You don't need Flatpak at all to have these kind of usability issues, it is deeper than that: For example,
if you mount a samba share in the Linux Mint Cinnamon file explorer it is just good to use it from there. Accessing files from the mounted share from "external" apps is a pita (shares are mounted to some obscure path(permission issues), the apps filepickers never have the information that a share was mounted, etc.).
If you want usesful access to a samba share you have to mount it via terminal; This way at least the path to the share is short.
I think that because a lot of gtk apps use gvfs[0]. And most kde apps use kio[1]. But if you want files access through the standard syscall. You have to use the standard mount program or fuse.
This is not cut and cover. Cut and cover is when you "cut" an excavation from the ground surface down and then "cover" it back up with dirt after constructing the structure you want below ground. You have linked to an article on NATM, which is a conventional (read: non-TBM) tunneling method.
Cut and cover is what I described: excavate down, build the structure, cover it up. I am aware that there are lots of options, you can browse my comment history and see that I probably have more experience designing and constructing underground infrastructure (and tunnels in particular) than anyone else that posts on HN.
Cut and Cover is often used in transit conversations to mean any variation where you dig from the surface and not the construction method that is cut and cover. These are two different domains talking about different things that are related. Something we both need to be more aware of in conversations.
Sometimes a temporary cover is built first to minimise disruption on the surface.
Here's an old example of an umbrella bridge over Oxford Circus during the construction of the Victoria Line. There's a longer video out there of the construction of the Victoria Line that covers this in more detail.
Some of the stations on the Broadway Subway Skytrain extension in Vancouver use a similar approach, where half the road is closed and a road deck is built, then traffic is shifted over to the new road deck while excavation takes place from the side. There's some great views of this while riding the bus.
This is not what the cover in cut and cover refers to. This is a temporary bridge erected over a cut and cover operation. When the excavation (the "cut") and structure are completed underneath and the backfill/concrete is placed up to ground surface (the "cover") the temporary bridge will be pulled out. The "cover" part is about covering up the buried structure after it's built to put the ground surface back to where it was.
Edit: If the road deck is left in place permanently then it is a permanent elevated road deck built over a cut and cover tunnel. I can see how some people might consider this the "cover," but that is atypical in the industry and not what people are usually talking about when they say cut and cover. I'll concede that this approach sometimes happens, but I wouldn't call it "often" like GP does and I'd also note that even under this scheme the final surface/cover (e.g., the roadway) is completed after the underground excavation and structure are finished, meaning that the cut still precedes the cover.
The most common terms for this in the industry are "lid" or "cap." As in, you put the lid on, or cap, the excavation or cut and cover tunnel.
Some time ago I saw a list of all (i'm not in construcion so I only assume it was all) the different options. many people have innovated many different ways to dig while minizing surface impact. For my purposes if you eventually dig down I consider them all cut and cover - but of course if you are in construction the differences matter. For that matter even to me chose matter - but only as details that we need to argee on before starting work.
Maybe more important, however in my experience these things are neglected more often with ebikes than traditonal bikes, because the motor compensates the dirty chain or if the tyres could use some air... ;-)
Friends is very idealistic in a lot of ways. The closest thing to that experience in real life is a dirt cheap college bar, at least in the day I'm not sure if they are still like this. Everyone has nothing to do after doing the minimum of their responsibilities for the day so we'd just show up at the bar as soon as we could, and others would know to end up there soon as they could whether that be at noon with a backpack still on or around midnight. It was cheap enough where you could basically sit there and drink all day for maybe $20. That probably gets you a drink and a half today if that, and what do you know, no one's hanging out all day at these places because that could cost you $100 instead of $20.
Anyone sane can't actually favor such a system at home using cameras to a system with existing technology(check other comments).
These systems maybe make sense in environments where cameras are already installed but not at home...
Question regarding this from a non-guru:
- Is it correct that this only works for user root if login with password/key for root is allowed?
- Is it correct, that this only works if the attacker knows a login name valid for ssh?
I believe knowing existing user name or using host-depended value does not matter.
The exploit tries to interrupt handlers that are being run due to login grace period timing out - so we are already at a point where authentication workflow has ended without passing all the credentials.
Plus, in the "Practice" section, they discuss using user name value as a way to manipulate memory at a certain address, so they want/need to control this value.
reply