[gentoo-user] [OT encfs] When encfs gets hungup

[gentoo-user] [OT encfs] When encfs gets hungup

[Harry Putnam]

Sorry about the OT, I couldn't raise a stir on the encfs group in
several days... I'm hoping someone here is experienced with encfs.

Actually I'm somewhat experienced with it myself.  I've been keeping
encfs directory for yrs now for special stuff.

Somehow I managed to really hurt the installation ... here is what I
remember having done:

Some how I got mixed up when running as root, and attempted to mount a
users encfs directory.  (Its a single user machine so it my users
directory) 

That should just fail with some kind of permission error since no one,
even root, can mess with someone elses' encfs directory.

But once I'd done that I could no longer even `ls' the subject
directory.  Not as user, not as root.  A simple `ls' would totally
hang the terminal.

Of course I tried to umount but really it never actually mounted.

I started getting this error: `Transport endpoint is not connected'

I could see roots attempt to mount the darn thing in ps wwaux output
and killed that pid.

Eventually (after posting several days ago on encfs list.  I resorted
to umounting /home (after full backup of course) and reformatted it.

I was then able to deleted encfs_raw and encfs_mnt.

But here is the real kicker.  Even after all that, and in fact another
full round of mostly the same stuff, including another reformat.  So
two reformats and two reboots.  Even with that, I still cannot create a
new enc_raw and enc_mount of the same name as the old one.

I would like to, because I have several scripts that depend on that
name.  Not a huge deal... but what could still be causing trouble?

I can create any number of encfs directories with different names.
Just not the original.

What happens if I try is that after creation (using old name) I can
move files to the new (with old name) directory.

But if I once umount it like: fusermount -u /my/oldencfs, then when I
try next to mount it, it hangs terminally.  Takes over the terminal
and kills all further progress (in that terminal).  This happens at
the point where I answer the passwd prompt with the appropriate
passwd.

(No .. no chance I'm entering it wrong... its been in daily use for
yrs).

I'm kind of stumped at what else to try.  I've used encfs -v (verbose)
mode and -f (foreground) mode but after entering the passwd... it
all just goes south... nothing more can happen.

Maybe encfs keeps data somewhere that I can delete and make this go
away?  But a `qlist encfs', listing all that got installed doesn't show
anything like that.

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT encfs] When encfs gets hungup

[Paul Hartman]

On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Harry Putnam <reader@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> Maybe encfs keeps data somewhere that I can delete and make this go
> away?  But a `qlist encfs', listing all that got installed doesn't show
> anything like that.

I've never used encfs, but maybe strace will show you if it's
accessing files anywhere else around the time it goes belly-up.

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT encfs] When encfs gets hungup

[Albert Hopkins]

On Friday, July 8 at 11:55 (-0500), Harry Putnam said:

[..]
> Somehow I managed to really hurt the installation ... here is what I
> remember having done:
> 
> Some how I got mixed up when running as root, and attempted to mount a
> users encfs directory.  (Its a single user machine so it my users
> directory) 
> 
> That should just fail with some kind of permission error since no one,
> even root, can mess with someone elses' encfs directory.
> 
This is not entirely the case.  No one can enter an encfs mount
(destination) but the person that mounted it (by default), but anyone
can *mount* the encfs "source" (and thus become the owner of the mount).
All other Unix permissions are retained.

> But once I'd done that I could no longer even `ls' the subject
> directory.  Not as user, not as root.  A simple `ls' would totally
> hang the terminal.
> 
> Of course I tried to umount but really it never actually mounted.
> 
It probably *did* mount, but...

> I started getting this error: `Transport endpoint is not connected'
> 
Usually that means the background process that actually handles the
enc/dec has died or is otherwise not responding.

> I could see roots attempt to mount the darn thing in ps wwaux output
> and killed that pid.
> 
That's probably why you got the above error.  But technically if you
just kill the process, the kernel still thinks it's mounted.

