[sf-lug] sf-lug Digest, Vol 114, Issue 8
Ron W
wellmanron at gmail.com
Thu Nov 12 12:41:18 PST 2015
To Rick: I think we all, when we do think about it, appreciate and thank you for your many years' service to SFLUG and other support you offer to all of us. So, 'Thanks, Rick'.
> On Nov 12, 2015, at 12:00, sf-lug-request at linuxmafia.com wrote:
>
> Send sf-lug mailing list submissions to
> sf-lug at linuxmafia.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/sf-lug
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> sf-lug-request at linuxmafia.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> sf-lug-owner at linuxmafia.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of sf-lug digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Have you guys thought about http://www.freelists.org/
> (hosted ...) (Rick Moen)
> 2. Re: LVM ? :-) (Rick Moen)
> 3. Re: LVM ? :-) (Shane Tzen)
> 4. Re: Have you guys thought about http://www.freelists.org/
> (hosted ...) (Shane Tzen)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 21:27:32 -0800
> From: Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com>
> To: Michael Paoli <Michael.Paoli at cal.berkeley.edu>
> Cc: SF-LUG <sf-lug at linuxmafia.com>
> Subject: Re: [sf-lug] Have you guys thought about
> http://www.freelists.org/ (hosted ...)
> Message-ID: <20151112052732.GC1588 at linuxmafia.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Thanks, Michael, for those comments and your many good deeds.
>
> Quoting Michael Paoli (Michael.Paoli at cal.berkeley.edu):
>
>> o http://www.freelists.org/ - well intentioned as they might be, also
>> has terms such as:
>> "acceptability of all list material is subject to FreeLists' approval;
>> our word is final. Any list traffic discussing any unacceptable
>> material (at the discretion of FreeLists) will result in immediate
>> removal of the list in question."
>
> In fairness, if I found that one of the mailing lists I host as a
> courtesy to the community on my linuxmafia.com server was doing
> something very grossly illegal, I would probably be at least briefly
> _tempted_ to intervene in some way, out of concern for my own liability.
> Or maybe it's more accurate to say that I used to worry about this
> possibility: Recently, I became aware of Federal law 47 U.S.C. 230,
> passed as part of the Communications Decency Act, which reduces this
> concern by stating in part:
>
> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be
> treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by
> another information content provider.
>
> This probably shields me in my role as a 'provider of an interactive
> computer service'. (Except its immunity doesn't cover Federal criminal
> liability and intellectual property law, so in theory personal liability
> concerns could arise.)
>
>> FYI, the sf-lug list *is* hosted :-) ... by the good graces of Rick Moen
>> on linuxmafia.com. It's also hosted (as are all the lists he hosts
>> there) in manner which makes it not only easy to back up then entire
>> list archive - and in quite optimal form (so it can be reloaded into
>> same, similar, or even different list software), but *anyone* with
>> Internet access has the access to be able to back that up. He also
>> makes the list subscribers available to relevant folks....
>
> Yes, and this has always been strongly my preference. Nobody whose
> mailing list I host should have any reason to perceive lock-in, and I'm
> delighted that you (Michael) with your good work finally implemented
> periodic backups of all SF-LUG mailing list state that matters. (FWIW,
> there is some per-user and listwide state that y'all aren't backing up,
> but in context I doubt this really matters.)
>
>> (e.g. myself, Jim Stockford, and of course Rick Moen have full regular
>> access to that, also per policy/configuration on sf-lug list, if I'm
>> not mistaken, any and all subscribers can access the email addresses
>> of all "non-hidden" subscribers).
>
> This is the case, and is the default on all Mailman lists I create
> except for announce-only ones (like svlug-announce), and my strong
> personal preference. However, if SF-LUG leadership ever elected to
> change this setting to anything else, that would be their business and
> not mine. (I am not on the roster of listadmins for this list, and
> maintain a hands-off attitude.)
>
>
>
>
>> And for a fair while now, I've been regularly (typically daily)
>> backing that data up (well, because nobody else had bothered to do it
>> earlier, and rather a pain when the data is wanted/needed, and it's
>> not accessible and nobody's backed it up ... well, actually Rick Moen
>> also had, and I presume has, backups, but at least at the time that
>> would involve on-site trip, physical connections, etc. - certainly
>> good to have the data, but not as convenient as also having at least
>> one remote on-line accessible backup).
>
> Exactly right. I explicitly offered during the late-2014 downtime
> access to my backups, which were on an ext3 filesystem and would have
> required getting to the data from GNU Mailman's native storage. The
> current backups are, as you say, automated, offsite, and in commodity
> data formats, which is greatly better.
>
>> Also, I didn't take the sf-lug list down at any time for the upgrades I
>> performed in what you reference.
