Re: X and runlevels
[snip] Isn't ctrl-alt-F[1-6] good enough to get into console mode? In what circumstances whould you not want X to start up on boot if you had installed a *dm? In the circumstance when you are serving a flock of dumb clients from a single machine. NCD Xterms for example. In this case you *NEED* a *dm running with network access turned on but the machine itself may not even have a video. This setup is a small percentage of the installed base but it does exist and is used. [snip] -- Anton R. Ivanov ARI2-RIPE mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] IP Design Engineer, Global Architecture Level3 Communications The excuse for delaying today's deliverables is: emissions from GSM-phones /\ \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML Mail / \ pgpnYbyHOb20Q.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: X and runlevels
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 12:48:24PM +0100, Anton Ivanov wrote: In the circumstance when you are serving a flock of dumb clients from a single machine. NCD Xterms for example. In this case you *NEED* a *dm running with network access turned on but the machine itself may not even have a video. This setup is a small percentage of the installed base but it does exist and is used. Then disable the local display by commenting the server line in /etc/X11/xdm/Xservers That is exactly what I have done. My fault. Should have described the setup in a bit more detail. The question I answered was what is the case when you need *dm and do not need X. It still does not answer the original question which was about X-only/ non-X runlevel. In other words how to boot in multiuser mode selectively with/without X. Which is quite a sensible question. Example: I had to go into an intermediate single user mode boot on some of my machines after forgetting to turn off xdm after changing video cards. Or during dealing with laptop docking gear. If there was a boot with X disabled and xdm installed it would have made life a bit easier. [snip] Cheers, Brgds, -- Anton R. Ivanov ARI2-RIPE mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] IP Design Engineer, Global Architecture Level3 Communications The excuse for delaying today's deliverables is: the real ttys became pseudo ttys and vice-versa. /\ \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML Mail / \ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: X and runlevels
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000, Anton Ivanov wrote: It still does not answer the original question which was about X-only/ non-X runlevel. In other words how to boot in multiuser mode selectively with/without X. Which is quite a sensible question. Example: I had to go into an intermediate single user mode boot on some of my machines after forgetting to turn off xdm after changing video cards. Or during dealing with laptop docking gear. If there was a boot with X disabled and xdm installed it would have made life a bit easier. I must admit I don't really understand the problem here. What prevents you from going back to console mode ? Moreover, even if the X server has a problem and keeps dying, startAttempts in xdm is set to 4 by default. Broken hardware. You assume that X and the hardware behave. On some Neomagic clones X does not always die. It screwes it up so bad that neither text nor graphics are available. Same with some ATIs. Similar situation as described by someone else is when the mode settings will actually smoke your monitor. [snip] -- Anton R. Ivanov ARI2-RIPE mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] IP Design Engineer, Global Architecture Level3 Communications The excuse for delaying today's deliverables is: We didn't pay the Internet bill and it's been cut off. /\ \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML Mail / \ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: /bin/ksh as a default POSIX shell
Sean 'Shaleh' Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 29-Aug-2000 Miros/law `Jubal' Baran wrote: Isn't /bin/ash POSIX compliant? I run ash as my /bin/sh. As for its compliance, I am not certain and no one will claim it being fullly compliant. AFAIK ash is as complaint as bash (in fact at the moment it handles functions right while bash doesn't). If you can come up with any violations I'd love to hear from you. It parses command line -en different from bash. Different getopts ;-) I envision lots of shell scripts taking a long holiday... -- Anton R. Ivanov ARI2-RIPE mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Today's deliverables will have to be delayed because: NOTICE: alloc: /dev/null: filesystem full pgpEcHI0a6gml.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: /bin/ksh as a default POSIX shell
Sean 'Shaleh' Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 29-Aug-2000 Miros/law `Jubal' Baran wrote: Isn't /bin/ash POSIX compliant? I run ash as my /bin/sh. As for its compliance, I am not certain and no one will claim it being fullly compliant. AFAIK ash is as complaint as bash (in fact at the moment it handles functions right while bash doesn't). If you can come up with any violations I'd love to hear from you. It parses command line -en different from bash. Different getopts ;-) Sorry meant echo -en there. I envision lots of shell scripts taking a long holiday... The forecast still stands. [snip] -- Anton R. Ivanov ARI2-RIPE mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Today's deliverables will have to be delayed because: Having to manually track the satellite. pgp38eEPWznL5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: /bin/ksh as a default POSIX shell
