How exactly is that any better? Just because the executable bit is set on
a file, it doesn't mean that executing it is actually going to work, and now
the fallback to /sbin/sh is broken too.
First, whoever implements the [ -x /bin/tcsh ] *knows*, in advance, that that
is where the shell
First, whoever implements the [ -x /bin/tcsh ] *knows*, in advance,
that that is where the shell is, and that it is executable. -x is just
a sanity test, in order to be able to adapt to circumstances as much
as possible.
In those cases that the dynamic linker failed (corrupted or no libraries)
First, whoever implements the [ -x /bin/tcsh ] *knows*, in advance, that
that is where the shell is, and that it is executable. -x is just a
sanity test, in order to be able to adapt to circumstances as much as
possible. In those cases that the dynamic linker failed (corrupted or no
a b wrote:
In those cases that the dynamic linker failed (corrupted or no
libraries)
on Solaris 9, the profile entry would possibly cause a successful exec
but tcsh would then immediately die. Root would then be kicked out
again.
You can use something like:
if [ -x /bin/tcsh ]
Well, sort of. Once you start JDS you're greeted by a popup window that
asks you to add a user to the system. I did just that: name, full name and
privileges. Without asking I was given a bash shell ...
Most every day users prefer bash.
That's a fact.
No, that's opinion.
Most everyday
Well, sort of. Once you start JDS you're greeted by a
popup window that asks you to add a user to the
system. I did just that: name, full name and
privileges. Without asking I was given a bash shell
...
WTF?
Is this the newest Nevada? I have snv_61 and I don't remember seeing anything
like
On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 06:08:34AM -0700, UNIX admin wrote:
How can I make BASH the root's default shell?
Please, pretty please with sugar on top, don't modify the root's SHELL. Even
though nothing *should* break, it could.
Instead, modify /.profile:
Shell=/bin/tcsh
Options=-l
if
On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 01:28 -0700, UNIX admin wrote:
Well, sort of. Once you start JDS you're greeted by a
popup window that asks you to add a user to the
system. I did just that: name, full name and
privileges. Without asking I was given a bash shell
...
WTF?
Is this the newest
UNIX admin wrote:
Well, sort of. Once you start JDS you're greeted by a
popup window that asks you to add a user to the
system. I did just that: name, full name and
privileges. Without asking I was given a bash shell
...
WTF?
Is this the newest Nevada? I have snv_61 and I don't remember seeing
Why would you want to use bash? Because you know it
from Linux? I'd take the most advanced shell - zsh.
Not a bad choice. zsh is very powerful, and certainly as advanced or better
than tcsh.
PS: I really don't understand why the user's shell in
OpenSolaris is bash. What was the motivation
Ian Murdock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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),
does the root shell issue not become moot? I.e., the
Ian Murdock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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),
does the root shell issue not become moot?
Ian Murdock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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),
does the root shell issue not become moot?
Shruk. Solaris is secure by default.
The opposite had been true until a few months ago.
And I mean the previously intended behavior (all ports open / services
running), I'm not talking about the telnet backdoor, such a thing can always
happen.
No, but Solaris systems just had not been
Ian Murdock wrote:
On 5/26/07, Gerard Nualla [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do admit that Solaris is a state of the art UNIX system, that is
why I am making myself very comfortable.. For now, I am getting used
to using SH as the root shell, :D Well, it really takes a lot of
practice.. :D However,
Why would you want to use bash? Because you know
it
from Linux? I'd take the most advanced shell -
zsh.
Not a bad choice. zsh is very powerful, and certainly
as advanced or better than tcsh.
PS: I really don't understand why the user's shell
in
OpenSolaris is bash. What was the
Well, sort of. Once you start JDS you're greeted by a popup window that
asks you to add a user to the system. I did just that: name, full name and
privileges. Without asking I was given a bash shell ...
Most every day users prefer bash.
That's a fact.
If you feel you are too professional
On 27/05/07, Nicolas Linkert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why would you want to use bash? Because you know it from Linux? I'd take the
most advanced shell - zsh.
PS: I really don't understand why the user's shell in OpenSolaris is bash. What
was the motivation behind that?
It has good defaults,
On 5/26/07, Gerard Nualla [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do admit that Solaris is a state of the art UNIX system, that is why I am
making myself very comfortable.. For now, I am getting used to using SH as the
root shell, :D Well, it really takes a lot of practice.. :D However, I do
understand
On 27/05/07, Ian Murdock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/26/07, Gerard Nualla [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do admit that Solaris is a state of the art UNIX system, that is why I am
making myself very comfortable.. For now, I am getting used to using SH as the
root shell, :D Well, it really takes
On 5/27/07, Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 27/05/07, Ian Murdock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/26/07, Gerard Nualla [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do admit that Solaris is a state of the art UNIX system, that is why I am
making myself very comfortable.. For now, I am getting used to
Why would you want to use bash? Because you know it from Linux? I'd take the
most advanced shell - zsh.