>
> In case it's useful to further clarify: Michael's upthread reference
> was to SF-LUG's erstwhile sf-lug.com/.org _Web_ server, housing the
> group's various Web pages -- not this mailing list. (FreeLists, which
> Shane Tzen recommended, is some sort of collective to provide a subset
> of the Internet community with gratis-with-contributions mailing list
> hosting.)
>
> Some good hosting for the Web pages would be most excellent and
> appreciated. And of course Shane's suggestion should be also appreciated,
> as of very constructive intent.
>
> --
> Cheers, "If you see a snake, just kill it.
> Rick Moen Don't appoint a committee on snakes."
> rick at linuxmafia.com -- H. Ross Perot
> McQ! (4x80)
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 23:49:18 -0800
> From: Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com>
> To: sf-lug at linuxmafia.com
> Subject: Re: [sf-lug] LVM ? :-)
> Message-ID: <20151112074918.GE1588 at linuxmafia.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Quoting Michael Paoli (Michael.Paoli at cal.berkeley.edu):
>
>> ...but repartitioning is quite inconvenient and generally requires a
>> reboot if it's where the operating system is running or the data is
>> otherwise being used.
>
> Tiny quibble -- and I'm almost ashamed to post it (except it's gentle
> revenge for your own tiny quibbles ;-> ), but: In the general case,
> repartitioning because you need to move data around to destroy some
> partitions and change sizes doesn't _quite_ necessitate a reboot, only
> going to runlevel 1 long enough to do maintenance. Which amounts to
> going offline, naturally.
>
> If you have to do this shuffle more than once a decade on average for a
> system, I'd say you're doing something very wrong, so personally I think
> LVM's gosh-wow factor of being able to do this transparently, because of
> an extra indirection layer, comes at too high a price in complexity and
> increased likelihood of system-endangering sysadmin error.
>
> But hey, suit yourself.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 09:18:00 -0800
> From: Shane Tzen <shane at faultymonk.org>
> To: sf-lug <sf-lug at linuxmafia.com>
> Subject: Re: [sf-lug] LVM ? :-)
> Message-ID:
> <CA+rfdCQ9EvQynxs9+RQ-qEftcTbg3EDxp4S5bghqdad2NfAgrQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 11:49 PM, Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:
>>
>> Quoting Michael Paoli (Michael.Paoli at cal.berkeley.edu):
>>
>>> ...but repartitioning is quite inconvenient and generally requires a
>>> reboot if it's where the operating system is running or the data is
>>> otherwise being used.
>>
>> If you have to do this shuffle more than once a decade on average for a
>> system, I'd say you're doing something very wrong, so personally I think
>> LVM's gosh-wow factor of being able to do this transparently, because of
>> an extra indirection layer, comes at too high a price in complexity and
>> increased likelihood of system-endangering sysadmin error.
>
> Coincidentally, I had expand a couple of partitions for work last week
> where if not for LVM, the services that the systems provided would have had
> to be interrupted for downtime. Instead, I attached a couple of new (EBS)
> volumes, extended the volume groups, mirrored them, then removed the old
> volumes once the mirroring was done. All without a noticeable impact to
> the underlying service.
>
> The paradigm of spec'ing the system so that it's max provisioned for
> whatever may come down the line is valid. But it's also possible to
> provision for what's needed in the short to medium term, then expand as
> needed (if nothing more than a cost savings measure).
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://linuxmafia.com/pipermail/sf-lug/attachments/20151112/7a9a0981/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 09:24:59 -0800
> From: Shane Tzen <shane at faultymonk.org>
> To: SF-LUG <sf-lug at linuxmafia.com>
> Subject: Re: [sf-lug] Have you guys thought about
> http://www.freelists.org/ (hosted ...)
> Message-ID:
> <CA+rfdCQfVwxd55o5pVY+RYxkt+Q8e_ZkShqU6qHcEuwB0695Dg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 9:27 PM, Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks, Michael, for those comments and your many good deeds.
>> In case it's useful to further clarify: Michael's upthread reference
>> was to SF-LUG's erstwhile sf-lug.com/.org _Web_ server, housing the
>> group's various Web pages -- not this mailing list. (FreeLists, which
>
>
> I was confused as to what was being hosted on a laptop.
>
>
>> Some good hosting for the Web pages would be most excellent and
>
> http://blog.teamtreehouse.com/using-github-pages-to-host-your-website -
> essentially, it's possible to host a static website with custom domains for
> free on github (or any number of other similar type services).
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://linuxmafia.com/pipermail/sf-lug/attachments/20151112/ec86656d/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> sf-lug mailing list
> sf-lug at linuxmafia.com
> http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/sf-lug
> Information about SF-LUG is at http://www.sf-lug.org/
>
> End of sf-lug Digest, Vol 114, Issue 8
> **************************************
More information about the sf-lug
mailing list