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 10:10:04AM +0100, Anton Ivanov wrote: It parses command line -en different from bash. Different getopts ;-) How does it differ? AFAIK, ash's getopts is POSIX compliant. Sorry, wrote my first message with too high blood level in the caffeine subsystem. I meant echo -ne. Yes, you are correct about getopts, but most linux shell scripts rely on gnu getopts. Which parses -ne as an equivalent of -n -e. Example from apache start scripts: echo -ne [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ echo -ne Reloading $NAME configuration.\n Reloading configuration. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ash [EMAIL PROTECTED]:\w$ echo -ne Reloading $NAME configuration.\n -ne Reloading configuration.\n [EMAIL PROTECTED]:\w$ b0rken... Non-critical here. Can be worse somewhere else. There was a point when the kernel could not be built using ash because of that (check linux-kernel last year). [snip] -- Anton R. Ivanov ARI2-RIPE mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Today's deliverables will have to be delayed because: the printer thinks its a router. pgpFD1B5BaTu6.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: /bin/ksh as a default POSIX shell
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 11:57:17AM +0100, Anton Ivanov wrote: Sorry, wrote my first message with too high blood level in the caffeine subsystem. I meant echo -ne. Neither SuS nor POSIX specifies -e so ash is free to do whatever it chooses. If you noted I have not used the word POSIX anywhere. I just said that there are tons things that will break. You cannot use it as a default shell without auditing all scripts. Also ash does with -e what all other sh clones do. It just parses opts differenly so -ne is not equivalent to -n -e. [snip] IMHO: 1. Ash: You cannot use ash as /bin/sh on linux without breaking at least some things (actually a lot). 2. Ksh: Personally, I have had enough dealing with idiotic 60K programs written in ksh just because it is the standard shell supplied on (insert commercial *x here) and you are not supposed to contaminate it with freeware. This is not the case for debian. Also, perl is in the base on debian. So I do not see any particular urge in ksh-ifying things that do not need ksh-ifying. It is said in the declaration of human rights that no-one should be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. Having a clone just because there are people that will not write their installation in anything else (I Blame M...) is enough. But making it the default shell. No thank you. It will be the same story as bash. One year later most scripts will be rigged with ksh-specifics the way they are now with bash-specifics (the echo -ne instead of -n -e for example) ;-) This of course is just IMHO ;-) -- Anton R. Ivanov ARI2-RIPE mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Today's deliverables will have to be delayed because: Dyslexics retyping hosts file on servers pgpOsy9XNQsy4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: /bin/ksh as a default POSIX shell
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 12:31:15PM +0100, Anton Ivanov wrote: Neither SuS nor POSIX specifies -e so ash is free to do whatever it chooses. If you noted I have not used the word POSIX anywhere. I just said that there are tons things that will break. And this is Debian where we have a policy that says #!/bin/sh scripts need to be POSIX compliant. OK. If you are right at least apache scripts are not. I suggest you file a bug against it. You cannot use it as a default shell without auditing all scripts. I use it on all my systems and currently nothing breaks. [snip] Cheers ;-) -- Anton R. Ivanov ARI2-RIPE mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Today's deliverables will have to be delayed because: Neutrino overload on the nameserver pgpJa5elL1kJQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: /bin/ksh as a default POSIX shell
Anton Ivanov wrote: If you are right at least apache scripts are not. I suggest you file a bug against it. If you know how to call apache scripts to demonstrate the error then please file the bug yourself. Check before, if you run an up-to-date apache. I do apache starts up correctly for me on every system boot, and I do have /bin/sh pointing to /bin/ash as well. My fault. It actually uses #!/bin/bash which it should not anyway I don't see any problems with this setup, apart from occasional 'bashisms', which have to be reported and fixed (see Policy). It is a bashism. 100% one. See above. You cannot use it as a default shell without auditing all scripts. This is not correct. The scripts are fairly reliable in not using bashisms, cause these had been fixed some time ago. OK. Ulf P.S.: Please can you go without the PGP stuff for the mailing list? It seems to double the size of your messages. Thanks. Bad habits. -- Anton R. Ivanov ARI2-RIPE mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Today's deliverables will have to be delayed because: We are currently trying a new concept of using a live mouse. Unfortuantely, one has yet to survive being hooked up to the computer.please bear with us.
