Re: In Praise of Dos (RE: Mutt & tmp files)
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 07:57:05PM -0800, Nathan E Norman wrote: > On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 03:26:50PM -0800, Petro wrote: > > But his is hugely off topic, and I'll go no futher down this road. > > Could you at least honor my Mail-Followup-To: header? I would have if I saw it. Mutt didn't notice it, and I don't see it in my backups. There is a possibility that $exchange elided it. Either way, if you'd stuck it in there, I apologize for not being able to follow it, since it didn't make it here. -- Share and Enjoy. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: In Praise of Dos (RE: Mutt & tmp files)
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 03:26:50PM -0800, Petro wrote: > But his is hugely off topic, and I'll go no futher down this road. Could you at least honor my Mail-Followup-To: header? Thanks, -- Nathan Norman - Staff Engineer | A good plan today is better Micromuse Ltd. | than a perfect plan tomorrow. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Patton pgpzIcTnflLEx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: In Praise of Dos (RE: Mutt & tmp files)
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 03:26:50PM -0800, Petro wrote: > But his is hugely off topic, and I'll go no futher down this road. Could you at least honor my Mail-Followup-To: header? Thanks, -- Nathan Norman - Staff Engineer | A good plan today is better Micromuse Ltd. | than a perfect plan tomorrow. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Patton msg04281/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: In Praise of Dos (RE: Mutt & tmp files)
>From: John Galt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>delete. You're missing a large point here: root doesn't have to have
RWX
>access on everything to be able to do their job, -WX may do the trick.
So, root does not need total file access in order to do some subset of
functions which you, or the NSA, consider "their job."
Who, prey tell, set up those permissions? (hint: root)
I believe that an administrator account with such limited permissions is
a very good idea on a large-scale or multi-admin machine. In an ISP, for
instance, your grunt sysop is neither trained nor absolutely trusted.
But someone has to be able to administer *that* account too, so I still
assert there should be a Root As God as final arbiter, to install the
key-sig software, intrusion detection, etc.
>No, DOS taught us how to allow for a system to be compromised at the
drop
>of a hat.
Interesting. Physical compromise is not at issue, because a machine
which is physically compromised is merely a matter of time before it is
broken. It is my impression we (all) agree on that.
>>If you cannot trust root, don't use that machine for anything you want
>>to be secure.
>Probably a good dictum, but not really feasable in most cases. Do you
>trust your ISP? They have root on the system that forwards mail to
you...
Quite right. Luckly, there are ways to secure specific functions, such
as PGP'd email, ssh for remote login, https for document viewing and
forms, IPSec for datastreams, etc. The comodity internet cannot ever be
considered secure.
Had people only ever used terminals on shared servers, such as the IBM,
DEC, Unix "mainframe" model, I believe we would have better individual
user tools for security against root. Single user machines, thus my
comment about Dos, give the imperssion of end-point security.
>Win 3.0 was broken and unusable, you know that?
Unusable? Then I seem to have been able to do the impossible. It
certainly did not work well, but "unusable"? Hmmm...
>Win 3.X is the last system that had hardware requirements based on
>objective criteria and allowed the system control that you lauded in
your
>main email.
I'm glad the theoretical considerations were able to be communicated, I
do wish you had added your reservations and elaborations rather than
using the absolute negative "No."
> Win 95+ started doing things for you, and NEVER does them the
>way they should be done. Perhaps it just takes longer to do things
>right...
I think the distributed effort of the open source projects, while
chaotic so that key-strokes will not always be consistant (so what?),
does allow for people to use the systems that give them the least
astonishment.
And, best of all, if someone realizes how they "should" be done, they
can advocate it to someone who really can make it a reality.
Unlike arguing for something durnig "Face Time" with Bill.
I was able to limit Win95, after lots of experimenting, to three running
"services" and relative un-hackability. But it was a single user
machine, and the keyboard was God. An object lesson in choosing a good
PGP pass phrase.
>void hamlet()
>{#define question=((bb)||(!bb))}
UmmmI believe that parses as b^2, not b*2... :^)
>Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED] that's who!
http://www.lfcity.org/
Curt-
Re: In Praise of Dos (RE: Mutt & tmp files)
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 02:14:54PM -0800, Nathan E Norman wrote: > On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 01:47:40PM -0800, Petro wrote: > > > enviroments and applications to figure out what it takes to make a > > > system really consistent and usable for you. Even if you pick some > > > things that aren't quite finished as part of your enviroment, if > they > > > are part of an active project, they will be working much better > soon. > > Go into Netscape, open up some random web page. What's the key > > command for find? > > Now open Lyx. What's the key command for find? Mutt? Opera? > > OpenOffice? > > Just like Windows 3.11. > > Which was my point. > Install Netscape 4.x, 6.x, Mozilla, and IE on a windows box. > Good luck expecting the same key strokes to do the same thing in each > application. I don't have Netscape for my windows laptop, but on Opera, IE, Pegasus Mail, Star Office, and Office the Select All, Cut, Copy, Paste, and Find options all had the exact same key commands. Most of them (were applicable) had the same key command for undo. All of them used ctrl-n for "new", whatever "new" meant in their context. Even WinCVS, a port of a Unix App uses most of these. Ctrl-p is almost always print etc. Beyond those basics, there will (and arguably should) be differences in what keys do, but the basics should (were applicable) be consistent across an interface. But his is hugely off topic, and I'll go no futher down this road. -- Share and Enjoy.
Re: In Praise of Dos (RE: Mutt & tmp files)
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 04:14:54PM -0600, Nathan E Norman wrote: > Install Netscape 4.x, 6.x, Mozilla, and IE on a windows box. > > Good luck expecting the same key strokes to do the same thing in each > application. Just tried this (except for Netscape 6.x) -- and at least Ctrl-F, Ctrl-A, Ctrl-P, Ctrl-O, Ctrl-W, Ctrl-C, Ctrl-X, Ctrl-V, Ctrl-R, Ctrl-B, Ctrl-Z and Ctrl-N are consistent among all three. -- Mike Renfro / R&D Engineer, Center for Manufacturing Research, 931 372-3601 / Tennessee Technological University -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: In Praise of Dos (RE: Mutt & tmp files)
>From: John Galt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>delete. You're missing a large point here: root doesn't have to have
RWX
>access on everything to be able to do their job, -WX may do the trick.