> Eventually (after posting several days ago on encfs list.  I resorted
> to umounting /home (after full backup of course) and reformatted it.
> 
That's seems a bit extreme...

> I was then able to deleted encfs_raw and encfs_mnt.
> 
Did you try simply rebooting or manually unmounting?  That's probably
all that was needed.

> But here is the real kicker.  Even after all that, and in fact another
> full round of mostly the same stuff, including another reformat.  So
> two reformats and two reboots.  Even with that, I still cannot create a
> new enc_raw and enc_mount of the same name as the old one.
> 
What do you mean by "cannot"?  Do you get an error?  Does dmesg tell you
anything?

> I would like to, because I have several scripts that depend on that
> name.  Not a huge deal... but what could still be causing trouble?
> 
This is indicative possibly of another issue, that is being masked.  Try
reading dmesg or strace the encfs process in foreground mode.

> I can create any number of encfs directories with different names.
> Just not the original.
> 
Again, seems indicative of another issue.  Perhaps the host fs is
currupt or something similar.

> What happens if I try is that after creation (using old name) I can
> move files to the new (with old name) directory.
> 
> But if I once umount it like: fusermount -u /my/oldencfs, then when I
> try next to mount it, it hangs terminally.  Takes over the terminal
> and kills all further progress (in that terminal).  This happens at
> the point where I answer the passwd prompt with the appropriate
> passwd.
> 
> (No .. no chance I'm entering it wrong... its been in daily use for
> yrs).
> 
> I'm kind of stumped at what else to try.  I've used encfs -v (verbose)
> mode and -f (foreground) mode but after entering the passwd... it
> all just goes south... nothing more can happen.
> 
> Maybe encfs keeps data somewhere that I can delete and make this go
> away?  But a `qlist encfs', listing all that got installed doesn't show
> anything like that.
> 
If you totally remove the source and target directories, there is no
other information stored, which allows you to (e.g) encfs directory on a
vfat-formated USB stick and move it mount it on a different machine.
All that encfs knows about an encrypted directory is in *one* file on
the source directory (.encfs6.xml).  Once that file is gone, there is no
such thing as an encfs.

Having said that:
One of encfs's Achilles heel is its dependency on the boost C++ library
which is *very* sensitive wrt to API/ABI changes and the like.  It also
depends on OpenSSL which also shares this notoriety (although, in my
experience, less so).  So there is a possibility that an update to any
of those packages may have broken encfs and you need to rebuild the
package.

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT encfs] When encfs gets hungup

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 713 bytes --]

On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 14:35:55 -0400, Albert Hopkins wrote:

> Having said that:
> One of encfs's Achilles heel is its dependency on the boost C++ library
> which is *very* sensitive wrt to API/ABI changes and the like.  It also
> depends on OpenSSL which also shares this notoriety (although, in my
> experience, less so).  So there is a possibility that an update to any
> of those packages may have broken encfs and you need to rebuild the
> package.

Apart from the need to access legacy data, which Harry has resolved by
reformatting, is there any benefit in using encfs rather than the
in-kernel ecryptfs these days?


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Fine day for a good workout. Steal something heavy.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT encfs] When encfs gets hungup

[Albert Hopkins]

On Friday, July 8 at 22:50 (+0100), Neil Bothwick said:

> Apart from the need to access legacy data, which Harry has resolved by
> reformatting, is there any benefit in using encfs rather than the
> in-kernel ecryptfs these days?

Admittedly there isn't much difference, so if what you are using works
for you why not stick with it. I still prefer encfs, although I have
admittedly never tried ecryptfs, for the following reasons:

      * It's FUSE, completely userspace and requires no kernel support
        (other than FUSE) and no special privileges to mount (other than
        fusermount).
      * You can have multiple layers of encryption on on source
        directory.  E.g. two different passwords can give you two
        different views of the filesystem.
      * In the documentation at least, it says when you upgrade ecryptfs
        you should first copy the files from the old ecryptfs to an
        unencrypted filesystem, and then copy it to the new ecryptfs.
        That seems like something some people won't want to do.

