David Lloyd wrote:
> But why would this stop Indiana from being released, presuming Indiana
> some form of Sun blessed products? Given that the current SXCE contains
> this proprietary code and it can be obtained for free, so could Indiana
> contain this proprietary code and be obtained for f
> It's promising to see that Mac OS X, a strong BSD
> UNIX, is looking
> more and more like Solaris with every new release. Go
> play with
> Leopard if you get a chance.
>
> -john
>
Yes, Mac OS is probably trying to catch up with Solaris. But do you think
Solaris will be allowed to stand s
On Dec 4, 2007 3:36 PM, David Lloyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Brian,
>
> > I think that you need to remember that SXCE serves more than one
> > purpose. One purpose is to serve as the base binary distribution
> > system on which OpenSolaris development is based.
>
> In another thread, though,
Brian,
> I think that you need to remember that SXCE serves more than one
> purpose. One purpose is to serve as the base binary distribution
> system on which OpenSolaris development is based.
In another thread, though, it appears that Indiana is meant to replace
SXCE...
> This is required
> b
I guess you don't live in Europe where it is €129.
UNIX admin wrote:
>> $180? Where are you buying Leopard?
>
> In a country where a liter of motor oil and a kilogram of meat cost almost
> $18 USD (meat up to $60). Tja, that's life!
>
>
> This message posted from opensolaris.org
> __
> $180? Where are you buying Leopard?
In a country where a liter of motor oil and a kilogram of meat cost almost $18
USD (meat up to $60). Tja, that's life!
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-di
On Dec 4, 2007, at 2:04 AM, UNIX admin wrote:
>>
> I'm still on the fence about whether I want to shell out 180 bucks
> for an OS with a pretty dock upgrade and icomplete ZFS support.
> Mmmm, I think I'll wait before I give my money to Apple Computer.
> Since they are asking serious dough (w
> Maintain a single local user account that is assigned
> the root role.
> Give that user a ridiculously long password, kept in
> escrow by your IS
> Security department. Now you have a guaranteed path
> in via the console
> when everything else goes to pot.
Careful: in setups which use a diskless
Shawn Walker wrote:
>> There was some confusion internally, but I believe that it has been
>> resolved. SXCE is not going away any time soon. It serves several
>> functions, one of which is as a beta test version of the next
>> Solaris release. As long as the next marketing release of Solaris
>>
> It's promising to see that Mac OS X, a strong BSD
> UNIX, is looking
> more and more like Solaris with every new release. Go
> play with
> Leopard if you get a chance.
I was actually referring more along the lines of pure BSDs, like Free and
OpenBSD.
I have Tiger at home. I had hoped that
> Second - backwards compatibility is something we take
> seriously but it
> isn't an absolute. Not even in the Solaris world.
Apparently not.
> That's really strange because on my laptop which is
> running the Indiana
> prototype released on October 31st, I see exactly
>
> SunOS myhostna
> On the topic of the default shell, yep you can make
> it a question during
> install. I don't understand why people hate bash, I
> like it as a user.
> But for scripting I still use /bin/sh all the time.
> So my preference
> would be to go for /bin/sh as the default shell for
> root and then
> The unthinkable has happened: SunOS backwards compatibility has been broken.
First of all, you're talking about a prototype and nothing more. Such
an artifact is similar to the BFU archives available from many projects
on opensolaris.org and the ISO represents the (initial) output of a
project.
root the user is different from the / path component.
And it's pretty useful! I'm on an Ultra 40 m2. When you've got an xdm
running, you can't get to the text console. If you want to log in via root,
you have to log in graphically. It's too easy to forget to set your session to
failsafe.
I
On Dec 3, 2007 6:36 PM, UNIX admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Yes, and it's dogma. There are plenty of situations
> > where root login is the best
> > tool for the job.
>
> On your desktop, yes. And even then, not in a GUI.
There you go again.
I'm trying to point out gently that you dont' nece
On Dec 3, 2007 2:12 PM, Brian Utterback <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Shawn Walker wrote:
> > On Dec 2, 2007 12:20 PM, Patrick Ale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Is Sun even sure it's self what will do what and what will replace what? I
> >> just get an email from somebody of this list saying
Shawn Walker wrote:
> On Dec 2, 2007 12:20 PM, Patrick Ale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Is Sun even sure it's self what will do what and what will replace what? I
>> just get an email from somebody of this list saying Indiana will replace
>> SXCE and will be the basis for Solaris 11. Which is f
On Dec 3, 2007, at 10:21 AM, UNIX admin wrote:
>> ...