So, root does not need total file access in order to do some subset of
functions which you, or the NSA, consider "their job."
Who, prey tell, set up those permissions? (hint: root)
I believe that an administrator account with such limited permissions is
a very good idea on a large-scale or multi-admin machine. In an ISP, for
instance, your grunt sysop is neither trained nor absolutely trusted.
But someone has to be able to administer *that* account too, so I still
assert there should be a Root As God as final arbiter, to install the
key-sig software, intrusion detection, etc.
>No, DOS taught us how to allow for a system to be compromised at the
drop
>of a hat.
Interesting. Physical compromise is not at issue, because a machine
which is physically compromised is merely a matter of time before it is
broken. It is my impression we (all) agree on that.
>>If you cannot trust root, don't use that machine for anything you want
>>to be secure.
>Probably a good dictum, but not really feasable in most cases. Do you
>trust your ISP? They have root on the system that forwards mail to
you...
Quite right. Luckly, there are ways to secure specific functions, such
as PGP'd email, ssh for remote login, https for document viewing and
forms, IPSec for datastreams, etc. The comodity internet cannot ever be
considered secure.
Had people only ever used terminals on shared servers, such as the IBM,
DEC, Unix "mainframe" model, I believe we would have better individual
user tools for security against root. Single user machines, thus my
comment about Dos, give the imperssion of end-point security.
>Win 3.0 was broken and unusable, you know that?
Unusable? Then I seem to have been able to do the impossible. It
certainly did not work well, but "unusable"? Hmmm...
>Win 3.X is the last system that had hardware requirements based on
>objective criteria and allowed the system control that you lauded in
your
>main email.
I'm glad the theoretical considerations were able to be communicated, I
do wish you had added your reservations and elaborations rather than
using the absolute negative "No."
> Win 95+ started doing things for you, and NEVER does them the
>way they should be done. Perhaps it just takes longer to do things
>right...
I think the distributed effort of the open source projects, while
chaotic so that key-strokes will not always be consistant (so what?),
does allow for people to use the systems that give them the least
astonishment.
And, best of all, if someone realizes how they "should" be done, they
can advocate it to someone who really can make it a reality.
Unlike arguing for something durnig "Face Time" with Bill.
I was able to limit Win95, after lots of experimenting, to three running
"services" and relative un-hackability. But it was a single user
machine, and the keyboard was God. An object lesson in choosing a good
PGP pass phrase.
>void hamlet()
>{#define question=((bb)||(!bb))}
UmmmI believe that parses as b^2, not b*2... :^)
>Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED] that's who!
http://www.lfcity.org/
Curt-
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: In Praise of Dos (RE: Mutt & tmp files)
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 01:47:40PM -0800, Petro wrote: > > enviroments and applications to figure out what it takes to make a > > system really consistent and usable for you. Even if you pick some > > things that aren't quite finished as part of your enviroment, if they > > are part of an active project, they will be working much better soon. > > Go into Netscape, open up some random web page. What's the key > command for find? > > Now open Lyx. What's the key command for find? Mutt? Opera? > OpenOffice? > > Just like Windows 3.11. > > Which was my point. Install Netscape 4.x, 6.x, Mozilla, and IE on a windows box. Good luck expecting the same key strokes to do the same thing in each application. -- Nathan Norman - Staff Engineer | A good plan today is better Micromuse Ltd. | than a perfect plan tomorrow. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Patton pgp9YeB0NHUKS.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: In Praise of Dos (RE: Mutt & tmp files)
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 12:46:21PM -0800, James Hamilton wrote: > My Gnome/X/Debian GNU/Linux Desktop is much "slicker" than > anything I have ever been able to do with Windows. The Gnome > apps have a fairly consistent interface as well. There is a steeper and > longer learning curve to learn how to really use X and Unix, but I would > say that is an asset for members of the technocracy rather than a > drawback. I honestly don't know what you are talking about. Using No, you are not listening. The slickness of the UI isn't what you can accomplish with the OS, but rather about how things look. Look at the icons, look at the buttons that gnome provides. Simple and functional, but not nearly the degree of sophistication that Windows/MacOS provide. Look at the integration of the application UI into the OS UI, it all looks the same. Now maybe if I used FVWM2, or KDE, I would see more of this, but frankly they act too much like windows (hit people, having the minimize, maximize and KILL WINDOW buttons so close together is wrong. This is one of the many UI issues Apple got right in OS 6-9, but broke in X, and that windows got wrong with the 95 style UI). so and use too much screen realestate for their icons and task bar, so I use a different window manager (one of what, 20? available). > the NT box I am using now to post this message is sheer torture, but Outhouse huh. What's the Free Replacement for that? > I have to have one Windows desktop and support one Windows server > here at work. I would say the functionality of Linux is currently and Functionality is not useability. The Functionality of Linux is far superior to Windows in every area except common desktop applications (Word processors, spread sheets, Graphic Design (which is the only reason I still use MacOS at home, there is simply nothing in the Open Source world that is any where near Illustrator and Quark X-Press, and while the GIMP comes close to PhotoShop, I've been using Photoshop for over 10 years now, and I'm used to it). Yes, I've used Star Office and OO, and they are good, but not quite ready. > rapidly surpassing that of Microsoft OSes, and that perhaps you haven't > found or learned the right environment and apps. With Windows, > everthing gets set up and it works the way MS decrees it will. With > GNU/Linux, you have a huge number of choices. Part of becoming > a real user of open source is spending a lot of time evaluating different Stop right there. Do *NOT* assume because I criticize Linux that I don't know Linux. I'm not going to get in a DSW with you, but I started using Linux with kernel .99p6. I've built X from scratch (once). I use Linux on my desk at work, and I'm one of like 2 or 3 in my office to do so. I've used Slackware, DeadRat, Debian, and SuSE. I am the team lead for a small SA team that maintains a 100+ server site, primarily (and if testing goes well this week, soon to be almost completely) Linux based. We're pusing an average (24 hour average) of around 60 