> Aargh. Just what's so hard about typing `exec tcsh',
> or even just
> tcsh' if you can't be arsed with all that extra
> typing, at the # prompt
> if you need it ? Oh look:
There's nothing "hard" in it, but if I have a computer, then I want that
computer to do as much work as possible, whil
On Mon, 28 May 2007 23:40:08 +0200, "Martin Bochnig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
>
> > > "Ian Murdock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > If OpenSolaris/Indiana moves to an Ubuntu/MacOS X
> > > style "always log in
> >
> > Is this an announcement? And what is this OpenSolaris/Indiana? A nam
UNIX admin wrote:
So it is true then? There is no choice of a shell when this happens, and bash
is automatically chosen for the user?
No - there is a pop-up menu, bash is just the default selection in
the menu - you can see the tool for yourself by choosing
Administration > Users & Groups in t
> Sounds like part of the revamped install process in
> SXDE, which is
> definitely subject to further improvement (check out
> the Caiman project
> pages).
Thanks. I'm already familiar with the Caiman project. BTW, I studied the Caiman
architecture draft when it first came out, and it is extreme
> It went in for the first SXDE release (snv_55) - if
> you login to JDS
> as root for the first time, it should pop up the
> GNOME user manager
> to give you a hint that creating a non-root account
> would be a good
> idea.
AH-HA!!!
THAT is why I never hit it -- I don't log into an X environment
> I do like ksh93 though with Roland's changes, though
> it's not quite what I want.
If you'd elaborate on that, I'd appreciate it (haven't kept close watch on
what's going on in that arena).
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-
> Most every day users prefer bash.
> That's a fact.
That's because they don't know of anything else. And they don't know of
anything else because most are "refugees" from Windows, where it is not usual
to sit down and read the documentation. That and the fact that Linux manual
pages suck dead
> Most every day users prefer bash.
> That's a fact.
Problem is, 99.9% (at least) of every day users aren't worth their keep in
oxygen.
Is there a correlation between non-freeloader (actual or probable
contributor or paying customer) and shell of preference? I doubt it.
In fact, I suspect prefe
> > "Ian Murdock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > If OpenSolaris/Indiana moves to an Ubuntu/MacOS X
> > style "always log in
>
> Is this an announcement? And what is this OpenSolaris/Indiana? A name
> change? I thought Indiana was some kind of project ... confused
>
> > > as a normal user,
> "Ian Murdock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If OpenSolaris/Indiana moves to an Ubuntu/MacOS X
> style "always log in
Is this an announcement? And what is this OpenSolaris/Indiana? A name change? I
thought Indiana was some kind of project ... confused
> > as a normal user, prompt for the ro
> with rbac available why bother?
RBAC is completely and totally useless becuase it is Sun non-standard
technology. If you have more than just Solaris, you can't use RBAC across all
your platforms.
On top of that, RBAC is overcomplicated to the extreme, which makes it
impractical.
In my opini
> If OpenSolaris/Indiana moves to an Ubuntu/MacOS X
> style "always log in
> as a normal user, prompt for the root password when a
> command needs
> root" (implemented using sudo on Ubuntu, not sure
> about MacOS X),
OS X makes very heavy use of sudo, the heaviest I've seen yet.
> does the root s
> You are wrong; I am *very* sure you are wrong about that.> > I know that
> because:> - I inspected the code when people claimed it would fail> - I ran
> with a very incompatible root shell (tcsh) and it worked.
I did the exact same thing, with root's shell set to tcsh.
When the system rebooted
> >Another side-effect on earlier Solaris revisions is that quite a number of
> >startup scripts assumed> they were running in /sbin/sh, so if one changed
> >the root's shell, there would be "breakage" all o> ver the place, and the
> >system wouldn't boot properly.> > > I believe that his is no
We can argue this until we are blue in the face but unless *a particular*
script did "su root", then there would be no way for this to fail.
I checked the source code, all scripts were always run with:
/sbin/sh
This cannot fail. It has never failed.
Casper
_
> Works great on a desktop; not so good on a server
> whose
> console is being accessed remotely (unless a
> suitable CD/DVD
> remains in the drive at all times). Actually, with
> planning ahead
> (how often does _that_ actually happen?),
> I'd want _4_ bootable copies of the root filesystem:
> 2
>> But that would only happen when su'ed or logged in as root; not dur=
>ing> ordinary system startup.
>The scripts busted during boot. I'm absolutely positive about this. A=
>n inspection revealed exactly the above state of affairs.
You are wrong; I am *very* sure you are wrong about that.
I
>Another side-effect on earlier Solaris revisions is that quite a number of
>startup scripts assumed
they were running in /sbin/sh, so if one changed the root's shell, there would
be "breakage" all o
ver the place, and the system wouldn't boot properly.
I believe that his is no more than an
> In that case just boot off a Solaris install DVD
> (or any of
> the livecds today) mount your harddisk and fix
> things.
> Regards,
> Moinak.
Back then, we didn't have the luxury of a live CD. You booted the Solaris
install CD in single user mode (which took a while, so you grabbed something
> It used to be that root's shell had to be /bin/sh so
> that,
> if your /usr partition got corrupted and you had to
> boot
> without it being mounted, you could still log in
> single
> user and fix things (/usr/bin/bash wouldn't be there
> in
> that case, and root logins would fail with a "no
> sh
Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
In that case just boot off a Solaris install DVD
(or any of
the livecds today) mount your harddisk and fix
things.
Works great on a desktop; not so good on a server whose
console is being accessed remotely (unless a suitable CD/DVD
remains in the drive at all t
> > In that case just boot off a Solaris install DVD
> > (or any of
> > the livecds today) mount your harddisk and fix
> > things.
>
> Works great on a desktop; not so good on a server whose
> console is being accessed remotely (unless a suitable CD/DVD
> remains in the drive at all times). Ac
> In that case just boot off a Solaris install DVD
> (or any of
> the livecds today) mount your harddisk and fix
> things.
Works great on a desktop; not so good on a server whose
console is being accessed remotely (unless a suitable CD/DVD
remains in the drive at all times). Actually, with plan
> Nice. All this for a guy who apparently does not even
> know how to admin a unix system (developer?).
It's not unheard of for developers to self-admin their own workstations and
sometimes
non-production development servers. As long as they're only shooting themselves
in the foot, sometimes som
> I'm sorry, but I'm from the old school "Live Free Or
> Die" UNIX brigade,
> and if I want to use KSH and VI then that's my
> preference and choice, right?
The difference between you and the original poster in that case would be that
you know what to do.
This message posted from opensolaris
25 matches
Mail list logo