PS: I really don't understand why the user's shell in OpenSolaris is bash. What
was the motivation behind that?
This message posted from opensolaris.org
I do admit that Solaris is a state of the art UNIX system, that is why I am
making myself very comfortable.. For now, I am getting used to using SH as the
root shell, :D Well, it really takes a lot of practice.. :D However, I do
understand the risks of changing the root's default shell... :D
Wow,
As you say, just looking at the Anon column there is 4Kb difference.
Something to drive the page scanner wild :)
I would agree that ksh is a nice shell if it is actually if it is the 93
vintage. The older version though is just a little bit inefficient.
Doug
[EMAIL PROTECTED] time
Rich Teer wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2007, Gerard Nualla wrote:
How can I make BASH the root's default shell?
If you need to ask, you shouldn't be doing it!
I disagree. It maybe bee that Gerard knows how to do
this on lots of
other unix systems but just didn't know what the
--- Gerard Nualla [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How can I make BASH the root's default shell?
you are new to unix are you?
Actually, as of Solaris 10 or later, it should be harmless, if in
excruciatingly bad taste, not to mention dumb (shouldn't be
spending enough time as root for
Nice. All this for a guy who apparently does not even
know how to admin a unix system (developer?).
I can see application developers flying over in
droves.
--- Richard L. Hamilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Gerard Nualla [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How can I make BASH the root's
And if you want more Linux-feel, install Linux on
BrandZ ;-)
Regards... Sean.
Where can I find help in doing that? Thanks.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
I would like to use BASH because it is easier to navigate (wherein you could
just press the TAB key to autocomplete stuff).. I am using my machine as a
development workstation, so I would like to be very comfortable with it... :D
This message posted from opensolaris.org
All;
Solaris used to have two separate instances of executable binaries (e.g.
ifconfig, sh etc). One instance in /usr/sbin and another separate
instance in /sbin
The /sbin executables were statically linked and were not dependent on
libraries found in /usr/lib or /lib
sh or Bourne shell
Solaris used to have two separate instances of executable binaries (e.g.
ifconfig, sh etc). One instance in /usr/sbin and another separate
instance in /sbin
Correct.
The /sbin executables were statically linked and were not dependent on
libraries found in /usr/lib or /lib
Not completely
On 5/23/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps Casper Dik could state the rationale behind this change of
policy. I am very curious indeed.
What change of policy?
The reason we did away with static linking was because of the
large amount of issues we had from having a thread
How can I make BASH the root's default shell?
Please, pretty please with sugar on top, don't modify the root's SHELL. Even
though nothing *should* break, it could.
Instead, modify /.profile:
Shell=/bin/tcsh
Options=-l
if [ -x $Shell ]
then
exec $Shell $Options
fi
And read the man page on
Yeah, and the sky might fall on our heads, right? Everyone seems agreed
that nothing should break, so if and when the unexpected happens, let's
just fix it. But in the meantime please stop spreading FUD.
And, please, please, pretty please with copious amounts of corn syrup
poured over
Steven Sim wrote:
BASH also occupies more memory. But to each his or her own. I have
nothing against people using BASH. I just don't recommend it as a root
shell.
Steve where do you get your figure here? I am curious in your
benchmarks. Why does bash use more memory than sh?
Doug
Doug Scott wrote:
Steven Sim wrote:
BASH also occupies more memory. But to each his or her own. I have
nothing against people using BASH. I just don't recommend it as a
root shell.
Steve where do you get your figure here? I am curious in your
benchmarks. Why does bash use more memory than
Doug;
Listen, I do not wish to start a religious debate. As I mentioned
earlier, to each his or her own. There's nothing wrong with BASH. I
just don't like it just like I don't like cranberries.
But I've nothing against people who like cranberries!
As for BASH memory footprint, here's the
Yup, new to Unix.. I started with linux, that's why I'm soo used to BASH.. Im
getting used to the bourne shell too... :D
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
I see... Let me try that TCSH too.. Gets more interesting... :D
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Yup, new to Unix.. I started with linux, that's why
I'm soo used to BASH.. Im getting used to the bourne
shell too... :D
Thought so. usermod is a common command on Linux and
Solaris and coupled with the fact that you have
problems getting your linux to boot shows that you
have not had much
Gerard Nualla wrote:
I see... Let me try that TCSH too.. Gets more interesting... :D
Wanting to change root's shell implies that you are logging
into Solaris as root instead of using su or RBAC. In general,
on Solaris, logging in as root is seen as undesirable simply
because it can lead to
John Plocher wrote:
[...]
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
42 matches
Mail list logo