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT encfs] When encfs gets hungup

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1807 bytes --]

On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 19:40:58 -0400, Albert Hopkins wrote:

> > Apart from the need to access legacy data, which Harry has resolved by
> > reformatting, is there any benefit in using encfs rather than the
> > in-kernel ecryptfs these days?
> 
> Admittedly there isn't much difference, so if what you are using works
> for you why not stick with it.

Fair enough, except this thread is about encfs not working :(

> I still prefer encfs, although I have
> admittedly never tried ecryptfs, for the following reasons:
> 
>       * It's FUSE, completely userspace and requires no kernel support
>         (other than FUSE) and no special privileges to mount (other than
>         fusermount).

On the other hand, it does seem quite a bit slower. Also, it means that
your encrypted files much be user readable (IIRC) so someone could copy
them for a more leisurely attempt at reading them.

>       * You can have multiple layers of encryption on on source
>         directory.  E.g. two different passwords can give you two
>         different views of the filesystem.

That's interesting, a bit of an edge case but interesting nonetheless.

>       * In the documentation at least, it says when you upgrade ecryptfs
>         you should first copy the files from the old ecryptfs to an
>         unencrypted filesystem, and then copy it to the new ecryptfs.
>         That seems like something some people won't want to do.

That does seem a major drawback. I've not used ecryptfs that much,
although I use to use encfs. I did try using it on a remote box on top of
sshfs and the performance was appalling.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

"We are Microsoft of Borg. Prepare to...."
The application "assimilation" has caused a General Protection Fault
and must exit immediately.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT encfs] When encfs gets hungup

[Albert Hopkins]

On Saturday, July 9 at 08:39 (+0100), Neil Bothwick said:

> Fair enough, except this thread is about encfs not working :(

Unfortunately.  But that's not to say "encfs doesn't work".  When I have
a problem with a bash script, I don't just up and switch to zsh :P
(although I hear people do such things).

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT encfs] When encfs gets hungup

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 654 bytes --]

On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 06:22:55 -0400, Albert Hopkins wrote:

> > Fair enough, except this thread is about encfs not working :(  
> 
> Unfortunately.  But that's not to say "encfs doesn't work".  When I have
> a problem with a bash script, I don't just up and switch to zsh :P

I wasn't suggesting that. But when the main reason for sticking with the
older option is that you have a working system with data in it, the loss
of both of those is a good time to investigate the newer alternative.

Having said that, you should switch to zsh anyway ;-)


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Pound for pound, the amoeba is the most vicious animal on the earth.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT encfs] When encfs gets hungup

[Albert Hopkins]

On Saturday, July 9 at 12:22 (+0100), Neil Bothwick said:

> I wasn't suggesting that. But when the main reason for sticking with
> the
> older option is that you have a working system with data in it, the
> loss
> of both of those is a good time to investigate the newer alternative.

I see.  I guess I don't consider one as "older".  They are rather
alternatives to one another (like openssl and gnutls).

Generally speaking I'm usually discouraged by "I currently have a
problem A, so I'll switch to B".. the old adage "Now you have two
problems." 

[gentoo-user] Re: [OT encfs] When encfs gets hungup

[Harry Putnam]

Albert Hopkins <marduk@letterboxes.org> writes:

> On Friday, July 8 at 11:55 (-0500), Harry Putnam said:
>
> [..]
>> Somehow I managed to really hurt the installation ... here is what I
>> remember having done:
>> 
>> Some how I got mixed up when running as root, and attempted to mount a
>> users encfs directory.  (Its a single user machine so it my users
>> directory) 
>> 
>> That should just fail with some kind of permission error since no one,
>> even root, can mess with someone elses' encfs directory.
>> 
> This is not entirely the case.  No one can enter an encfs mount
> (destination) but the person that mounted it (by default), but anyone
> can *mount* the encfs "source" (and thus become the owner of the mount).
> All other Unix permissions are retained.
>
>> But once I'd done that I could no longer even `ls' the subject
>> directory.  Not as user, not as root.  A simple `ls' would totally
>> hang the terminal.
>> 
>> Of course I tried to umount but really it never actually mounted.
>> 
> It probably *did* mount, but...
>
>> I started getting this error: `Transport endpoint is not connected'

> Usually that means the background process that actually handles the
> enc/dec has died or is otherwise not responding.

