On 24/05/07, Alexey Eremenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi all !
Basic utilities such as "ifconfig" do not work under user account, but
only under root.
ifconfig has been deprecated for years and only still included so that
scripts don't break afaik.
Use "ip" which is in the normal users' pat
Benji Weber wrote:
On 24/05/07, Alexey Eremenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi all !
Basic utilities such as "ifconfig" do not work under user account, but
only under root.
ifconfig has been deprecated for years and only still included so that
scripts don't break afaik.
Use "ip" which is in t
>
> This doesn't preclude adding sbin to users' path for other reasons though.
/sbin/ifconfig works most of the time, when IP never works without
obscure options...
this argument is beyond silly... "ip a" show the same infos as "ifconfig".
Time for you to start reading some documentation.
Add
On Thu, 2007-05-24 at 16:05 +0100, Alexey Eremenko wrote:
> Hi all !
>
> Basic utilities such as "ifconfig" do not work under user account, but
> only under root.
>
> This problem doesn't happens in other distros. This is because normal
> user has no /sbin on it's $PATH.
>
> I think we should ad
Jonathan Arsenault wrote:
On Thu, 2007-05-24 at 16:05 +0100, Alexey Eremenko wrote:
Hi all !
Basic utilities such as "ifconfig" do not work under user account, but
only under root.
This problem doesn't happens in other distros. This is because normal
user has no /sbin on it's $PATH.
I think w
Alexey Eremenko wrote:
Hi all !
Basic utilities such as "ifconfig" do not work under user account, but
only under root.
This problem doesn't happens in other distros. This is because normal
user has no /sbin on it's $PATH.
I think we should add
export PATH=/sbin;$PATH
To skeleton user account
On 5/26/07, Sid Boyce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Alexey Eremenko wrote:
> Hi all !
>
> Basic utilities such as "ifconfig" do not work under user account, but
> only under root.
>
> This problem doesn't happens in other distros. This is because normal
> user has no /sbin on it's $PATH.
>
> I think
On Friday 25 May 2007 15:45, Alexey Eremenko wrote:
> ...
>
> LOL !
> Running ifconfig as root is totally different than running it with
> /sbin/ifconfig as normal user.
How do you figure?
When I run /sbin/ifconfig from my own account and then ifconfig from
root (though I have /sbin in my every
On 5/26/07, Randall R Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Friday 25 May 2007 15:45, Alexey Eremenko wrote:
> ...
>
> LOL !
> Running ifconfig as root is totally different than running it with
> /sbin/ifconfig as normal user.
How do you figure?
When I run /sbin/ifconfig from my own account and
On Friday 25 May 2007 16:06, Alexey Eremenko wrote:
> On 5/26/07, Randall R Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
> >
> > I'd go for "hostname -i" to simply see my local host's IP address.
> > It's much easier than finding the proper IP address in the output
> > of ifconfig (it currently produces
Anyways, I'm not satisfied. I want to have access to my ifconfig from
normal user.
--
-Alexey Eremenko "Technologov"
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
On Sat, 26 May 2007, Alexey Eremenko wrote:
> Anyways, I'm not satisfied. I want to have access to my ifconfig from
> normal user.
Don't cry you do not have access.
We all know you are a fox, not a child.
Viele Grüße
Eberhard Mönkeberg ([EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED])
On Friday 25 May 2007 16:35, Alexey Eremenko wrote:
> Anyways, I'm not satisfied. I want to have access to my ifconfig from
> normal user.
It cannot be denied. Use it as you will! Put /sbin in your path, by all
means.
What's the problem? Do you prefer not to be satisfied???
Randall Schulz
On 5/25/07, Alexey Eremenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Anyways, I'm not satisfied. I want to have access to my ifconfig from
normal user.
Change whatever you want in YOUR box, and stop bugging people with
this sillyness.
Marcio
---
druid
On Sat, 2007-05-26 at 02:35 +0300, Alexey Eremenko wrote:
> Anyways, I'm not satisfied. I want to have access to my ifconfig from
> normal user.
Yes, lets change the UNIX way for the unsatisfied kid ...
Snip from the FHS.
/sbin : System binaries
Purpose
Utilities used for system administration (
On 26/05/07, Alexey Eremenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Anyways, I'm not satisfied. I want to have access to my ifconfig from
normal user.
Why not just use "ip a" and saveyourself a whole 4 keystrokes?
_
Benjamin Weber
-
To un
2007/5/26, Benji Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 26/05/07, Alexey Eremenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyways, I'm not satisfied. I want to have access to my ifconfig from
> normal user.
Why not just use "ip a" and saveyourself a whole 4 keystrokes?
Fine. But what is your solution as alternati
On 26/05/07, Rafał Miłecki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2007/5/26, Benji Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 26/05/07, Alexey Eremenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Anyways, I'm not satisfied. I want to have access to my ifconfig from
> > normal user.
>
> Why not just use "ip a" and saveyourself a who
On Saturday 26 May 2007 01:13, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> 2007/5/26, Benji Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On 26/05/07, Alexey Eremenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Anyways, I'm not satisfied. I want to have access to my ifconfig
> > > from normal user.
> >
> > Why not just use "ip a" and saveyourse
2007/5/26, Randall R Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
The PATH variable setting is not imposed on you. Change it to be
whatever you like. I add /sbin and /usr/sbin to mine. I'm sure many
others do, to, especially those with administrative duties, which
applies in some sense to all single-user systems.
On 27/05/07, Rafał Miłecki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Oh, come on! We are not talking about ourself problems only but about
the best default comfiguration for most users. I use Linux for 3 years
and for these 3 years I was using root user to check "iwlist scan".
