19 May
2009
19 May
'09
4:06 p.m.
On Tuesday 19 May 2009 09:48:11 Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 08:40:58PM +0700, Patrick
Shirkey wrote:
Fons, I think some people have misunderstood some things you have said in this
thread. In this case I think you misunderstood Patrick. (Or I did - not a bad
possibility.)
I think what he was saying was that jackdbus would check for jackd in $PATH
and complain bitterly / refuse to sintall / whatever. Not that it would try
and control what $PATH was set to. Or perhaps you got that and I
misunderstood your objection.
If there is proper understanding and objections / differences still remain,
that is one thing. So often in life we are disagreeing with what we think
people mean when if fact we may agree with what they actually mean.
Krzysztof Foltman wrote:
> Ideally, jackdbus shouldn't even allow jackd binary to
> exist in $PATH (and vice versa), to prevent the exact
> kind of situation that Fons is experiencing.
Programs that do that kind of things have a name
here: malware. I'm the boss on my system, and I
will decide what goes into $PATH. Just as I decide
which filesystems get mounted and where, and how
permissions are set.
Ciao.
all the best,
drew