>> I could see roots attempt to mount the darn thing in ps wwaux output
>> and killed that pid.
>> 
> That's probably why you got the above error.  But technically if you
> just kill the process, the kernel still thinks it's mounted.

>> Eventually (after posting several days ago on encfs list.  I resorted
>> to umounting /home (after full backup of course) and reformatted it.
>> 
> That's seems a bit extreme...
>
>> I was then able to deleted encfs_raw and encfs_mnt.
>> 
> Did you try simply rebooting or manually unmounting?  That's probably
> all that was needed.

Yes, both. First the umounting, then reboot.  So no I don't think it
was all that was needed.

>> But here is the real kicker.  Even after all that, and in fact another
>> full round of mostly the same stuff, including another reformat.  So
>> two reformats and two reboots.  Even with that, I still cannot create a
>> new enc_raw and enc_mount of the same name as the old one.
 
> What do you mean by "cannot"?  Do you get an error?  Does dmesg tell you
> anything?

I meant the earlier behavior would recur, without the `Transport
endpoint is not connected' part.  That is,  mkdir ~/.encjunk ~/.junk

   encfs ~/.encjunk ~/.junk    Would result in completely hung
terminal when I answered the passwd prompt. 

[...]

> If you totally remove the source and target directories, there is no
> other information stored, which allows you to (e.g) encfs directory on a
> vfat-formated USB stick and move it mount it on a different machine.
> All that encfs knows about an encrypted directory is in *one* file on
> the source directory (.encfs6.xml).  Once that file is gone, there is no
> such thing as an encfs.

There must have been plenty of pilot error in the original goings on.
I tried to report it as it actually happened but I must have had some
of it wrong or whatever... because just now, prompted by your input.
(and there have been at least two reboots (as mentioned earlier)) 

I was able to generate the desired mount name with no problems.

So don't have to rework any scripts or continue puzzling over what was
going on.  In other words... as has happened a few other times,
writing about the problem has seemed to cure it..

I'm good to go now ... thanks.

[gentoo-user] Re: [OT encfs] When encfs gets hungup

[Harry Putnam]

Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> writes:

> On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 14:35:55 -0400, Albert Hopkins wrote:
>
>> Having said that:
>> One of encfs's Achilles heel is its dependency on the boost C++ library
>> which is *very* sensitive wrt to API/ABI changes and the like.  It also
>> depends on OpenSSL which also shares this notoriety (although, in my
>> experience, less so).  So there is a possibility that an update to any
>> of those packages may have broken encfs and you need to rebuild the
>> package.
>
> Apart from the need to access legacy data, which Harry has resolved by
> reformatting, is there any benefit in using encfs rather than the
> in-kernel ecryptfs these days?

Are you using ecryptfs?  I started looking around and thinking exactly
what Albert says is not a proper response, and wondering if ecryptfs
might be a better choice.

Also after seeing no responses or any posts at all on the encfs group,
I wondered if ecryptfs is under active development, as it appears
encfs is not.  So, for that reason alone, (assuming there is current
active devel going on with ecryptfs) it might be good to switch.

I will admit though, that I have had several trouble free yrs of use
with encfs.. and it appears now that my reported problems may have
been largely self inflicted wounds.

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT encfs] When encfs gets hungup

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1120 bytes --]

On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 09:31:45 -0400, Albert Hopkins wrote:

> > I wasn't suggesting that. But when the main reason for sticking with
> > the
> > older option is that you have a working system with data in it, the
> > loss
> > of both of those is a good time to investigate the newer
> > alternative.  
> 
> I see.  I guess I don't consider one as "older".  They are rather
> alternatives to one another (like openssl and gnutls).

