On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 21:39:12 -0400, Aragorn <aragorn@chatfactory.invalid> wrote:

> One's choice of filesystem should depend upon one's needs. On my heavier
> system, I prefer using XFS, which is far more advanced than /reiserfs/ and

I'm using xfs for most of my file systems.
$ mount
/dev/hda14 on / type reiserfs (rw,noatime,notail,user_xattr)
/dev/mapper/81-home on /home type xfs (rw,relatime,logbufs=8,logbsize=256k)
/dev/mapper/81-opt on /opt type xfs (rw,noatime,logbufs=8,logbsize=256k)
/dev/mapper/81-tmp on /tmp type xfs (rw,noatime,logbufs=8,logbsize=256k)
/dev/mapper/81-usr on /usr type xfs (rw,noatime,logbufs=8,logbsize=256k)
/dev/mapper/81-var on /var type xfs (rw,noatime,logbufs=8,logbsize=256k)
/dev/hda15 on /var/log type xfs (rw,noatime,logbufs=8,logbsize=256k)
/dev/mapper/81-mnt on /var/mnt type ext2 (rw,noatime)
/dev/mapper/81-data on /var/mnt/data type xfs (rw,logbufs=8,logbsize=256k)

I've kept / using reiserfs, as xfs cannot have lilo or grub installed on it.
I'm using ext2 for /var/mnt (with /media and /mnt replaced with symlinks to
/var/mnt), as it is rarely updated, and can be kept very small (4mb), so I
quickly find out, if I try to copy data to an unmounted filesystem.

The above decisions were based on various reviews I've read, and on how I
use my system. Actions unrelated to software development, by one of the
authors of the filesystem, is not going to impact my choices, at all.

Regards, Dave Hodgins

--
Change nomail.afraid.org to ody.ca to reply by email.
(nomail.afraid.org has been set up specifically for
use in usenet. Feel free to use it yourself.)

On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 12:24:55 +0200, Aragorn wrote:

> Yep, read about it this morning. Seems I was wrong in my assumption of his
> innocence. Still, I think that it must have been a case of manslaughter
> rather than premeditated murder, though.

Why would you "think" that? Why "must" it have been manslaughter rather
than premeditated? Do you have evidence that the trial did not have?

> Probably they got into a fight and he hit her and she fell, and then
> seeing her body he must have thought "What have I done?" and then in a
> panic dragged her body out, took it far away and buried her.

Wow! Lots of assumptions. How much stock do you think a lawyer would
place on such statements? Do you have any actual *reason* to think any of
that might actually be true?

> Either way, it's tragic, both for her and for him, not to mention the
> children... :-/

Probably, but not necessarily.


--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org

David W. Hodgins wrote:
>
> I've kept / using reiserfs, as xfs cannot have lilo or grub installed on it.

Yes it can, lilo and grub have been able to boot from XFS for as
long as I can remember.

Mandrake included XFS in version 8.1, I have been using both
lilo and grub on various systems with most MDK/MDV versions
since 8.1 with /boot being XFS, or not using a separate /boot
and / being XFS.

Including XFS (long before in was in the upstream kernel) is
one of the reasons I began using Mandrake.

This is not the forum for an extended discussion of this nature.

I understand what you are saying, but believe that hazards of life
cannot be eliminated, and that any judicial system that functions
in reasonable manner (the one that gave you a win in court, plus
all the costs, plus no chance of recovering money you had been
conned out of, is not functioning in reasonable manner) will now
and then inflict undesirable damage.

You set up things to minimize damage to innocents, and mete out
appropriate penalties to the guilty, and seek maximum "justice"
for all. Trying to completely preclude injust to one unjustly
accused simply makes it impossible to secure justice for anyone.

Standing down on this topic.

jim b.


Aragorn wrote:
> On Wednesday 09 July 2008 00:57, someone who identifies as *Jim Beard* wrote
> in /alt.os.linux.mandriva:/
>
>> When humans are involved, nothing is perfect. Such is life.
>
> Sad but true...
<snip>

--
UNIX is not user unfriendly; it merely
expects users to be computer-friendly.

Adam wrote:
<snip>
> More generally, can an idea from an evil
> source be morally good? (For example, I believe the Nazis were among
> the first to mount an anti-smoking campaign.)