>
> I don't. I've lived to see so many really, really good technologies
> die.
> It's about time that one which is trash take the plunge.
>
> This GNU trash propagates, while BSDs, which are much more
> deserving, suffer. So much for how f
On Dec 3, 2007, at 10:09 AM, UNIX admin wrote:
>> I'm no religious zealot, but I don't get that. You
>> flame bash for not
>> being bourne shell compatible enough, but then go and
>> suggest tcsh?
>
> So let me explain: for system and package scripts, /sbin/sh. For
> interactive use, either tcs
> I'm still curious what about the csh interface you
> prefer for
> interactive use?
> And I'm not saying you shouldn't prefer it etiher,
> I'm just wondering
> what I'm missing?
exec tcsh -l
set prompt="[EMAIL PROTECTED]> " notify correct=cmd autolist symlinks=chase
This message posted from
> Yes, and it's dogma. There are plenty of situations
> where root login is the best
> tool for the job.
On your desktop, yes. And even then, not in a GUI.
> That seems a weak argument against it.
> In homogenous environments users can just 'alias
> sudo=pfexec'.
> RBAC is the sysadmins job pro
UNIX admin wrote:
>> I'm no religious zealot, but I don't get that. You
>> flame bash for not
>> being bourne shell compatible enough, but then go and
>> suggest tcsh?
>>
>
> So let me explain: for system and package scripts, /sbin/sh. For interactive
> use, either tcsh or zsh.
>
> Still con
> UNIX admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> "If this is the future that awaits us, I shudder at
> it. If I wanted to run a *UNIX-like* operating
> system,
> I'd go ahead and run that GNU/Linux garbage, not
> SunOS!"
> --->
> Well, that 'garbage' is running on the TOP FIVE
> supercomputers
> I'm no religious zealot, but I don't get that. You
> flame bash for not
> being bourne shell compatible enough, but then go and
> suggest tcsh?
So let me explain: for system and package scripts, /sbin/sh. For interactive
use, either tcsh or zsh.
Still confused? A true sysadmin will have tried
UNIX admin wrote:
>> Funny, one of the first things I always do after
>> installing an instance of SXCE is to edit the passwd
>> file, change the home root directory to /root and the
>> default shell to /bin/bash. I know think I am not
>> alone.
>>
>
> That's most likely because you haven't t
UNIX admin wrote:
>> This is debatable ... Can you provide pros and cons
>> for this from your
>> point of view?
>>
>
> For example, I have a package that delivers /.cshrc, /.login and /.logout.
If you prefer /bin/sh for root's shell, then why on earth are you
installing CSH login files of a
UNIX admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
"If this is the future that awaits us, I shudder at
it. If I wanted to run a *UNIX-like* operating system,
I'd go ahead and run that GNU/Linux garbage, not
SunOS!"
--->
Well, that 'garbage' is running on the TOP FIVE
supercomputers in the world (side
On Dec 3, 2007 1:45 PM, UNIX admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You should never be logged in as root directly, unless you are on the
> console, in text mode.
>
> That is sysadmin 101.
Yes, and it's dogma. There are plenty of situations where root login is the best
tool for the job.
> 2. RBAC i
On Dec 3, 2007 4:11 PM, UNIX admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Sorry, but most shops wouldn't even know where to begin with ACLs, not to
> mention most shops don't even know they exist in UNIX. I happen to know
> about them and how to use them, but I'm a rare and dying breed these days.
This
On 12/3/07, Milan Jurik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > I strongly disagree, for two reasons:
> >
> > 1. if the system engineering has done their job correctly, no
> interactive logging in of any kind, by either the root or odrinary users
> should take place on the system - ever
> >
> > 2.
> And I don't like sudo. Too strange thing.
>
> And in that case we should forget about ZFS (because
> it is administred
> in different way), dtrace (strange, it is not on AIX
> or HP-UX), FMA,
> what else? Time to forget ACLs, they are not managed
> in the same way
> around all OSes...
