Re: Knoppix 5.1 Mini-Announcement
On Sun, Dec 17, 2006 at 12:57:56PM -0500, John Woods wrote:
> On 12/16/06, Klaus Knopper <email@example.com> wrote:
> >I will try to upgrade the 5.0.1 CD version with new packages first
> >during the next days, and if this makes everything worse, try he other
> >way by stripping down the now-ready DVD version.
> The now ready DVD version.... Is there a testing pool I can join in on
> somewhere? I would be glad to download it and make sure things work on
> my hardware. I think a semi public place to allow volunteer testers
> would be a good thing.
Thinking... I have very limited bandwidth on knopper.net itself (as in,
I would be ruined within a month if running a public mirror by myself
But offering "early access" for SERIOUS testing, to a SSH
public-key-protected rsync repository, affording a few extra GB traffic,
should be possible.
> Since I'm at it, I use the persistent home feature... and I really am
> tired of the dialog that comes up during boot. It is set to cancel, so
> I must be present when it comes up to select ok. I like to go away and
> do things when it is booting... ie pour a cup of coffee usually :)
I know, it's annoying... But in theory, it should not appear if you boot
with knoppix home=/dev/sda1 (or home=scan), so you can go away after
typing that at he boot:-Prompt. If it doesn't work that way, it's a bug.
My point, why I made "cancel" the default, was, that it should not be
possible to change/destroy anything by accident or because of malicious
people who have physical access to the computer. So, if someone plugs in
a memory stick with a destructive knoppix.img, or has put such an image
on your harddisk, it should NOT be the default to automatically use this
image. You have to actively enable it.
Does this sound reasonable? Or am I just paranoid?
> Can a boot parm be made that sets an env var to tell this script to
> relax? Since the presence of knoppix.sh is enough to do dastardly
> deeds, it's overkill in my opinion.
knoppix.sh will also not be used by default, unless you used the
> If a boot parm to cause the script to relax were made, would it also
> need a way to specify the options the script is capable of using?
I would have to add new options, or comma-separated options, for
this. But not anymore for 5.1.