Some among us consider that early anti-smoking campaign
evil, evil, evil.

No cheers!

jim b.

--
UNIX is not user unfriendly; it merely
expects users to be computer-friendly.

On Tue, 08 Jul 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.os.linux.mandriva, in article
<XkRck.262594$M63.97399@newsfe13.ams2>, Aragorn wrote:

>someone who identifies as *Moe Trin* wrote

>Well, I have been following most of that trial - I think I may have
>missed the first few sessions - via two independent sources. One was
>a live blog from the courtroom with a pretty elaborate quoting of what
>was said in the courtroom, whereas the other one was more of a short
>summary of the events, with fewer quotes.

I didn't bother following the trial - it's a state trial in a different
state, and I know I don't have enough facts to form an opinion. Where
those sources you used either official, or a reasonably unbiased source
like 'Court TV' or one of the less unbiased, but _relatively_ balanced
two newspapers (Oakland Tribune or San Francisco Chronicle)?

>Well, see, on that I am not so sure. I'm not arguing that he's
>guilty, obviously, but it was my impression that the prosecutor was
>freewheeling and assuming a lot without presenting proper evidence,
>and that key elements in the case were being totally discarded
>through prejudice.

Were that the case, the defense attorney should have been constantly
objecting, and the judge would be slapping the prosecution around
pretty harshly.

>No body had been found during the trial, Reiser was still maintaining
>his innocence and certain paths and evidence were left unexplored. It
>was only after his conviction that Reiser admitted to having killed
>Nina and that - following his lead - her body was discovered.

Still the prosecutor was able to present enough information that the
defense could not disprove or object to, and the judge didn't report
that there was insufficient evidence to give to the jury.

>By the same token he could have maintained his innocence and he even
>could have been innocent and still sentenced on the grounds of
>circumstantial evidence, because in the end, circumstantial evidence
>was the only thing presented, testimonial of which is the fact that if
>he did indeed strangle her, then the whole debacle of the blood stains
>on the sleeping bag cover and on the pillar in the house of his mother,
>and him allegedly rinsing the car "to get rid of all the blood from
>killing her" are moot.

I can't say until I see the transcripts, and the coroners report. It
really isn't a requirement that the body be found. Were that the case
merely see that there are no witnesses, and dispose of the body in a
sure manner (torch the body, dispose of the ashes at sea), and no one
would be able to be convicted. No, it doesn't work that way.

>The jury needed several days to review and debate this evidence, so
>they weren't at all sure about everything either.

Of the four times I've been on a criminal jury, there was only one
case where we returned - actually in about 20 minutes. There was
absolutely no question of the defendants guilt, plenty of evidence
against him, and our biggest question was why they wasted our time
bringing this to a trial - the defense lawyer should have gotten the
idiot to plea. Other than that, I think the quickest debate/vote
was something like two days, and we acquitted that defendant. Jurors
really do tend to take the job seriously, especially on a capital
crime.

>> Six months. They didn't ram it through and the jury tends to be
>rather careful, especially on a murder case.
>
>I don't agree with that. If that were true, then there never would
>have been any cases of innocent people being sentenced for life or even
>being executed, only to have the real killer turn up much, much later.

Nothing is perfect.

>Besides, in the O.J. Simpson trial, the jury found the defendant not
>guilty and it was later on discovered - and proven in a civil court -
>that he was.

O.J was tried and acquitted of murder - that was the criminal trial.
He was then sued in a civil trial for causing the wrongful death of
two individuals, and that trial went against him. His loss of that
case in no way proved that he was guilty of capital murder OR ANY
CRIME what-so-ever. Different charges, different standards, and
requiring only a majority to decide the case, not a unanimous
decision.

>Jurors demographically represent the people and may therefore not be
>savvy enough regarding technical details or investigation methods.
>Well, I'm not a lawyer and who am I to criticize how the court works,
>but still, jurors can be mislead easily.

So are you saying that William Du Bois (his defense attorney) and the
judge were incompetent?

>Of course, Reiser's decision to take the stand is one of the key
>factors that got him convicted. Not because of what he said or didn't
>say, but because he managed to make himself very much disliked by both
>the judge and the jurors - the blog reported on some of the jurors'
>facial reactions and body language throughout Reiser's testimony.