Well, encfs was around for a while before ecryptfs. Otherwise there'd have
been no reason for anyone to write a FUSE filesystem to do it.
> 
> Generally speaking I'm usually discouraged by "I currently have a
> problem A, so I'll switch to B".. the old adage "Now you have two
> problems." 

I wasn't suggesting it as a solution so much as an opportune time to try
the alternative. I too am against fixing things by throwing them away,
it's like reinstalling - it my get rid of the problem temporarily but you
still have no idea of what the problem was or what to do should it
reoccur.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Barnum was wrong....it's more like every 30 seconds!

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [OT encfs] When encfs gets hungup

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 994 bytes --]

On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 12:56:42 -0500, Harry Putnam wrote:

> > Apart from the need to access legacy data, which Harry has resolved by
> > reformatting, is there any benefit in using encfs rather than the
> > in-kernel ecryptfs these days?  
> 
> Are you using ecryptfs?  I started looking around and thinking exactly
> what Albert says is not a proper response, and wondering if ecryptfs
> might be a better choice.

Not at the moment, although I have used it from time to time and it does
what it should without fuss.

> Also after seeing no responses or any posts at all on the encfs group,
> I wondered if ecryptfs is under active development, as it appears
> encfs is not.  So, for that reason alone, (assuming there is current
> active devel going on with ecryptfs) it might be good to switch.

Ubuntu use it for encrypting home directories, so it should have active
attention.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

... "Yummy," said Pooh, as he hilted his paw into the "honeypot".

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT encfs] When encfs gets hungup

[Peter Humphrey]

On Sunday 10 July 2011 19:38:34 Neil Bothwick wrote:

> it my get rid of the problem temporarily but you still have no idea of
> what the problem was or what to do should it reoccur.

s/reoccur/recur/

Speaking as one old pedant to another...

-- 
Rgds
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT encfs] When encfs gets hungup

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 580 bytes --]

On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 23:26:37 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:

> > it my get rid of the problem temporarily but you still have no idea of
> > what the problem was or what to do should it reoccur.  
> 
> s/reoccur/recur/
> 
> Speaking as one old pedant to another...

From the OED:

reoccur: occur again or habitually

Although I agree that recur is I tidier word. I suspect it is a
contraction of reoccur, making both acceptable.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

The nice thing about Windows is - It does not just crash,
it displays adialog box and lets you press OK first.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT encfs] When encfs gets hungup

[Peter Humphrey]

On Monday 11 July 2011 10:10:41 Neil Bothwick wrote:

> From the OED:
> 
> reoccur: occur again or habitually

I don't regard myself bound by others' ability to find earlier examples of 
the same mistake. We have 'occur', 'incur', 'concur' and 'recur'. It is 
rarely a good idea to compound prefixes.

> Although I agree that recur is I tidier word. I suspect it is a
> contraction of reoccur, making both acceptable.

I doubt I shall ever accept 'reoccur', any more than I accept 
'transportation'.

-- 
Rgds
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT encfs] When encfs gets hungup

[Sebastian Beßler]

Am Mo 11 Jul 2011 17:18:16 CEST, Peter Humphrey schrieb:

> I doubt I shall ever accept 'reoccur', any more than I accept 
> 'transportation'.

It's way OT but what is wrong with 'transportation'.
If it is wrong, how would it be right?
I'm not a native speaker so I might be blind to see the error. 

Greetings

Sebastian Beßler

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT encfs] When encfs gets hungup

[Bill Longman]

On 07/11/2011 09:26 AM, Sebastian Beßler wrote:
> Am Mo 11 Jul 2011 17:18:16 CEST, Peter Humphrey schrieb:
> 
>> I doubt I shall ever accept 'reoccur', any more than I accept 
>> 'transportation'.
> 
> It's way OT but what is wrong with 'transportation'.
> If it is wrong, how would it be right?
> I'm not a native speaker so I might be blind to see the error. 

