I don't understand your aversion to PAM and won't try to guess. Before
you uninstall PAM maybe read up on it's purpose. The following two URLs
has a very good information on PAM.
http://temp.redhat.com/linux-info/pam/index.html
http://temp.redhat.com/linux-info/pam/why_not_pam.html
Well, what will you substitute?
You can run without authentication those things capable of running without
authentication by
starting
LILO Boot: linux 1
You might want to drag stuff over to runlevel 1 with the Sys V editor and
see what will work.
Windows 9x is set up to run with bolt-on
How to make it clear? PAM has been around long enough that many things
depend on it. If you don't have it, every program will have the default
level of security the vendor gave it and it will be pretty immutable.
So, if you don't like it, you have to deal with the mass of software that
expects
Justin Fisher wrote:
Absolutely Not. There are substitutes for PAM. How has unix evolved
these 30 some years w/o it? What about shadow and md5? or just shadow
and des? or just plain des for that matter. I dont care if i dont have a
I snipped the paragraphs of ranting and raving, since
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, Justin Fisher wrote:
Absolutely Not. There are substitutes for PAM. How has unix evolved
these 30 some years w/o it? What about shadow and md5? or just shadow
and des? or just plain des for that matter. I dont care if i dont have a
/etc/shadow file. However, i do
PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Justin Fisher
Sent: Monday, August 23, 1999 6:05 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [newbie] Uninstalling PAM
Absolutely Not. There are substitutes for PAM. How has unix evolved
these 30 some years w/o it? What about shadow and md5? or just shadow
a nonworking program is
irrelevant
(Steve Heller, 'Efficient C/C++ Programming')
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Justin Fisher
Sent: Monday, August 23, 1999 6:05 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [newb