Andrew has already pointed to the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution
which says that a person may not be "compelled in any criminal case to
be a witness, against himself". Should he take the stand of his own
accord and give evidence - that really is his problem (and that of his
defense attorney for failing to prevent him giving such evidence). It's
the old rule that you can't be convicted of stupidity, but stupidity can
get you convicted of other crimes.

>Yet the fact remains that if Reiser had taken the advice of his
>attorney to forego taking the stand - which as I understand it would
>have been his legal right in the United States - then he'd probably
>have been acquitted.

He can be called to the stand - but he can not be compelled to answer
any questions that may tend to incriminate himself. That's basically
been construed to mean you have to answer the "State your name"
type of question, and for everything else can decline to answer citing
the fifth amendment.

Old guy

On Tue, 08 Jul 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.os.linux.mandriva, in article
<g50vpq$aaq$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Adam wrote:

>In the U.S., homicide is a state crime. (Actually, relatively few
>things are federal crimes.)

Well... I wouldn't go quite that far. There sure are plenty of laws on
the federal books, and I've got an ex-relative working at the Danbury
Health Resort - or what ever they call it ;-)

>Ethical question for anyone: Will this affect your decision whether
>to use the Reiser file system? More generally, can an idea from an
>evil source be morally good?

No - we never adopted it on reliability reasons. Not to say it's
unreliable (it isn't that bad), but when it does go pear shaped, you
are totally screwed, and you'd better hope your backups are good.

>(For example, I believe the Nazis were among the first to mount an
>anti-smoking campaign.)

Invoking Godwin so early? My, my. ;-)

How you doing otherwise?

Old guy

On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 23:24:23 -0400, Bill <bill@bogus.domain> wrote:

> Yes it can, lilo and grub have been able to boot from XFS for as
> long as I can remember.

Yes it can boot from a xfs root filesystem, however lilo/grub cannot be
installed on a xfs filesystem (in the / or /boot filesystem, not the mbr).

If you have an xfs / or /boot filesystem, try changing /etc/lilo.conf (or
equivalent for grub), to install the boot loader on that partition, instead
of in the mbr. It won't allow it. I use the GAG bootloader, which I then
use to select which m$ or lilo boot loader I want to load. It then loads the
boot loader from the boot sector of the /, or /boot partition,

The reason I use GAG, instead of lilo, in the mbr, and install lilo in the /
filesystem, of each distro I run, is so that each bootloader is independent.
That way, when I install a new version/disto, I don't have to copy all of the
boot configuration lines from the latest version I used, or have to worry about
an older version of the bootloader not working with a new version.

For example, anyone using grub from 2008.0 will not be able to boot a 2008.1
system, that uses ext3, for the / file system. That's because the default inode
size changed from 128 bits to 256 bits, and only the 2008.1 version of grub can
from mandriva has been patched, to handle that.

Regards, Dave Hodgins

--
Change nomail.afraid.org to ody.ca to reply by email.
(nomail.afraid.org has been set up specifically for
use in usenet. Feel free to use it yourself.)

On Wednesday 09 July 2008 05:22, someone who identifies as *Dan C* wrote
in /alt.os.linux.mandriva:/

> On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 12:24:55 +0200, Aragorn wrote:
>
>> Yep, read about it this morning. Seems I was wrong in my assumption of
>> his innocence. Still, I think that it must have been a case of
>> manslaughter rather than premeditated murder, though.
>
> Why would you "think" that? Why "must" it have been manslaughter rather
> than premeditated? Do you have evidence that the trial did not have?

Let's just say that I have reason to believe that the trial (and the
investigations leading /to/ the trial) did not proceed as unbiased as
it(/they) should have.

(By this statement - in the event that you should think so, given that you
chose to reply to this particular post of mine given an unrelated statement
from another post of mine - I am in no way criticizing the American justice
system - yes, the reference made earlier was to the difference between
elected District Attorneys and Chiefs of Police versus those functions
being occupied as genuine occupations by politically unaligned officials -
because legal mishaps occur everywhere. I know for a fact that they occur
here, and I can give you a fine example of a justice screw-up from (still
recent enough) Belgian history.[1])

As you may have read in one of my other posts, I have been following most of
the trial from two independent sources, and in what was quoted from the
testimony, it was clear that the investigating officers displayed a bias
against Hans Reiser, and through that bias left other possible leads
unexplored.