Sorry, bu
Hi,
> > Considering Solaris' rbac capabilities as well, I
> > look for root to be
> > extinct in the not too distant future.
> >
> > Roles / Profiles are a far better way to accomplish
> > this.
>
> I strongly disagree, for two reasons:
>
> 1. if the system engineering has done their job corre
Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
> The one problem I have with either /root or root as a role is what there
> is in the way of recovery options (on SPARC too eventually!) under very
> degraded conditions in the absence of being able to log in to the console
> directly as root. There needs to be somethin
On 03/12/2007, Richard L. Hamilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The one problem I have with either /root or root as a role is what there
> is in the way of recovery options (on SPARC too eventually!) under very
> degraded conditions in the absence of being able to log in to the console
> directly a
> I always change any Solaris systems I setup to use
> /root for root's
> home for this very reason.
>
> I like being confident that any files created when
> logged in as root
> will go to a relatively "secure place."
You should never be logged in as root directly, unless you are on the console,
UNIX admin writes:
> > Given all the other incompatibilities you note (and
> > you missed a few
> > known incompatibilities, like libX11 & libXext in the
> > Preview breaking
> > binary compatibility with Solaris X apps), isn't it a
> > good thing that
> > uname warns you this isn't SunOS, so you k
> Hi
>
> On Dec 2, 2007 12:50 PM, UNIX admin
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The unthinkable has happened: SunOS backwards
> compatibility has been broken.
> >
> > Broken:
> >
> > `uname -a` returns some funky "opensolaris bla bla
> bla" string instead of the standard
> > SunOS hostname 5.11 snv_
> Oh yeah: and I can no longer log in as root. On the
> CONSOLE. Because if I create an account for myself
> during the install, root will be turned into a
> "role".
>
> If that wasn't bad enough, it's not a sudo role, that
> I could use and transfer to HP-UX or IRIX, or AIX, or
> Mac OS X, oh no.
> Given all the other incompatibilities you note (and
> you missed a few
> known incompatibilities, like libX11 & libXext in the
> Preview breaking
> binary compatibility with Solaris X apps), isn't it a
> good thing that
> uname warns you this isn't SunOS, so you know it's
> not compatible and
> y
> You are aware that Indiana hasn't gone through ARC
> yet and is an early
> prototype; right?
No. As I wrote before, I purposely stayed out of the whole debacle. I described
my experiences, with what I was able to pinpoint as broken in the first 15
minutes of installing "Indiana" without any pr
> Funny, one of the first things I always do after
> installing an instance of SXCE is to edit the passwd
> file, change the home root directory to /root and the
> default shell to /bin/bash. I know think I am not
> alone.
That's most likely because you haven't typed in `man tcsh` yet. Have you r
UNIX admin wrote:
> The unthinkable has happened: SunOS backwards compatibility has been broken.
>
> Broken:
>
> `uname -a` returns some funky "opensolaris bla bla bla" string instead of the
> standard
> SunOS hostname 5.11 snv_## i86pc i386 i86pc.
Given all the other incompatibilities you note
Personally I really like the /root thing. But, big but, that's only
because I hate all those "/.ghatever" :) files in my root filesystem.
And that just because the root user used a browser or some other GUI
program.
And that brings me to my main point, why would 'root' ever, ever use a
browse
> But I will not stick with a bastardized Solaris, I
> can damn well guarantee that.
As my fellow Hawaiian Tim Scanlon suggested in a separate thread, when we get
frustrated with Solaris Express (I don't think Indiana is even ready for
discussion yet--outside the Indiana Forum) we can always see
On Dec 2, 2007 5:22 PM, Josh Lange <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Dec 2, 2007 7:40 AM, UNIX admin < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > > This is debatable ... Can you provide pros and cons
> > > > for this from your
> > > > point of view?
> > >
> > > For example, I
>
> On Dec 2, 2007 7:40 AM, UNIX admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > This is debatable ... Can you provide pros and cons
> > > for this from your
> > > point of view?
