From: adam@address.invalid   
      
   unruh wrote:   
   > On 2012-06-13, Adam  wrote:   
   >> I haven't yet decided how to repartition the   
   >> internal HD on the new box, but it will have at least / for production   
   >> distro, / for migration, /accounts, and swap.  I put everything on the   
   >> root partition, but with links to /accounts and other data partitions.   
   >   
   > I think you mean that you put data, home, etc on /accounts and link to   
   > them from the / partition. Otherwise it makes no sense, since all you   
   > would have in /accounts is a bunch of links ( and it could a 4K partion)   
      
   Bad wording on my part -- I'm following Bit Twister's recommendation   
   from a while back, as I understand it.  /home/adam is on the / partition   
   (sda5).  /accounts has its own partition (sda3).  /home/adam/Documents   
   is a soft link to /accounts/adam/Documents, /home/adam/class is a soft   
   link to /accounts/adam/class, and so on.  However, version-dependent   
   things like /home/adam/.config are regular files under /home/adam on   
   sda5.  When I migrate to the new distro or release (let's say it's on   
   sda7), it also mounts sda3 as /accounts.  Then I can just link from the   
   new /home/adam directory there to /accounts/adam/Documents,   
   /accounts/adam/class, etc. but the new /home/adam/.config is in the new   
   /home/adam on sda7 so there won't be any conflict between different   
   versions of apps.  This way, during the changeover I can access my   
   documents, classwork, etc. from both the "old" and "new" distros.   
   Eventually I can wipe all of the old distro (sda5) because my documents,   
   classwork, etc. are all on a different partition (sda3).  I know that   
   sounds kind of wordy, but I hope it's clear.  If you know of any better   
   way for preserving data but avoiding config file version conflicts   
   across distros, I'd love to hear about it.   
      
   >> For security, I use my "theory of relativity" -- my system doesn't have   
   >> to be 100% secure, it just has to be more secure than most.  And of   
   >> course, even the most elaborate software precautions won't help if   
   >> somebody breaks into my home and steals a system.   
   >   
   > That should be pretty obvious and allow you to take mitigating actions.   
   > The problem with a software breakin is that it can be completely   
   > non-obvious and you do not realise that  you have been broken into for   
   > years.   
      
   Oh, definitely.  I'm not ignoring software break-ins, but if for example   
   my wi-fi is 90% secure (by some measurement) while my neighbor's is 10%   
   secure, mine might be "secure enough" for most crackers to ignore mine   
   and go for my neighbor's instead.  We all know nothing is 100% secure,   
   so part of the problem is determining what's "secure enough" for an   
   ordinary home system like mine.  I don't think I need quite the level of   
   paranoia that a network admin ought to have.   
      
   Adam   
   --   
   Registered Linux User #536473   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)