For instance - and I am *not* arguing Reiser's guilt here - I find it highly
dubious that Sean Sturgeon, a man who confessed before the police to having
killed eight people and left a ninth for dead, and who had a key to Nina's
apartment and had transfered a large sum of money into her bank account
only three days before she disappeared, was not even (temporarily)
arrested, investigated or even heard as a witness.

Also from the two reporters' blogs - and as vented as the personal opinions
of the reporters and legally qualified /opinionists/ - the above (and
below) hypothesis was mentioned as having a higher degree of probability
than premeditated murder.

>> Probably they got into a fight and he hit her and she fell, and then
>> seeing her body he must have thought "What have I done?" and then in a
>> panic dragged her body out, took it far away and buried her.
>
> Wow! Lots of assumptions. How much stock do you think a lawyer would
> place on such statements? Do you have any actual *reason* to think any of
> that might actually be true?

I stated this in my reply to the previous paragraph. And apparently
District Attorney Paul Hora was willing to place stock on a lot of other
assumptions, including some of his own imagination - over which he did
receive criticism.

Like I said, it's a lucky strike. The trial was a shot in the dark, full of
guesswork and circumstantial evidence. And so now it turns out that they
were right, because he did admit having killed her and he pointed them to
her remains.

>> Either way, it's tragic, both for her and for him, not to mention the
>> children... :-/
>
> Probably, but not necessarily.

Nina Reiser's life has ended. That's pretty tragic, considering her young
age and her aspirations regarding a career as a doctor.

Hans Reiser will do at least 15 to 25 years of prison, and the fact that
there was no direct evidence against him - as I have stated and as you can
read back for yourself in the blogs; Henry K. Lee was one of the bloggers,
I can't remember the other one's name - and that there was no body are the
only two reasons why he wasn't given the death sentence. All of that is
tragic too.

And then for the children... They grew up in the United States - well, one
is still very young and therefore more adaptive, but the other one is
already older and thus less flexible - and had friends there - both their
own age and friends of their parents looking over them in their absence -
and they went to school there, and were raised in English. Now they reside
in Russia, under custody of Nina's mother (who doesn't speak a single word
of English) and they have to attend Russian schools and speak Russian all
the time. And all that while they know that their mother is dead and that
their father is in jail for having killed her. I'd say that is pretty
tragic enough.

Four players, of which two children. Three players come out of the story
alive with their lives altered for ever. The fourth player's life was
ended at the age of 31. And you say "not necessarily"?


*[1]* I don't know to what Americans are up to date with events happening in
Belgium, but some of you may have read about the Dutroux affair back in the
1990s.

Marc Dutroux - English pronunciation "du-troo" - was a trader in used cars
who - aside from several fraude files he's been mentioned in and in the
meantime found guilty of - also abducted young girls and held them prisoner
as sex slaves and kiddie porn "actresses" in a (specifically designed for
that purpose) basement underneath his house, in a town called Marcinelle,
in the French-speaking part of Belgium.

The youngest girls of whom we know he abducted them were eight and nine
years old respectively, and they died in the basement of famine during
Dutroux' absence because his pathologically subordinate wife Michèle Martin
was jealous of the girls and together with his accomplice Bernard Weinberg
neglected to feed them. Upon his return, Dutroux buried the remains of the
girls in his backyard, and after having given Weinberg a sedative, he did
the same to him, burying him alive.

Eventually, Dutroux was arrested - a second time, as he had already been
arrested before because of his involvement in the car trade fraude, and he
was out on probation - and two other girls, at that time aged 13 and 15,
were rescued from the basement after having been held there for many months
without as much as seeing the sun. They had been raped over and over and
over again, almost every day for as long as they had been held prisoner
there.

After Dutroux was arrested, it was discovered that two more girls, aged 18
and 19, had been abducted by Dutroux and Weinberg and that they had in the
meantime been murdered. Their remains were found on one of Dutroux'
properties - apart from his own residence, he also owned a small workshop
and several houses in the area.