"Transport" is both a noun and a verb. It is sufficient for the concept
of transportation. Except you just sound less French when you say it.

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT encfs] When encfs gets hungup

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 652 bytes --]

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 16:18:16 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:

> > From the OED:
> > 
> > reoccur: occur again or habitually  
> 
> I don't regard myself bound by others' ability to find earlier examples
> of the same mistake. We have 'occur', 'incur', 'concur' and 'recur'. It
> is rarely a good idea to compound prefixes.

Nor me, and I still have no idea why I used reoccur instead of recur,
brain fade induced by the hour of posting I guess.

But an admitted pedantic response deserves a reply from the OED :P


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Law of Mechanical Repair: After your hands become coated with
grease, your nose will begin to itch.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT encfs] When encfs gets hungup

[Peter Humphrey]

On Monday 11 July 2011 17:26:36 Sebastian Beßler wrote:
> Am Mo 11 Jul 2011 17:18:16 CEST, Peter Humphrey schrieb:
> > I doubt I shall ever accept 'reoccur', any more than I accept
> > 'transportation'.
> 
> It's way OT but what is wrong with 'transportation'.
> If it is wrong, how would it be right?

It isn't wrong, it's just silly. Americans love to add '-ation' to 
everything. Just consider 'motivation', for example. It nearly always means 
'motive'. Ditto 'medication', which is nearly always 'medicine'. I could go 
on all night, but this is much too far off topic already. (I didn't mean to 
launch a troll - I just get wound up about poor language - sorry. And while 
I'm at it, an adverb should not precede the verb of the sentence. This is 
not German. And in English we do not put a comma between the verb and the 
predicate. Anyone who wants to discuss things like this seriously is welcome 
to contact me off-list.)

> I'm not a native speaker so I might be blind to see the error.

I can see that, but i'm impressed by your grasp of your second language, 
which is incomparably superior to my grasp of your first.

-- 
Rgds
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT encfs] When encfs gets hungup

[Peter Humphrey]

On Monday 11 July 2011 22:01:02 Neil Bothwick wrote:

> But an admitted pedantic response deserves a reply from the OED :P

...which is no more than an observer of trends. It offers precious little 
help in what one ought to do.

A few years ago our Queen uttered a solecism (well, it had to happen sooner 
or later, and as far as I know it's the only one). The gutter press were 
delighted to announce a new usage: "if it's good enough for the queen, it's 
good enough for the rest of us".

How sad.

-- 
Rgds
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT encfs] When encfs gets hungup

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 972 bytes --]

On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 00:09:42 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:

> > But an admitted pedantic response deserves a reply from the OED :P  
> 
> ...which is no more than an observer of trends. It offers precious
> little help in what one ought to do.

Isn't that how language develops, through trends? My point in quoting
the OED was that it is a real word, I made no claims that it was a good
word, in fact I indicated otherwise.

> A few years ago our Queen uttered a solecism (well, it had to happen
> sooner or later, and as far as I know it's the only one).

How did they know, was it in a voicemail message?

> The gutter press were 
> delighted to announce a new usage: "if it's good enough for the queen,
> it's good enough for the rest of us".

She made a mistake with English, I made a mistake with English. If it's
good enough for her for the Queen...


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Not one shred of evidence supports the notion that life is serious.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT encfs] When encfs gets hungup

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 423 bytes --]

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 23:43:06 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:

> It isn't wrong, it's just silly. Americans love to add '-ation' to 
> everything. Just consider 'motivation', for example. It nearly always
> means 'motive'. Ditto 'medication', which is nearly always 'medicine'.
> I could go on all night,

The one that always cracks me up is "minimalistic".


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Accordion: a bagpipe with pleats.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: [OT encfs] When encfs gets hungup

[walt]

On 07/11/2011 04:09 PM, Peter Humphrey wrote:

> A few years ago our Queen uttered a solecism (well, it had to happen sooner 
> or later, and as far as I know it's the only one).