Mbits a second, and our front end is entirely Linux. I spent my weekend fighting with kernels and LVM to get snap shots working properly I've used Linux as a desktop OS for 5 or 6 years, either primarily, or in conjunction with my Mac. I've used Star Office, Open Office, SAIG, Lyx, and WordPerfect on Linux (among others) for word processing. I've used or tried just about every mail application out there for Linux, and (check the headers) use Mutt daily at work--with Exchange no less. I don't criticize Linux because I know windows better, I criticize Linux because it's not as good as it *could* be. In fact, I don't know windows better. I've only had 2 machines of "mine" that run windows--one is a work laptop used for Word and accessing a shared mailbox on Exchange, the other is my Counter-Strike box. That's all that's on it. Windows, and the files needed for Counter-Strike. > enviroments and applications to figure out what it takes to make a > system really consistent and usable for you. Even if you pick some > things that aren't quite finished as part of your enviroment, if they > are part of an active project, they will be working much better soon. Go into Netscape, open up some random web page. What's the key command for find? Now open Lyx. What's the key command for find? Mutt? Opera? OpenOffice? Just like Windows 3.11. Which was my point. > Once I set up my box, my roomates (non-tech) can use it to surf the > web, read their email, write papers, browse newsgroups etc with a > fairly consistent and truly complete suite of free applications. I did that 5 years ago for my wife. Of course, that was also true of Windows 3.11, with the exception that the underlying OS w
Re: In Praise of Dos (RE: Mutt & tmp files)
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 02:14:54PM -0800, Nathan E Norman wrote: > On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 01:47:40PM -0800, Petro wrote: > > > enviroments and applications to figure out what it takes to make a > > > system really consistent and usable for you. Even if you pick some > > > things that aren't quite finished as part of your enviroment, if > they > > > are part of an active project, they will be working much better > soon. > > Go into Netscape, open up some random web page. What's the key > > command for find? > > Now open Lyx. What's the key command for find? Mutt? Opera? > > OpenOffice? > > Just like Windows 3.11. > > Which was my point. > Install Netscape 4.x, 6.x, Mozilla, and IE on a windows box. > Good luck expecting the same key strokes to do the same thing in each > application. I don't have Netscape for my windows laptop, but on Opera, IE, Pegasus Mail, Star Office, and Office the Select All, Cut, Copy, Paste, and Find options all had the exact same key commands. Most of them (were applicable) had the same key command for undo. All of them used ctrl-n for "new", whatever "new" meant in their context. Even WinCVS, a port of a Unix App uses most of these. Ctrl-p is almost always print etc. Beyond those basics, there will (and arguably should) be differences in what keys do, but the basics should (were applicable) be consistent across an interface. But his is hugely off topic, and I'll go no futher down this road. -- Share and Enjoy. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: In Praise of Dos (RE: Mutt & tmp files)
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 04:14:54PM -0600, Nathan E Norman wrote: > Install Netscape 4.x, 6.x, Mozilla, and IE on a windows box. > > Good luck expecting the same key strokes to do the same thing in each > application. Just tried this (except for Netscape 6.x) -- and at least Ctrl-F, Ctrl-A, Ctrl-P, Ctrl-O, Ctrl-W, Ctrl-C, Ctrl-X, Ctrl-V, Ctrl-R, Ctrl-B, Ctrl-Z and Ctrl-N are consistent among all three. -- Mike Renfro / R&D Engineer, Center for Manufacturing Research, 931 372-3601 / Tennessee Technological University -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: In Praise of Dos (RE: Mutt & tmp files)
My Gnome/X/Debian GNU/Linux Desktop is much "slicker" than anything I have ever been able to do with Windows. The Gnome apps have a fairly consistent interface as well. There is a steeper and longer learning curve to learn how to really use X and Unix, but I would say that is an asset for members of the technocracy rather than a drawback. I honestly don't know what you are talking about. Using the NT box I am using now to post this message is sheer torture, but I have to have one Windows desktop and support one Windows server here at work. I would say the functionality of Linux is currently and rapidly surpassing that of Microsoft OSes, and that perhaps you haven't found or learned the right environment and apps. With Windows, everthing gets set up and it works the way MS decrees it will. With GNU/Linux, you have a huge number of choices. Part of becoming a real user of open source is spending a lot of time evaluating different enviroments and applications to figure out what it takes to make a system really consistent and usable for you. Even if you pick some things that aren't quite finished as part of your enviroment, if they are part of an active project, they will be working much better soon. Once I set up my box, my roomates (non-tech) can use it to surf the web, read their email, write papers, browse newsgroups etc with a fairly consistent and truly complete suite of free applications. >>> Petro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 11/19/01 12:10PM >>> On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 12:30:34AM -0800, Martin Christensen wrote: > > "Petro" == Petro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Petro> On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 10:24:05AM +0900, Howland, Curtis > Petro> wrote: > >> ps: From a personal perspective, I think Linux is about where > >> Windows 3.0 was. This is not a troll, just a usability thing. > Petro> No, it's about where win3.11 was in a lot of ways. Modulo > Petro> the stability &&etc. > > I am just dying to find out why this is so. I find the unices I work > with to be much more usable than any incarnation of Windows. So what > exactly do you put into 'usability'? Consistency of UI, availibility and integration of applications, "slickness" of look and feel. Under 3.1[1] applications had widely varying "look and feel", and were not well integrated, nor was the windowing system well integrated with the underlying OS (it didn't provide "proper" abstraction of things like file-systems, processes etc.). With Windows 95, Microsoft changed a lot of that. Not that they did it *well* (the Win95 style interface gives me hives), but they provided a fairly consistent (if awful) interface, and a good deal of abstraction of the underlying hardware/OS. Linux is still at the Win3.11 level in those regards. Does this mean Linux isn't useable? Well, considering I've had at least one Linux box running at home since late 1993/94 (and had it installed on and off for about a year before that), I would have to say it's perfectly usable for those inclined to learn, those who have specific tasks it needs done. But I wouldn't put it on my mother-in-laws computer, or my moms. Then again, I wouldn't give my Mom a windows machine either (I gave her a Mac about 3/4 years ago, and she hasn't bothered to plug it in yet). I like Linux, I think it's a *good* OS, and it's coming along quite nicely, but that doesn't mean I think it's easy to use. IMO, one of the biggest problems Linux is facing in it's quest to take the desktop is that (1) there are too many different groups working on UI stuff, and (2) Most of them think that the Win95 LOOK is right, but don't bother trying for the consistency. Of course, my primary desk-top machine at home right now is a Mac running OS X. Which has some UI issues as well. -- Share and Enjoy. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: In Praise of Dos (RE: Mutt & tmp files)
