I’m documenting this mainly for myself, but if you’re ending up here based on a Google query, I hope it helps!
I tried to upgrade our Nexenta storage system (currently running 4.0.3FP3). After apt-get downloaded packages, I received this error:
Download complete and in download only mode
Upgrade is in progress. Please DO NOT interrupt...
Creating Upgrade Checkpoint...
Feb 03 19:13:23 EXCEPTION: FormatError: Failed to parse menu.lst: section content not complete
Uncaught exception from user code:
com.nexenta.nmu.FormatError: Failed to parse menu.lst: section content not complete
at /usr/perl5/5.12/lib/NZA/NMUUtil.pm line 731
NZA::NMUUtil::_mark_rootfs('syspool/rootfs-nmu-008', 0, '') called at /usr/perl5/5.12/lib/NZA/NMUUtil.pm line 817
NZA::NMUUtil::clone_rootfs() called at /usr/bin/nmu line 526
Nexenta tech support found that the issue was empty BOOTADM blocks in /syspool/boot/grub/menu.lst:
#---------- ADDED BY BOOTADM - DO NOT EDIT ----------
The fix is to remove those and run
bootadm update-archive -v.
If I understood correctly, the cause may have been using
beadm destroy in the shell instead of
setup appliance checkpoint ... in nmc.
This is another Facebook comment being kept here for posterity:
Regarding H.R. 1076…. I just read the text of the law and one source for the NRA’s position on it: http://www.americas1stfreedom.org/articles/2015/11/20/using-the-terrorist-watchlist-against-gun-owners/
The NRA seems to make some points worth considering:
1) Are terrorists (as defined in this law, and known to be such at the time of the purchase) actually buying guns from legal sellers?
I share their skepticism. If this isn’t a realistic problem, then there’s no point for the law and everything else is moot. So supporters need to prove that point first.
2) The NRA is saying this is based on the terrorist watch list, which is a mess: “Consider, for example, that even three federal legislators, including Sen. Ted Kennedy, found themselves on the list. As Charles C.W. Cooke pointed out on nationalreview.com, some 280,000 people on the list have ‘no affiliation with known terrorist groups’ but simply fall under ‘reasonable suspicion.'”
I didn’t parse the text of the law enough to know if using the terrorist watch list is what would actually be happening here. The text talks a lot about the attorney general denying a transfer, but would that be implemented in practice by blanket denying based on the watch list? It certainly could be. And it sure seems like that’d be a lot easier than trying to create a separate subset list of “terrorists to not allow to buy guns”. Plus, if they did create a separate list, there’s a potential for backlash if they miss someone who is on the bigger list, so that factor will encourage the use of just one list.
I think it’s widely agreed that the watch list is problematic in many ways. That’s why certain people have to deal with TSA redress numbers, etc.
3) There are essentially no consequences for listing someone.
As far as I know, this is generally the case with a lot of laws, so I’m not sure whether that’s creating a new or bigger problem here specifically.
Overall, I don’t see a lot of point for the bill. If this actually is a problem, the bill doesn’t seem too terrible to me. Ideally, I’d like to see the government be required to pay your court and attorney costs if you prevail on a challenge to your being listed.
I wrote the following comment in response to a Facebook post about religious freedom laws, which have been in the news lately.
I appreciate the argument that people should not be forced into conducting business with others, but I’m not sure if any bright line rule works well here. Some things to contemplate:
Is it the right balance to allow a gas station owner to refuse to sell gas to gay people, black people, members of another religion, etc.? Does your answer change if all the gas station owners in the same town feel the same way? (For example, if the result is Muslims can’t buy gas in a town.) What if we scale up to the vast majority of the gas station owners in a county, half a state, or more?
Should the threshold should be different for “essentials” (food, fuel, housing, etc.) than for optional things (wedding cakes)? If so, what’s essential? Is Internet access essential? What about cable TV? Maybe they’re separately special because they tend to be natural monopolies? What about the one formal wear business for a hundred miles?
In regards to the cake examples… One possible answer is that speech is different than products. For example, we might say: yes, we should prohibit the black baker from refusing to sell a cake solely because the buyer is a KKK member, but we will not compel him to write a message on it with which he disagrees.
If so, is the baker’s free speech right absolute? Or if he is willing to write “Congratulations!” on a cake for some customers, can he be compelled to use the same text for anyone (including for gay weddings, graduating from seminary of another religion, etc.)?
What about pharmacists and various types of birth control? Or doctors and abortions? Or doctors refusing patients on (non-religious, public health grounds) who are anti-vaccine for non-medical reasons?
To come full circle, can the gas station owner refuse to sell to people with tattoos for non-religious reasons (because he associates tattoos with gangs)? What if he just thinks tattoos are stupid? If religious reasons are special, who decides what is a legitimate religious interest and what is a legitimate religion?
I get this question a fair amount. Here is the latest version from someone on Facebook: “To all the computer wizards out there: Which antivirus do you suggest putting on a computer?” My response…
Short version: Spend your money on backups instead.
I think I am in the minority in the industry on this, but I tend to recommend “none”. Antivirus software is a bit like insurance. You are going to pay something (dollars, at least some slowdown, and potential problems) all the time to potentially avoid paying a big something later.
No antivirus software can completely protect you from reckless behavior, and if you’re responsible, the risk is probably acceptably low. By “responsible”, I mean things like: don’t open attachments or click on links you were not expecting, regularly apply updates to your OS and browser, and only install software from trustworthy sources.
For the typical home user, the cost of recovering from a virus is pretty minimal, if you have backups. That is where you should focus your energy and/or money. And always test your backup method to make sure you can actually get your files off of it!
Update: Running Microsoft Security Essentials is probably reasonable. It’s free; you get it as part of Windows Updates.
This is how I like to run tcpdump these days:
sudo tcpdump -U -s 0 -w - port 80 | tee DESCRIPTION-$(date +%s).pcap | tcpdump -lvvnr -
This dumps out a .pcap file I can open in Wireshark later, but also shows the tcpdump human-readable representation in real-time.