A famous American politician, recently retired, has never uttered a non-solecism.
Or would that be un-solecism?  Anti-solecism?  Counter-solecism?  Whatever...

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT encfs] When encfs gets hungup

[Michael Orlitzky]

On 07/11/2011 07:40 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 23:43:06 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> 
>> It isn't wrong, it's just silly. Americans love to add '-ation' to 
>> everything. Just consider 'motivation', for example. It nearly always
>> means 'motive'. Ditto 'medication', which is nearly always 'medicine'.
>> I could go on all night,
> 
> The one that always cracks me up is "minimalistic".
> 

Incentivize *facepalm*

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT encfs] When encfs gets hungup

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Monday 11 July 2011 23:43:06 Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Monday 11 July 2011 17:26:36 Sebastian Beßler wrote:
> > Am Mo 11 Jul 2011 17:18:16 CEST, Peter Humphrey schrieb:
> > > I doubt I shall ever accept 'reoccur', any more than I accept
> > > 'transportation'.
> > 
> > It's way OT but what is wrong with 'transportation'.
> > If it is wrong, how would it be right?
> 
> It isn't wrong, it's just silly. Americans love to add '-ation' to
> everything. Just consider 'motivation', for example. It nearly always means
> 'motive'. Ditto 'medication', which is nearly always 'medicine'. I could go
> on all night, but this is much too far off topic already. (I didn't mean to
> launch a troll - I just get wound up about poor language - sorry. And while
> I'm at it, an adverb should not precede the verb of the sentence. This is
> not German. And in English we do not put a comma between the verb and the
> predicate. Anyone who wants to discuss things like this seriously is welcome
> to contact me off-list.)
> 
> > I'm not a native speaker so I might be blind to see the error.
> 
> I can see that, but i'm impressed by your grasp of your second language,
> which is incomparably superior to my grasp of your first.


well, your language is broken beyond help anyway (as everybody who was forced 
to learn this clusterfuck* realized in the second or third week) so why get 
your panties in a knot? It can hardly get worse. Maybe better. 

*) most accurate description of the english language I ever read:

http://www.schlockmercenary.com/2001-07-22

-- 
#163933

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT encfs] When encfs gets hungup

[Alan McKinnon]

On Tuesday 12 July 2011 04:27:18 Volker Armin Hemmann did opine 
thusly:
> On Monday 11 July 2011 23:43:06 Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > On Monday 11 July 2011 17:26:36 Sebastian Beßler wrote:
> > > Am Mo 11 Jul 2011 17:18:16 CEST, Peter Humphrey schrieb:
> > > > I doubt I shall ever accept 'reoccur', any more than I
> > > > accept
> > > > 'transportation'.
> > > 
> > > It's way OT but what is wrong with 'transportation'.
> > > If it is wrong, how would it be right?
> > 
> > It isn't wrong, it's just silly. Americans love to add '-ation'
> > to everything. Just consider 'motivation', for example. It
> > nearly always means 'motive'. Ditto 'medication', which is
> > nearly always 'medicine'. I could go on all night, but this is
> > much too far off topic already. (I didn't mean to launch a
> > troll - I just get wound up about poor language - sorry. And
> > while I'm at it, an adverb should not precede the verb of the
> > sentence. This is not German. And in English we do not put a
> > comma between the verb and the predicate. Anyone who wants to
> > discuss things like this seriously is welcome to contact me
> > off-list.)
> > 
> > > I'm not a native speaker so I might be blind to see the
> > > error.
> > 
> > I can see that, but i'm impressed by your grasp of your second
> > language, which is incomparably superior to my grasp of your
> > first.
> 
> well, your language is broken beyond help anyway (as everybody who
> was forced to learn this clusterfuck* realized in the second or
> third week) so why get your panties in a knot? It can hardly get
> worse. Maybe better.

Funny thing about English (and Perl, and Unix):

The thing that made it a real clusterfuck is the only thing that made 
it successful. Now that I think about it, that holds true for Intel 
too.



-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com