-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David Wood wrote:
>Now I'm really out on a limb, but, what user is sshd running as before it
>switches? Does logging into sshd without a password, using a key instead,
>merely mean that no switch from this "default sshd user" occurs? If that's
>the ca
Now I'm really out on a limb, but, what user is sshd running as before it
switches? Does logging into sshd without a password, using a key instead,
merely mean that no switch from this "default sshd user" occurs? If that's
the case, can we adjust the "default user" that sshd runs as?
[EMAIL PRO
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Nathan Kidd wrote:
> Derek Robert Price wrote:
>
>>> I didn't carefully read over this whole list of permutations, but at
>>> first glance, perhaps it's just the domain for oberon that's missing?
>>>
>>> e.g.
>>>
>>> net use z: \\empress\oberon /user:
Derek Robert Price wrote:
I didn't carefully read over this whole list of permutations, but at
first glance, perhaps it's just the domain for oberon that's missing?
e.g.
net use z: \\empress\oberon /user:empress\oberon
Yep. That's it, I just also have to login using a password rather than
my
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Derek Robert Price wrote:
> Nathan Kidd wrote:
>
> >It took me some time to figure out the syntax, but I've now tried
> >various permutations of net use. I mostly am causing it to generate a
> >lot of system errors:
> >
> >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~
> >>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Nathan Kidd wrote:
>> It took me some time to figure out the syntax, but I've now tried
>> various permutations of net use. I mostly am causing it to generate a
>> lot of system errors:
>>
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~
>>> $ net use z: '\\empress\oberon' /
Derek Robert Price wrote:
* Put your password into a file only readable by you, and use it with the
Windows "net use" command during your .profile, to connect to the network
share.
It took me some time to figure out the syntax, but I've now tried
various permutations of net use. I mostly am causin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Max Bowsher wrote:
>Derek Robert Price wrote:
>
>>My research so far leads me to believe that the problem is that the
>>Local System Account does not have permission to access the drive.
>
>...
>
it set up for nightly testing (if anyone knows how
Derek Robert Price wrote:
> My research so far leads me to believe that the problem is that the
> Local System Account does not have permission to access the drive.
...
>>> it set up for nightly testing (if anyone knows how to get Cygwin sshd to
>>> allow access to a mounted Samba share via its log
Is the problem that you're not sure how to get the network drive into the
sshd filesystem root? Or that when you try to that it fails?
If it were the latter, it would be reminiscent of a similar problem I had
trying to get apache to serve files from a network drive on Windows XP. We
found that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I settled on a compromise for the nonce. I fixed the latest case
insensitivity bug I knew of in 1.11.x and removed case insensitivity
support from feature entirely. I've also added some tests of behavior
involving heterogeneous combinations of case s
[ On Wednesday, November 5, 2003 at 10:11:45 (-0500), Jim.Hyslop wrote: ]
> Subject: RE: Case insensitivity ad nauseum
Hi Jim! How are you! How are things at Leitch? :-)
> From the time we first learned to read, we have never considered the case of
> a word to be significant in de
Ingolf Steinbach [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Solaris with SUNWspro installed:
> CC is the C++ compiler while cc is the C compiler.
Thank you for supplying an example that supports my point.
Using that convention, it is impossible for you to know which compiler is
which, unless someone te
Rick Genter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> While I'm finding this whole discussion fascinating, it's
> beginning to aggravate me that it is occurring on both
> info-cvs and bug-cvs. Could the discussion be limited to one
> list only, please? Thank you.
I've a better idea - why don't we call
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Rick Genter wrote:
|While I'm finding this whole discussion fascinating, it's beginning to
aggravate me that it is occurring on both info-cvs and bug-cvs. Could
the discussion be limited to one list only, please? Thank you.
I do that occasionally when
>--- Forwarded mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Jim.Hyslop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>WeLl mAdE ArguMent...
>>No, not at all. For example, of the 111 items in my home directory
>>right now, 17 of them use upper-case letters in a meaningful
>>way. Common practice is to name some things on Unix in a mixture
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 12:40 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Case insensitivity ad nauseum
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 09:24:06PM -0800, Jim wrote:
> I suppose someone could have abused the case sensitivity and used capital
> cases of file extensions as backups
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 09:24:06PM -0800, Jim wrote:
> I suppose someone could have abused the case sensitivity and used capital
> cases of file extensions as backups... 'main.c' backed by 'main.C' though
> this seems like a bad habit.
Interesting choice of example :-) Doesn't the latter mean C++
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ingolf Steinbach wrote:
|On Thursday 06 November 2003 06:24, Jim wrote:
|
|>That's not really the point... how many times do you maintain ChangeLog,
|>CHangeLog, changeLog, changelog in the same directory?
|
|
|On Solaris with SUNWspro installed:
|
|%
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Garrigues wrote:
|>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Jones)
|>Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 11:49:29 -0500 (EST)
|>
|>Chris Garrigues writes:
|>
|>>Yes, "Therapist" and "TheRapist" do convey different ideas. However, in
|>
|>an
|>
|>>actual English sente
Chris Garrigues writes:
>
> Yes, "Therapist" and "TheRapist" do convey different ideas. However, in an
> actual English sentence, it's pretty damned clear what "I'M GOING TO SEE MY
> THERAPIST THIS AFTERNOON." means even without mixed case to clue you in.