> >
> > For example, I have a package that delivers /.cshrc, /.login and
> > /.logout. Determining root's home directory via pu
On Dec 2, 2007 12:20 PM, Patrick Ale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 2, 2007 7:03 PM, Patrick Ale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Is Sun even sure it's self what will do what and what will replace what? I
> just get an email from somebody of this list saying Indiana will replace
> SXCE
On Dec 2, 2007 5:50 AM, UNIX admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The unthinkable has happened: SunOS backwards compatibility has been broken.
You are aware that Indiana hasn't gone through ARC yet and is an early
prototype; right?
> Broken:
> root's home directory is in /root; this is a SEVERE ERR
> "Broken, Broken, Broken, Broken, . . . ."
>
> Now I know why I am so compellingly addicted to
> Solaris. Kudos Sun's management for their
> willingness to take such bold actions, undoubtedly
> accompanied by tons of well-oxidized midnight oil,
> that will finally take Solaris to world dominance
> Is Sun even
> sure it's self what will do what and what will
> replace what?
I am definitely the least qualified person to comment on what Sun should or
should not have done. But I think if there is any doubt, there is always the
good 'ol faithful "Solaris 10" (which is also surprisingly mode
I too find /root an extremely poor choice; which part of "root" do
these people not understand?
Of course, if you then say "but all the window and browser garbage in /?"
I can only say that I think that /.mozilla should be linked to /dev/*mem
in order to ensure maximum damage when you start a
On Dec 2, 2007 7:03 PM, Patrick Ale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is Sun even sure it's self what will do what and what will replace what? I
just get an email from somebody of this list saying Indiana will replace
SXCE and will be the basis for Solaris 11. Which is ff-ing funny since
people who wor
On Dec 2, 2007 6:30 PM, W. Wayne Liauh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Broken, Broken, Broken, Broken, . . . ."
>
> Now I know why I am so compellingly addicted to Solaris. Kudos Sun's
> management for their willingness to take such bold actions, undoubtedly
> accompanied by tons of well-oxidized m
"Broken, Broken, Broken, Broken, . . . ."
Now I know why I am so compellingly addicted to Solaris. Kudos Sun's
management for their willingness to take such bold actions, undoubtedly
accompanied by tons of well-oxidized midnight oil, that will finally take
Solaris to world dominance, or even w
> Understandable change for a non Sun OS. But I tend to
> agree that this will make things bad for current
> scripts.
OK, well, if that's the case, then there needs to be no further discussion.
I'll go back to my Solaris 10 and wait for Solaris 11 to come out. Buh-bye
OpenSolaris.
If that's the
> This is debatable ... Can you provide pros and cons
> for this from your
> point of view?
For example, I have a package that delivers /.cshrc, /.login and /.logout.
Determining root's home directory via public interfaces is unreliable, namely
because such public interfaces aren't well defined.
> The unthinkable has happened: SunOS backwards
> compatibility has been broken.
>
> Broken:
>
> `uname -a` returns some funky "opensolaris bla bla
> bla" string instead of the standard
> SunOS hostname 5.11 snv_## i86pc i386 i86pc.
Understandable change for a non Sun OS. But I tend to agree tha
On Dec 2, 2007 1:00 PM, UNIX admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh yeah: and I can no longer log in as root. On the CONSOLE. Because if I
> create an account for myself during the install, root will be turned into a
> "role".
>
> If that wasn't bad enough, it's not a sudo role, that I could use a
Hi
On Dec 2, 2007 12:50 PM, UNIX admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The unthinkable has happened: SunOS backwards compatibility has been broken.
>
> Broken:
>
> `uname -a` returns some funky "opensolaris bla bla bla" string instead of the
> standard
> SunOS hostname 5.11 snv_## i86pc i386 i86pc.
Oh yeah: and I can no longer log in as root. On the CONSOLE. Because if I
create an account for myself during the install, root will be turned into a
"role".
If that wasn't bad enough, it's not a sudo role, that I could use and transfer
to HP-UX or IRIX, or AIX, oh no.
We have to be stubborn an
The unthinkable has happened: SunOS backwards compatibility has been broken.
Broken:
`uname -a` returns some funky "opensolaris bla bla bla" string instead of the
standard
SunOS hostname 5.11 snv_## i86pc i386 i86pc.
Broken:
root's home directory is in /root; this is a SEVERE ERROR. We're not o
61 matches
Mail list logo