Re: /bin/ksh as a default POSIX shell
You cannot use it as a default shell without auditing all scripts. I have used ash for over a year now as my /bin/sh. OK, OK, OK, I surrender. I have to admit my experience was rather old and the quantity of bashisms have sharply decreased. So you can run another POSIX compliant shell happily for sh nowdays. -- Anton R. Ivanov ARI2-RIPE mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Today's deliverables will have to be delayed because: Interference between the keyboard and the chair.
Re: RBL report..
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- It is rumored that on 26-Mar-2000 Nils Jeppe wrote: On Sun, 26 Mar 2000, Mark Brown wrote: ORBS also blacklist sites for other reasons, such as if their probes are firewalled out. This will, for example, catch sites that automatically firewall out sites that attempt to relay through them - the site notices the first check, blocks the rest and gets added to the list. Well I didn't know that, however, that's a pretty redundant thing to do - afterall, you can just disable relaying alltogether and be done with it. ;-) If you are on a 64K line and get hit by a spam blast from some well known providers only the rejects fill your line completely. Unfortunately I have seen this quite afew times and been hit a few years ago by it a few times. So this is actually a good policy. Though if you are smart enough to configure something like this yous hould be smart enough to make it avoid the orbs wrath ;-) [snip] - -- Anton R. Ivanov IP Engineer Level3 Communications RIPE: ARI2-RIPE E-Mail: Anton Ivanov [EMAIL PROTECTED] @*** Sociology's Iron Law of Oligarchy *** In every organized activity, no matter the sphere, a small number will become the oligarchial leaders and the others will follow. - -- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iQEVAwUBON9JjilWAw/bM84zAQEk9AgAjvcaQWoFX9GvpwgYlitlrektqR4OuhYR jgvOWv+hU5IoYpNun9tUeEVbpuhckQqNpLtDoC7OX6lpk7Uim5jKiq3WtTN/LAEg 3u9VJbIydyEI8LUGTruFz5Fl5gaHrF2B1ILPNxcfPK1FVywBXVfM3Rx5CYbH9P8W tcfnpTfS1lX6hiiA0hwPFfiavDe5cAHELKLQczgur1PVfBZdBuYhobfwuMFIEn1T U2dQaBrOmaTzAxh7B6XGkOZ6XcasEENBi5VoqLhd/rK0TTsrhx8/VWGktnjT3Mwi 9qRT1pOfn/cZRdt3qu+B6n+7o2jBHXksSoDVBCuDs+Pob1tfT0udzQ== =531T -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: RBL report..
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- It is rumored that on 26-Mar-2000 Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 02:41:09AM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote: The domain's technical contact. Ideally, yes. In practice, I'd say that's no more likely to work than [EMAIL PROTECTED] I've seen NIC entries with technical contacts called NOC Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED]; do you think hotmail addresses should be acceptable for domain contacts? I don't but apparently Yes. Think of the case when you are out of connectivity and have to change to new dns servers and your auth scheme happens to be mail from:. If your email was from non-neutral ground you would have had to deal with internic personally. Though after the invention of auth-DES and other more sane auth schemes at the registries this is no longer the case but quite a lot of people still keep their info using an off-site address. ;-) [snip] - -- Anton R. Ivanov IP Engineer Level3 Communications RIPE: ARI2-RIPE E-Mail: Anton Ivanov [EMAIL PROTECTED] @*** Uhlmann's Razor *** When stupidity is a sufficient explanation, there is no need to have recourse to any other. Corollary: It seemed like the thing to do at the time. - -- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iQEVAwUBON9LailWAw/bM84zAQEjpwf/YuatKapv0VN6mC4xZnO0FJ7JP9BlddDQ dPhUrN+yffECHptkYYHcuPnVFhhiScZboqEarWnWdUGaswIwpXNO/ROxKJWNlb1h 08z0vIlVRVfw5Vx4eAKpRLRpDlh2vo2qkdmzHLk5dk+KDCv/AEIyyxPqmCyXCUuQ xnVaDt0blmhxy+wA0LV91WVhh4JjGB4D72wf9RhmHcwGJMuOIhv3UIQM8Dx9nCkf bD+zT80w95G9LZfsIaoem7EMWl8FnZsOZgtPuL7zf0IbgaeZkfPkrr9Sv9VDDFd1 q89g/4BhDP3XOn4+rSrWYvRm6yjPz5OReVjg8bc9fWFrVT8/uR8+0w== =yVvu -END PGP SIGNATURE-