> "Petro" == Petro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I am just dying to find out why this is so. I find the unices I >> work with to be much more usable than any incarnation of >> Windows. So what exactly do you put into 'usability'? Petro> Consistency of UI, availibility and integration of Petro> applications, "slickness" of look and feel. [...] That's just one aspect of usability. If I start talking about pipes and redirection, perl, grep, sed, awk, xargsm emacs, make etc., then I'm sure that there are many out there who get a usability hard-on. Does the Windows platform in any incarnation have the degree of flexibility and perfect interaction that the dozens of common Unix utilities provide? Yes, Windows has GUI consistence that Unix can't compare with, but there's certainly more to it than that. It is dangerous and wrong to think that usability is only about Joe Schmoe; it is also about him, and in many cases it is primarily about him, but it is often in his name that ambitious users are slaughtered at the sacrificial altar. It has always been typical for DOS and Windows applications that they try to do everything themselves until every desktop clock or whatever gizmo can check your E-mail or feed your goldfish. When weighing the areas in which Windows and Unix respectively are consisten, Unix wins by a wide margin on my subjective scale. There are those who have different priorities, but that, contrary to what some people seem to shout, does not invalidate mine. Martin -- Homepage: http://www.cs.auc.dk/~factotum/ GPG public key: http://www.cs.auc.dk/~factotum/gpgkey.txt pgp5t3Q6MZGau.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Re: In Praise of Dos (RE: Mutt & tmp files)
Hi, > >Root Is God. This is a multi-user, full-time, "networked" device. Root > >bears the responsibility of everything that happens to that machine. > >They are answerable to everyone, not just one user. > > No, root had best not be god. NSA Rainbow book pretty much states that > for C systems that the administrator should be able to delete files, but > may not necessarily be able to read them. In a B system, administrative > duties are dealt with by a committee, no one of which may necessarily > have permissions to read a file, but all in concert must be able to > delete. You're missing a large point here: root doesn't have to have RWX > access on everything to be able to do their job, -WX may do the trick. It depends what you want "root" to be, really. If you are after a machine which you are IN CONTROL of, mostly with only you using it, then root being in total charge of everything is perhaps OK. So its not good from a security point of view, but if you dont want security to be your top priority, then its, AFIAK, no big deal. You dont have a lot of users about who may try and break your system, so user-level security (eg wheel/sudo/etc) isnt as much effort as you need on a 5000 user uni. server. > >For all its faults, Dos taught us what it was like to be in complete > >control of ones own machine. No other users, no daemons, no "services". > >Programs ran in a vacuum. I really like such control for single-user > >machines from a security standpoint, even though I prefer the > >functionality of Linux. > > No, DOS taught us how to allow for a system to be compromised at the drop > of a hat. If you have unquestioned authority over your system, others can > have it too. and anyway, if you like a machine like that, set your linux box to have no cron or anything like that, auto-loggin for root, single terminal, and only one user (root) which you do everything with. Like DOS except easier to use. Linux can be both secure and multiuser (unlike DOS) or totally insecure and single user (like DOS). Its still linux, even if it doesnt comply to RFC x and Security standard y. The point is, a Linux box can be set up however you want, and root is (until you limit him/her/them) totally in charge. and you can change even that. MadProf - I dont care about security. So root me.-- Wot? No Coffee?
Re: In Praise of Dos (RE: Mutt & tmp files)
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 12:30:34AM -0800, Martin Christensen wrote: > > "Petro" == Petro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Petro> On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 10:24:05AM +0900, Howland, Curtis > Petro> wrote: > >> ps: From a personal perspective, I think Linux is about where > >> Windows 3.0 was. This is not a troll, just a usability thing. > Petro> No, it's about where win3.11 was in a lot of ways. Modulo > Petro> the stability &&etc. > > I am just dying to find out why this is so. I find the unices I work > with to be much more usable than any incarnation of Windows. So what > exactly do you put into 'usability'? Consistency of UI, availibility and integration of applications, "slickness" of look and feel. Under 3.1[1] applications had widely varying "look and feel", and were not well integrated, nor was the windowing system well integrated with the underlying OS (it didn't provide "proper" abstraction of things like file-systems, processes etc.). With Windows 95, Microsoft changed a lot of that. Not that they did it *well* (the Win95 style interface gives me hives), but they provided a fairly consistent (if awful) interface, and a good deal of abstraction of the underlying hardware/OS. Linux is still at the Win3.11 level in those regards. Does this mean Linux isn't useable? Well, considering I've had at least one Linux box running at home since late 1993/94 (and had it installed on and off for about a year before that), I would have to say it's perfectly usable for those inclined to learn, those who have specific tasks it needs done. But I wouldn't put it on my mother-in-laws computer, or my moms. Then again, I wouldn't give my Mom a windows machine either (I gave her a Mac about 3/4 years ago, and she hasn't bothered to plug it in yet). I like Linux, I think it's a *good* OS, and it's coming along quite nicely, but that doesn't mean I think it's easy to use. IMO, one of the biggest problems Linux is facing in it's quest to take the desktop is that (1) there are too many different groups working on UI stuff, and (2) Most of them think that the Win95 LOOK is right, but don't bother trying for the consistency. Of course, my primary desk-top machine at home right now is a Mac running OS X. Which has some UI issues as well. -- Share and Enjoy.
