From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.54) id 1F9pGm-00042D-6A for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:58:28 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id k1GJrDB4002914; Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:53:13 GMT Received: from hetzner.email-server.info (new.email-server.info [213.133.109.44]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k1GJe0XM000475 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:40:00 GMT Received: from hd.bei.digitalprojects.com (e182060153.adsl.alicedsl.de [85.182.60.153]) by hetzner.email-server.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93385BA66 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2006 20:40:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.1.10] (blatt.bei.digitalprojects.com [192.168.1.10]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hd.bei.digitalprojects.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02C25B8C0A4 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2006 20:39:45 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <43F4D541.6000205@mid.email-server.info> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 20:40:49 +0100 From: Alexander Skwar User-Agent: Mail/News 1.5 (X11/20060211) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition? References: <7ae6f8f0602160419w67142523p296a88b3944ce180@mail.gmail.com> <200602161634.05506.volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de> <43F4A5F0.7030704@mid.message-center.info> <200602161946.36923.volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de> In-Reply-To: <200602161946.36923.volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: df04a704-259e-4699-a3f0-c5b153f98a74 X-Archives-Hash: b86188a9c55b96266cdafd5967b6a180 Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: > On Thursday 16 February 2006 17:18, Alexander Skwar wrote: >> Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: >> > On Thursday 16 February 2006 15:45, Alexander Skwar wrote: >> >> Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: >> >> > On Thursday 16 February 2006 14:06, Alexander Skwar wrote: >> >> >> Izar Ilun wrote: >> > Why should he make /tmp noexec, >> >> Security precaution. > if you have 10+ users with access to the box. But a workstation, without even > sshd running, it is not needed. "needed" - What's "needed", anyway? > And hey, why should /tmp noexec save you from anything? Because it does. > If someone is able to break into your box, he can build his tools in /home > or /var/tmp or somewhere else. No need for /tmp. Wrong again. If tmp is the only place somebody can write, then it might save you (and it DID save my ass more than once now). >> >> > With that sizes, it is nearly impossible to fill / completly up. >> >> >> >> And it's impossible to have some flexibility. >> > >> > no, it is absolutly flexible >> >> Ah. Please explain how you mount /tmp noexec and /usr >> readonly. > > I don't because it is wasted effort. Of course it's not. So, how do you do that? > If someone has the right to write to a rw /usr/ partition, Why should he have that right? > he has the rights > to remount a ro /usr as rw That's of couse wrong again. > and can go on.. It just makes maintance harder. Not really. >> Please also explain, how you seperate data areas (like >> /var and /usr). > > I have /var and /usr? That's not the question. Please answer it. *YOU* are the one saying that a grossly oversized filesystem offers more flexibility. >> I see. Strange thing is, that about every server and workstation >> I've seen more or less contradicts what you say. > > if you have 20+ users on each of them, and every single one is a little > cracker in disguisse, it may make sense, but for a single user box? Why are you asking? >> > yes it is. It wastes space, >> >> Not really. Some. But not really. > > 15% of the space on each partition. That sums up. Yep. And your 15% are of course less then my 15%, correct? > If every partition takes a second, it will be very noticable. Hardly. (Notice that I'm not saying "No".) While what you're saying is true in theory, you're exaggerating enourmously. And because of that, you're wrong. >> If you're *SO* low on hard disk space, I'd advice to buy >> more harddisks. > > more harddisks = higher chance that one of them dies. Yep. Time to stop those bad backups. You're funny. More of this, please! 8=) > It is simple math. *LOL* _You_ should not talk about maths :) > I haven't seen any good reason for a bazillion small partitions, That's of course not what I wrote. BTW: What's a "bazillion"? More than you can count? More than 5? :) And *YOU* are talking about maths? *G* You are really making me laugh - thanks! > that only > increase your work Not really. > and have to be monitored constantly (f* /var is full, > f* /tmp is full f* I have to remount /usr). What are you talking about? "constantly"? Well, you know, if "df" is too hard for you - sorry, pal, tough luck. But you just cannot expect to be taken seriously. Alexander Skwar -- So what is the best way to protect yourself against the ILOVEYOU virus? Install Linux. If that's not an option, try uninstalling Windows. -- Geoff Johnson -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list