Yes, case is less important when you h
Jim writes:
>
> Oh great so now tags like 'CheckPoint' 'CHECKpoint' 'checkpoint' are all
> different? how useless is that? it's the IDEA of the word not the technical
> content of the word that should matter
And don't the "words" Therapist and TheRapist convey totally different
ideas?
-Larr
reboot"
Everything changes, what you hear today is gone tomorrow, and yesterday
might as well never have been.
- Original Message -
From: "Steve McIntyre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jim.Hyslop" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[E
Jim.Hyslop writes:
>
> >From the time we first learned to read, we have never considered the case of
> a word to be significant in determining the identity of an object being
> referred to.
That simply is not true, there are times when case is significant. The
words "Polish" and "polish", for ex
>--- Forwarded mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Steve McIntyre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Another point I'd like to make: labels are case-sensitive
>> already. Live with it.
>I think you missed my main point: *why* should the user have to "deal with
>it?" Just because "that's the way it work
Derek Robert Price [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Are you volunteering to maintain this code? I'm getting sick
> of it. :)
Ah, well... gee, look at the time! ;-)
> I don't think the overhead for such a small gain, the worth
> of which is
> completely dependant on personal case-philosophy,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Derek Robert Price wrote:
| Jim.Hyslop wrote:
|
| |It sounds like I'm going to be the sole dissenting voice here, at
least so
| |far. Let me explain my reasoning; it will be rather round-about, but
please
| |bear with me. It will (I hope) make sense in
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 11:35:12AM -0500, Jim.Hyslop wrote:
>Steve McIntyre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Another point I'd like to make: labels are case-sensitive
>> already. Live with it.
>I think you missed my main point: *why* should the user have to "deal with
>it?" Just because "that's
Steve McIntyre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Another point I'd like to make: labels are case-sensitive
> already. Live with it.
I think you missed my main point: *why* should the user have to "deal with
it?" Just because "that's the way it works"? Well then, let's *change* the
way it works, so
FWIW It seems to me that that Steve McIntyre is correct - it's not fair to
expect CVS to resolve a fundamental feature of its underlying OS.
If this is a problem, it should be fixed there, not here.
Historically I think the choice was between a case-insensitive and
case-sensitive file system - t
Donald Sharp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It's not terribly uncommon to have both Makefile and makefile
> in some build trees I've seen( and they have a different meaning
> to make! ) on unix. I wouldn't want cvs to stop surporting
> the ability to track this at all! It's not unreasonable t
Jim.Hyslop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> ...
>> is it generally considered
>> bad practise to have two files with the same name, that differ only by case,
>> in the same directory?
Yes.
>> My understanding is that the common practise on Unix
>> is to use all lower-case names, to avoid potential
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Fabian Cenedese wrote:
|The strange thing here is that cvs is inconsequent. It should report the
|file from the entries as missing and recreate it (though not possible on
|Windows) and further should report an unknown file in the directory.
|But what i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim wrote:
| Yes - if you use a poor editor it will not preserve the case of the
|
|filenames. FAT32, NTFS both preserve the case, even if it doesn't actually
|USE the case... It is entirely feasible to leave CVS case sensitive and
|make a note somew
It's not terribly uncommon to have both Makefile and makefile
in some build trees I've seen( and they have a different meaning
to make! ) on unix. I wouldn't want cvs to stop surporting
the ability to track this at all! It's not unreasonable to have
the same name with different cases, rare yes, b
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 10:11:45AM -0500, Jim.Hyslop wrote:
>
>It sounds like I'm going to be the sole dissenting voice here, at least so
>far. Let me explain my reasoning; it will be rather round-about, but please
>bear with me. It will (I hope) make sense in the end.
>A file name is a label th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim.Hyslop wrote:
|It sounds like I'm going to be the sole dissenting voice here, at least so
|far. Let me explain my reasoning; it will be rather round-about, but please
|bear with me. It will (I hope) make sense in the end.
[. . . snip . . .]
|It wo
Greg A. Woods [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [ On Tuesday, November 4, 2003 at 13:57:25 (-0500), Derek
> Robert Price wrote: ]
> > Subject: Case insensitivity ad nauseum
> >
> > So anyway, why _don't_ we remove the case-insensitivity support?
>
> I can only say it should never ever have been
>> We once had the minor problem that somehow files showed up twice
>> (e.g. doing an update). It turned out that the case of the file itself
>didn't
>> match the entry in the entries file. So cvs once reported the file from
>> the entries file and then again while looking for unknown files. It
>b
>
> We once had the minor problem that somehow files showed up twice
> (e.g. doing an update). It turned out that the case of the file itself
didn't
> match the entry in the entries file. So cvs once reported the file from
> the entries file and then again while looking for unknown files. It
behave
>I was investigating case sensitivity, thinking that it was somehow
>necessary for the support of Windows clients, when it occurred to me
>that the _only_ value-added feature this provides is that Windows users
>don't need to specify the case of files and paths correctly in remote
>commands.
We o
[ On Tuesday, November 4, 2003 at 13:57:25 (-0500), Derek Robert Price wrote: ]
> Subject: Case insensitivity ad nauseum
>
> So anyway, why _don't_ we remove the case-insensitivity support?
I can only say it should never ever have been put in in the first
place.
--
On Tue, 2003-11-04 at 13:57, Derek Robert Price wrote:
> So anyway, why _don't_ we remove the case-insensitivity support? It
> seems to me that it has been causing an awful lot of headaches without a
> very good reason for supporting it. So what if Windows users have to
> specify project case cor
43 matches
Mail list logo