Re: In Praise of Dos (RE: Mutt & tmp files)
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 01:47:40PM -0800, Petro wrote: > > enviroments and applications to figure out what it takes to make a > > system really consistent and usable for you. Even if you pick some > > things that aren't quite finished as part of your enviroment, if they > > are part of an active project, they will be working much better soon. > > Go into Netscape, open up some random web page. What's the key > command for find? > > Now open Lyx. What's the key command for find? Mutt? Opera? > OpenOffice? > > Just like Windows 3.11. > > Which was my point. Install Netscape 4.x, 6.x, Mozilla, and IE on a windows box. Good luck expecting the same key strokes to do the same thing in each application. -- Nathan Norman - Staff Engineer | A good plan today is better Micromuse Ltd. | than a perfect plan tomorrow. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Patton msg04277/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: In Praise of Dos (RE: Mutt & tmp files)
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 12:46:21PM -0800, James Hamilton wrote: > My Gnome/X/Debian GNU/Linux Desktop is much "slicker" than > anything I have ever been able to do with Windows. The Gnome > apps have a fairly consistent interface as well. There is a steeper and > longer learning curve to learn how to really use X and Unix, but I would > say that is an asset for members of the technocracy rather than a > drawback. I honestly don't know what you are talking about. Using No, you are not listening. The slickness of the UI isn't what you can accomplish with the OS, but rather about how things look. Look at the icons, look at the buttons that gnome provides. Simple and functional, but not nearly the degree of sophistication that Windows/MacOS provide. Look at the integration of the application UI into the OS UI, it all looks the same. Now maybe if I used FVWM2, or KDE, I would see more of this, but frankly they act too much like windows (hit people, having the minimize, maximize and KILL WINDOW buttons so close together is wrong. This is one of the many UI issues Apple got right in OS 6-9, but broke in X, and that windows got wrong with the 95 style UI). so and use too much screen realestate for their icons and task bar, so I use a different window manager (one of what, 20? available). > the NT box I am using now to post this message is sheer torture, but Outhouse huh. What's the Free Replacement for that? > I have to have one Windows desktop and support one Windows server > here at work. I would say the functionality of Linux is currently and Functionality is not useability. The Functionality of Linux is far superior to Windows in every area except common desktop applications (Word processors, spread sheets, Graphic Design (which is the only reason I still use MacOS at home, there is simply nothing in the Open Source world that is any where near Illustrator and Quark X-Press, and while the GIMP comes close to PhotoShop, I've been using Photoshop for over 10 years now, and I'm used to it). Yes, I've used Star Office and OO, and they are good, but not quite ready. > rapidly surpassing that of Microsoft OSes, and that perhaps you haven't > found or learned the right environment and apps. With Windows, > everthing gets set up and it works the way MS decrees it will. With > GNU/Linux, you have a huge number of choices. Part of becoming > a real user of open source is spending a lot of time evaluating different Stop right there. Do *NOT* assume because I criticize Linux that I don't know Linux. I'm not going to get in a DSW with you, but I started using Linux with kernel .99p6. I've built X from scratch (once). I use Linux on my desk at work, and I'm one of like 2 or 3 in my office to do so. I've used Slackware, DeadRat, Debian, and SuSE. I am the team lead for a small SA team that maintains a 100+ server site, primarily (and if testing goes well this week, soon to be almost completely) Linux based. We're pusing an average (24 hour average) of around 60 Mbits a second, and our front end is entirely Linux. I spent my weekend fighting with kernels and LVM to get snap shots working properly I've used Linux as a desktop OS for 5 or 6 years, either primarily, or in conjunction with my Mac. I've used Star Office, Open Office, SAIG, Lyx, and WordPerfect on Linux (among others) for word processing. I've used or tried just about every mail application out there for Linux, and (check the headers) use Mutt daily at work--with Exchange no less. I don't criticize Linux because I know windows better, I criticize Linux because it's not as good as it *could* be. In fact, I don't know windows better. I've only had 2 machines of "mine" that run windows--one is a work laptop used for Word and accessing a shared mailbox on Exchange, the other is my Counter-Strike box. That's all that's on it. Windows, and the files needed for Counter-Strike. > enviroments and applications to figure out what it takes to make a > system really consistent and usable for you. Even if you pick some > things that aren't quite finished as part of your enviroment, if they > are part of an active project, they will be working much better soon. Go into Netscape, open up some random web page. What's the key command for find? Now open Lyx. What's the key command for find? Mutt? Opera? OpenOffice? Just like Windows 3.11. Which was my point. > Once I set up my box, my roomates (non-tech) can use it to surf the > web, read their email, write papers, browse newsgroups etc with a > fairly consistent and truly complete suite of free applications. I did that 5 years ago for my wife. Of course, that was also true of Windows 3.11, with the exception that the underlying OS
Re: In Praise of Dos (RE: Mutt & tmp files)
On Mon, 19 Nov 2001, Howland, Curtis wrote:
>To be blunt, I don't think one can entirely protect ones self from root,
>nor do I believe it's an "All Good" idea.
>
>Root Is God. This is a multi-user, full-time, "networked" device. Root
>bears the responsibility of everything that happens to that machine.
>They are answerable to everyone, not just one user.
No, root had best not be god. NSA Rainbow book pretty much states that
for C systems that the administrator should be able to delete files, but
may not necessarily be able to read them. In a B system, administrative
duties are dealt with by a committee, no one of which may necessarily
have permissions to read a file, but all in concert must be able to
delete. You're missing a large point here: root doesn't have to have RWX
access on everything to be able to do their job, -WX may do the trick.
