible changes. > > Which is fair enough but has already been said. And you felt like trolling a bit nonsense for the laughs on you. We're not laughing, it looks a sad place where colleagues are people like you.
