On Thu, 4 Feb 2016 13:33:33 -0500, Steve wrote in message
<20160204133333.720b26e4@???>:

> On Thu, 04 Feb 2016 17:42:35 +0000
> Rainer Weikusat <rainerweikusat@???> wrote:
>
> > Simon Hobson <linux@???> writes:
> > > Rainer Weikusat <rainerweikusat@???> wrote:
> > >
> > >> "Whoever disagrees with me MUST either have a hidden, maliscious
> > >> agenda or be out of his mind" is a pretty standard way to
> > >> (attempt to) handle a situation where someone ran out of
> > >> arguments but doesn't feel like admitting that.
> > >
> > > Not at all. I have a perfectly sound argument. You are stubbornly
> > > trolling that users deserve to have their hardware bricked.
> >
> > I never wrote "users deserve ot have their hardware bricked". That's
> > another generalization you invented. Apart from that, none of your
> > snide remarks about me is even remotely related to the topic under
> > discussion.
>
> This discussion is getting pretty theoretical and philosophical. So
> let me ask this question: Is there anyone on this list who would
> object to *Devuan* mounting /sys/firmware/efi/efivars read-only?

..me, I do not see any point in keeping it mounted at all.
Whenever such a need arises, it should be mounted read-only.
If a need to write to /sys/firmware/efi/efivars should happen,
the machine should first be taken off-line, backed-up etc out
of production and into a maintenance mode, where mounting
/sys/firmware/efi/efivars read-write, _may_ be warranted.

--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.