>For all its faults, Dos taught us what it was like to be in complete
>control of ones own machine. No other users, no daemons, no "services".
>Programs ran in a vacuum. I really like such control for single-user
>machines from a security standpoint, even though I prefer the
>functionality of Linux.
No, DOS taught us how to allow for a system to be compromised at the drop
of a hat. If you have unquestioned authority over your system, others can
have it too.
>However, I also like the fact that when my wife's Win98 device crapped
>out and was sent to the shop for repair, it was no effort to simply
>"adduser x" . The beauty of a multi-user machine. She can get the
>functions she needs until her machine comes back, but she now has to
>trust me that I won't "less /var/spool/mail/x" as root.
>
>If you cannot trust root, don't use that machine for anything you want
>to be secure.
Probably a good dictum, but not really feasable in most cases. Do you
trust your ISP? They have root on the system that forwards mail to you...
>Curt-
>
>ps: From a personal perspective, I think Linux is about where Windows
>3.0 was. This is not a troll, just a usability thing.
Win 3.0 was broken and unusable, you know that? The Win 3.0 -> 3.1
upgrade was actually a usability patch kit, and propagated for free. Win
3.0 is the GUI equivalent to DOS 4: a version that MS would just as soon
forget.
That being said, and assuming that you're not comparing linux to a
broken version of Windows, So? Win 3.X (I'd actually put the usability
more in WfWG area myself) was the last usable system MS came up with IMHO.
Win 3.X is the last system that had hardware requirements based on
objective criteria and allowed the system control that you lauded in your
main email. Win 95+ started doing things for you, and NEVER does them the
way they should be done. Perhaps it just takes longer to do things
right...
>-Original Message-
>From: Daniel D Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>... We're talking about trying to protect
>yourself from legitimate root on a system where you're merely a user.
>-
>
>
>
--
void hamlet()
{#define question=((bb)||(!bb))}
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED] that's who!
Re: In Praise of Dos (RE: Mutt & tmp files)
My Gnome/X/Debian GNU/Linux Desktop is much "slicker" than anything I have ever been able to do with Windows. The Gnome apps have a fairly consistent interface as well. There is a steeper and longer learning curve to learn how to really use X and Unix, but I would say that is an asset for members of the technocracy rather than a drawback. I honestly don't know what you are talking about. Using the NT box I am using now to post this message is sheer torture, but I have to have one Windows desktop and support one Windows server here at work. I would say the functionality of Linux is currently and rapidly surpassing that of Microsoft OSes, and that perhaps you haven't found or learned the right environment and apps. With Windows, everthing gets set up and it works the way MS decrees it will. With GNU/Linux, you have a huge number of choices. Part of becoming a real user of open source is spending a lot of time evaluating different enviroments and applications to figure out what it takes to make a system really consistent and usable for you. Even if you pick some things that aren't quite finished as part of your enviroment, if they are part of an active project, they will be working much better soon. Once I set up my box, my roomates (non-tech) can use it to surf the web, read their email, write papers, browse newsgroups etc with a fairly consistent and truly complete suite of free applications. >>> Petro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 11/19/01 12:10PM >>> On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 12:30:34AM -0800, Martin Christensen wrote: > > "Petro" == Petro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Petro> On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 10:24:05AM +0900, Howland, Curtis > Petro> wrote: > >> ps: From a personal perspective, I think Linux is about where > >> Windows 3.0 was. This is not a troll, just a usability thing. > Petro> No, it's about where win3.11 was in a lot of ways. Modulo > Petro> the stability &&etc. > > I am just dying to find out why this is so. I find the unices I work > with to be much more usable than any incarnation of Windows. So what > exactly do you put into 'usability'? Consistency of UI, availibility and integration of applications, "slickness" of look and feel. Under 3.1[1] applications had widely varying "look and feel", and were not well integrated, nor was the windowing system well integrated with the underlying OS (it didn't provide "proper" abstraction of things like file-systems, processes etc.). With Windows 95, Microsoft changed a lot of that. Not that they did it *well* (the Win95 style interface gives me hives), but they provided a fairly consistent (if awful) interface, and a good deal of abstraction of the underlying hardware/OS. Linux is still at the Win3.11 level in those regards. Does this mean Linux isn't useable? Well, considering I've had at least one Linux box running at home since late 1993/94 (and had it installed on and off for about a year before that), I would have to say it's perfectly usable for those inclined to learn, those who have specific tasks it needs done. But I wouldn't put it on my mother-in-laws computer, or my moms. Then again, I wouldn't give my Mom a windows machine either (I gave her a Mac about 3/4 years ago, and she hasn't bothered to plug it in yet). I like Linux, I think it's a *good* OS, and it's coming along quite nicely, but that doesn't mean I think it's easy to use. IMO, one of the biggest problems Linux is facing in it's quest to take the desktop is that (1) there are too many different groups working on UI stuff, and (2) Most of them think that the Win95 LOOK is right, but don't bother trying for the consistency. Of course, my primary desk-top machine at home right now is a Mac running OS X. Which has some UI issues as well. -- Share and Enjoy. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: In Praise of Dos (RE: Mutt & tmp files)
> "Petro" == Petro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I am just dying to find out why this is so. I find the unices I >> work with to be much more usable than any incarnation of >> Windows. So what exactly do you put into 'usability'? Petro> Consistency of UI, availibility and integration of Petro> applications, "slickness" of look and feel. [...] That's just one aspect of usability. If I start talking about pipes and redirection, perl, grep, sed, awk, xargsm emacs, make etc., then I'm sure that there are many out there who get a usability hard-on. Does the Windows platform in any incarnation have the degree of flexibility and perfect interaction that the dozens of common Unix utilities provide? Yes, Windows has GUI consistence that Unix can't compare with, but there's certainly more to it than that. It is dangerous and wrong to think that usability is only about Joe Schmoe; it is also about him, and in many cases it is primarily about him, but it is often in his name that ambitious users are slaughtered at the sacrificial altar. It has always been typical for DOS and Windows applications that they try to do everything themselves until every desktop clock or whatever gizmo can check your E-mail or feed your goldfish. When weighing the areas in which Windows and Unix respectively are consisten, Unix wins by a wide margin on my subjective scale. There are those who have different priorities, but that, contrary to what some people seem to shout, does not invalidate mine. Martin -- Homepage: http://www.cs.auc.dk/~factotum/ GPG public key: http://www.cs.auc.dk/~factotum/gpgkey.txt msg04274/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Re: In Praise of Dos (RE: Mutt & tmp files)