There were many goof-ups in this case. The first one was that Dutroux was
granted a weapons license for a .22 LR carbine shortly after he was
released on probation after his initial arrest (related to a fraude case),
while it's not quite so easy to get a weapons permit for any other and
law-abiding citizen here in Belgium than, say, in the USA. The chief of
police later on gave the following explanation: "At least we were then
aware that he had a weapon". I'm not sure but I even believe that Dutroux'
parole officer was not made aware of Dutroux' possession of a firearm.

A second goof-up was that the whole investigation took so long, and that
investigators and our equivalent of D.A. office officials were taken off
the case and shuffled around, causing the newly assigned officials to have
to study the files (all worthy of several thousands of pages) all over
again from the beginning, and raising the suspicion that Dutroux had some
protection from higher up, and that he may have been part of an
international paedophile network. Eventually, this turned out not to be
the case - or else the evidence was destroyed - but still it didn't quite
help the investigation.

A third goof-up was that police officers had visited Dutroux' house while
the two respectively 12- and 15-year old girls were being held captive
there, following a trail that had raised suspicion that Dutroux had
anything to do with their disappearance, and that they had looked around in
his house and <quote> had "not found or seen anything suspicious" </quote>.
They were in his basement and for some reason they had not seen the entry
hatch to the underground concrete bunker he and Weinberg had constructed
for the sake of keeping young girls imprisoned there.

A fourth goof-up was that in the months prior to the trial - which only took
place a few years ago, many years after Dutroux' final arrest, with both
the surviving ex-captives already being adult women and one of them even
already having published a book about the whole affair - Dutroux managed to
grab a sidearm from a police officer who was escorting him to (our
equivalent of) the D.A.'s office for yet another interrogation, and as such
managed to escape in a stolen vehicle.

He was "missing without a trace" for several days and was eventually spotted
while hiding in the woods by a forest guard who recognized him despite the
beard Dutroux had grown in prison, and who alerted the police, who in turn
apprehended him in a very careful and slow move, involving multiple teams
of police officers.

They _had_ to be careful, and at all time while in custody he was given a
bulletproof jacket to wear (and kept behind bulletproof glass in the
courtroom) because they knew all too well that given the chance - and
especially when he escaped from prison and was out in the open - many
citizens were so outraged by what Dutroux had done - and his guilt was
already a given even prior to his conviction - that some of them could
eventually decide to take matters into their own hands and hunt down and/or
assassinate him.

A fifth goof-up was that in the years Dutroux spent in custody pending the
actual trial that lead to his conviction only a few years ago, Dutroux
turned out to have been corresponding romantically by written letter with a
fifteen-year old girl from the Flanders...

Dutroux was eventually sentenced to life without a chance to parole or
probation, and in addition to a surplus "ten years of being available to
the government", meaning that if there ever should be any way that he could
apply for release from prison, the government still has ten years to object
to and/or revoke such a release for an indefinite amount of time.

It's all legalese, but basically it comes down to that he will effectively
spend the rest of his life in jail. I believe his wife Michèle Martin was
sentenced to 30 years, and including her time served already prior to the
trial, she was eligible for an early release after one third of her
sentence a few years ago, but her appeal was denied by the commission that
handles such early releases, possibly due to the great public protest when
the people, especially the relatives of the murdered girls, learned of this
news. Another accomplice of Dutroux, businessman Michel Nihoul, was given
a milder sentence - I believe five years - because he appeared to only have
been involved in the fraude affair and had nothing to do with the girls -
or at least, not that we know of.

So the bottom line is - again - that I was not criticizing the American
legal system, should you think that I was. We're definitely no better than
the US in that area.

--
*Aragorn*
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

David W. Hodgins wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 23:24:23 -0400, Bill <bill@bogus.domain> wrote:
>
>> Yes it can, lilo and grub have been able to boot from XFS for as
>> long as I can remember.
>
> Yes it can boot from a xfs root filesystem, however lilo/grub cannot be
> installed on a xfs filesystem (in the / or /boot filesystem, not the mbr).
>

I have always used a single boot loader in the MBR, I miss interpreted
your comment and stand corrected.