Hi, > >Root Is God. This is a multi-user, full-time, "networked" device. Root > >bears the responsibility of everything that happens to that machine. > >They are answerable to everyone, not just one user. > > No, root had best not be god. NSA Rainbow book pretty much states that > for C systems that the administrator should be able to delete files, but > may not necessarily be able to read them. In a B system, administrative > duties are dealt with by a committee, no one of which may necessarily > have permissions to read a file, but all in concert must be able to > delete. You're missing a large point here: root doesn't have to have RWX > access on everything to be able to do their job, -WX may do the trick. It depends what you want "root" to be, really. If you are after a machine which you are IN CONTROL of, mostly with only you using it, then root being in total charge of everything is perhaps OK. So its not good from a security point of view, but if you dont want security to be your top priority, then its, AFIAK, no big deal. You dont have a lot of users about who may try and break your system, so user-level security (eg wheel/sudo/etc) isnt as much effort as you need on a 5000 user uni. server. > >For all its faults, Dos taught us what it was like to be in complete > >control of ones own machine. No other users, no daemons, no "services". > >Programs ran in a vacuum. I really like such control for single-user > >machines from a security standpoint, even though I prefer the > >functionality of Linux. > > No, DOS taught us how to allow for a system to be compromised at the drop > of a hat. If you have unquestioned authority over your system, others can > have it too. and anyway, if you like a machine like that, set your linux box to have no cron or anything like that, auto-loggin for root, single terminal, and only one user (root) which you do everything with. Like DOS except easier to use. Linux can be both secure and multiuser (unlike DOS) or totally insecure and single user (like DOS). Its still linux, even if it doesnt comply to RFC x and Security standard y. The point is, a Linux box can be set up however you want, and root is (until you limit him/her/them) totally in charge. and you can change even that. MadProf - I dont care about security. So root me.-- Wot? No Coffee? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: In Praise of Dos (RE: Mutt & tmp files)
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 12:30:34AM -0800, Martin Christensen wrote: > > "Petro" == Petro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Petro> On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 10:24:05AM +0900, Howland, Curtis > Petro> wrote: > >> ps: From a personal perspective, I think Linux is about where > >> Windows 3.0 was. This is not a troll, just a usability thing. > Petro> No, it's about where win3.11 was in a lot of ways. Modulo > Petro> the stability &&etc. > > I am just dying to find out why this is so. I find the unices I work > with to be much more usable than any incarnation of Windows. So what > exactly do you put into 'usability'? Consistency of UI, availibility and integration of applications, "slickness" of look and feel. Under 3.1[1] applications had widely varying "look and feel", and were not well integrated, nor was the windowing system well integrated with the underlying OS (it didn't provide "proper" abstraction of things like file-systems, processes etc.). With Windows 95, Microsoft changed a lot of that. Not that they did it *well* (the Win95 style interface gives me hives), but they provided a fairly consistent (if awful) interface, and a good deal of abstraction of the underlying hardware/OS. Linux is still at the Win3.11 level in those regards. Does this mean Linux isn't useable? Well, considering I've had at least one Linux box running at home since late 1993/94 (and had it installed on and off for about a year before that), I would have to say it's perfectly usable for those inclined to learn, those who have specific tasks it needs done. But I wouldn't put it on my mother-in-laws computer, or my moms. Then again, I wouldn't give my Mom a windows machine either (I gave her a Mac about 3/4 years ago, and she hasn't bothered to plug it in yet). I like Linux, I think it's a *good* OS, and it's coming along quite nicely, but that doesn't mean I think it's easy to use. IMO, one of the biggest problems Linux is facing in it's quest to take the desktop is that (1) there are too many different groups working on UI stuff, and (2) Most of them think that the Win95 LOOK is right, but don't bother trying for the consistency. Of course, my primary desk-top machine at home right now is a Mac running OS X. Which has some UI issues as well. -- Share and Enjoy. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: In Praise of Dos (RE: Mutt & tmp files)
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 09:30:34AM +0100, Martin Christensen typed out the following... > > "Petro" == Petro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Petro> On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 10:24:05AM +0900, Howland, Curtis > Petro> wrote: > >> ps: From a personal perspective, I think Linux is about where > >> Windows 3.0 was. This is not a troll, just a usability thing. > Petro> No, it's about where win3.11 was in a lot of ways. Modulo > Petro> the stability &&etc. > > I am just dying to find out why this is so. I find the unices I work > with to be much more usable than any incarnation of Windows. So what > exactly do you put into 'usability'? ...and that's all Martin Christensen wrote I'm afraid Seconded! I find stability wise Linux out strips any Windows I have used so far (haven't tried XP yet - and to be honest not planning to). As far as usability goes Linux is way ahead. I find Windows too restricting for my use. Apart from a few applications I just have to use I find its interface slows me down. I'll qualify that by saying that I am definately a techy user. Still this is getting OT for this list - perhaps move onto user?! -- --- Paul Tansom:Talking to penguins can be inTUXicating, whereas talking to windows is only 1 step away from talking to the wall! --- Smoothwall firewall/router project: http://www.smoothwall.org/ Smoothwall project community contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: In Praise of Dos (RE: Mutt & tmp files)
On Mon, 19 Nov 2001, Howland, Curtis wrote:
>To be blunt, I don't think one can entirely protect ones self from root,
>nor do I believe it's an "All Good" idea.
>
>Root Is God. This is a multi-user, full-time, "networked" device. Root
>bears the responsibility of everything that happens to that machine.
>They are answerable to everyone, not just one user.
No, root had best not be god. NSA Rainbow book pretty much states that
for C systems that the administrator should be able to delete files, but
may not necessarily be able to read them. In a B system, administrative
duties are dealt with by a committee, no one of which may necessarily
have permissions to read a file, but all in concert must be able to
delete. You're missing a large point here: root doesn't have to have RWX
access on everything to be able to do their job, -WX may do the trick.
>For all its faults, Dos taught us what it was like to be in complete
>control of ones own machine. No other users, no daemons, no "services".
>Programs ran in a vacuum. I really like such control for single-user
>machines from a security standpoint, even though I prefer the
>functionality of Linux.
No, DOS taught us how to allow for a system to be compromised at the drop
of a hat. If you have unquestioned authority over your system, others can
have it too.
>However, I also like the fact that when my wife's Win98 device crapped
>out and was sent to the shop for repair, it was no effort to simply
>"adduser x" . The beauty of a multi-user machine. She can get the
>functions she needs until her machine comes back, but she now has to
>trust me that I won't "less /var/spool/mail/x" as root.
>
>If you cannot trust root, don't use that machine for anything you want
>to be secure.
Probably a good dictum, but not really feasable in most cases. Do you
trust your ISP? They have root on the system that forwards mail to you...
>Curt-
>
>ps: From a personal perspective, I think Linux is about where Windows
>3.0 was. This is not a troll, just a usability thing.
Win 3.0 was broken and unusable, you know that? The Win 3.0 -> 3.1
upgrade was actually a usability patch kit, and propagated for free. Win
3.0 is the GUI equivalent to DOS 4: a version that MS would just as soon
forget.
That being said, and assuming that you're not comparing linux to a
broken version of Windows, So? Win 3.X (I'd actually put the usability
more in WfWG area myself) was the last usable system MS came up with IMHO.
Win 3.X is the last system that had hardware requirements based on
objective criteria and allowed the system control that you lauded in your
main email. Win 95+ started doing things for you, and NEVER does them the
way they should be done. Perhaps it just takes longer to do things
right...
>-Original Message-
>From: Daniel D Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>... We're talking about trying to protect
>yourself from legitimate root on a system where you're merely a user.
>-
>
>
>
--
void hamlet()
{#define question=((bb)||(!bb))}
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED] that's who!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: In Praise of Dos (RE: Mutt & tmp files)
> "Petro" == Petro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Petro> On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 10:24:05AM +0900, Howland, Curtis Petro> wrote: >> ps: From a personal perspective, I think Linux is about where >> Windows 3.0 was. This is not a troll, just a usability thing. Petro> No, it's about where win3.11 was in a lot of ways. Modulo Petro> the stability &&etc. I am just dying to find out why this is so. I find the unices I work with to be much more usable than any incarnation of Windows. So what exactly do you put into 'usability'? Martin -- Homepage: http://www.cs.auc.dk/~factotum/ GPG public key: http://www.cs.auc.dk/~factotum/gpgkey.txt pgplnM903KhmX.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: In Praise of Dos (RE: Mutt & tmp files)
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 09:30:34AM +0100, Martin Christensen typed out the following... > > "Petro" == Petro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Petro> On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 10:24:05AM +0900, Howland, Curtis > Petro> wrote: > >> ps: From a personal perspective, I think Linux is about where > >> Windows 3.0 was. This is not a troll, just a usability thing. > Petro> No, it's about where win3.11 was in a lot of ways. Modulo > Petro> the stability &&etc. > > I am just dying to find out why this is so. I find the unices I work > with to be much more usable than any incarnation of Windows. So what > exactly do you put into 'usability'? ...and that's all Martin Christensen wrote I'm afraid Seconded! I find stability wise Linux out strips any Windows I have used so far (haven't tried XP yet - and to be honest not planning to). As far as usability goes Linux is way ahead. I find Windows too restricting for my use. Apart from a few applications I just have to use I find its interface slows me down. I'll qualify that by saying that I am definately a techy user. Still this is getting OT for this list - perhaps move onto user?! -- --- Paul Tansom:Talking to penguins can be inTUXicating, whereas talking to windows is only 1 step away from talking to the wall! --- Smoothwall firewall/router project: http://www.smoothwall.org/ Smoothwall project community contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: In Praise of Dos (RE: Mutt & tmp files)
> "Petro" == Petro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Petro> On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 10:24:05AM +0900, Howland, Curtis Petro> wrote: >> ps: From a personal perspective, I think Linux is about where >> Windows 3.0 was. This is not a troll, just a usability thing. Petro> No, it's about where win3.11 was in a lot of ways. Modulo Petro> the stability &&etc. I am just dying to find out why this is so. I find the unices I work with to be much more usable than any incarnation of Windows. So what exactly do you put into 'usability'? Martin -- Homepage: http://www.cs.auc.dk/~factotum/ GPG public key: http://www.cs.auc.dk/~factotum/gpgkey.txt msg04269/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: MTAs
> I don't know much about exim's guts, but is there a point in starting it > as "mail" if it's SUID root? > -rwsr-xr-x1 root root 466308 sie 15 01:13 /usr/sbin/exim There is a "small" point of binding to port 25. Only root can do that. I have not looked at exim's code, but if run as a stand-alone daemon (i.e. not from inetd), I would guess it just opens the port as root and drops the priviledges right away. Someone who knows the code might want to confirm/rebuke this. On the other hand, if exim is run from inetd (as I do), does it still need to be suid root? Since inetd runs root anyway, there should be no need for exim to: the port is already bound when exim starts and exim will not be able to bind to it anyway. Just wondering if I should do some dpkg-statoverrides. -- --- | Juha Jäykkä, [EMAIL PROTECTED]| | home: http://www.utu.fi/~juolja/ | ---