I would suggest iwlist is unlike
On Sat, 2007-05-26 at 03:38 -0400, Jonathan Arsenault wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-05-26 at 02:35 +0300, Alexey Eremenko wrote:
> > Anyways, I'm not satisfied. I want to have access to my ifconfig from
> > normal user.
>
> Yes, lets change the UNIX way for the unsatisfied kid ...
>
> Snip from the FHS.
Jonathan Arsenault wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-05-26 at 02:35 +0300, Alexey Eremenko wrote:
> > Anyways, I'm not satisfied. I want to have access to my ifconfig from
> > normal user.
>
> Yes, lets change the UNIX way for the unsatisfied kid ...
>
> Snip from the FHS.
>
> /sbin : System binaries
> Purp
On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 09:08 +0200, Ludwig Nussel wrote:
> Jonathan Arsenault wrote:
> > On Sat, 2007-05-26 at 02:35 +0300, Alexey Eremenko wrote:
> > > Anyways, I'm not satisfied. I want to have access to my ifconfig from
> > > normal user.
> >
> > Yes, lets change the UNIX way for the unsatisfied
On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 09:08 +0200, Ludwig Nussel wrote:
> Jonathan Arsenault wrote:
> > On Sat, 2007-05-26 at 02:35 +0300, Alexey Eremenko wrote:
> > > Anyways, I'm not satisfied. I want to have access to my ifconfig from
> > > normal user.
> >
> > Yes, lets change the UNIX way for the unsatisfied
>> So what? That doesn't tell anything about whether it makes sense to have
> sbin
>> in $PATH. I'd vote for appending sbin to regular users' $PATH by default.
> There
>> are many tools in sbin that can be called as user to display at least some
>> status information (or even just the help text).
Jonathan Arsenault wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 09:08 +0200, Ludwig Nussel wrote:
> > I'd vote for appending sbin to regular users' $PATH by default. There
> > are many tools in sbin that can be called as user to display at least some
> > status information (or even just the help text). The clu
On 29/05/07, Ludwig Nussel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The question was not whether the file system layout as we know it
still makes sense but whether non-root users would benefit from
quick access to sbin binaries by default. Changing the default[1]
PATH is the probably the most simple way to ach
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ludwig Nussel wrote:
...
> The question was not whether the file system layout as we know it
> still makes sense but whether non-root users would benefit from
> quick access to sbin binaries by default. Changing the default[1]
> PATH is the probably th
Adding /sbin/ to user's $PATH doesn't lower your security. (because
you're still bound by Linux-user security privileges)
But it will make our systems easier to use. So I vote for making it the default.
--
-Alexey Eremenko "Technologov"
---
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alexey Eremenko wrote:
> Adding /sbin/ to user's $PATH doesn't lower your security. (because
> you're still bound by Linux-user security privileges)
>
> But it will make our systems easier to use. So I vote for making it the
> default.
And it breaks
Qua, 2007-05-30 às 22:41 +0200, Pascal Bleser escreveu:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Alexey Eremenko wrote:
> > Adding /sbin/ to user's $PATH doesn't lower your security. (because
> > you're still bound by Linux-user security privileges)
> >
> > But it will make our syste
On 5/31/07, Ricardo Cruz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Personally, I think this only makes sense if we go through the sudo
route, like Ubuntu.
Otherwise, just symlink from /bin.
Ohh yes, symlinking from /sbin to /bin can also solve those problems,
of inaccessible utilities.
--
-Alexey Eremenko
On Wednesday 30 May 2007 13:41, Pascal Bleser wrote:
> Alexey Eremenko wrote:
> > Adding /sbin/ to user's $PATH doesn't lower your security. (because
> > you're still bound by Linux-user security privileges)
> >
> > But it will make our systems easier to use. So I vote for making it
> > the default
On Wednesday 30 May 2007 15:00, Alexey Eremenko wrote:
> On 5/31/07, Ricardo Cruz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Personally, I think this only makes sense if we go through the
> > sudo route, like Ubuntu.
> >Otherwise, just symlink from /bin.
>
> Ohh yes, symlinking from /sbin to /bin can also sol
You must do this with care.
My question is why. You could do this with care, and waste man-hours
doing a silly thing that will result in no benefit, or we could go
work in other stuff, right? Make things easier? The people who should
be messing with that in a root shell should know what they sh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The Wednesday 2007-05-30 at 15:09 -0700, Randall R Schulz wrote:
> I really fail to see a down-side, with the possible exception of the
> fact that there are sometimes multiple commands with the same name.
> Whois springs to mind. I'm not sure what
On Wednesday 30 May 2007 17:52, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> The Wednesday 2007-05-30 at 15:09 -0700, Randall R Schulz wrote:
> > I really fail to see a down-side, with the possible exception of
> > the fact that there are sometimes multiple commands with the same
> > name. Whois springs to mind. I'm not
* Randall R Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [05-30-07 21:02]:
> On Wednesday 30 May 2007 17:52, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> > The Wednesday 2007-05-30 at 15:09 -0700, Randall R Schulz wrote:
> > > I really fail to see a down-side, with the possible exception of
> > > the fact that there are sometimes multiple
On Wednesday 30 May 2007 18:27, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> * Randall R Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [05-30-07 21:02]:
> > On Wednesday 30 May 2007 17:52, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> > > The Wednesday 2007-05-30 at 15:09 -0700, Randall R Schulz wrote:
> > > > I really fail to see a down-side, with the possib
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Randall R Schulz wrote:
> On Wednesday 30 May 2007 13:41, Pascal Bleser wrote:
>> Alexey Eremenko wrote:
>>> Adding /sbin/ to user's $PATH doesn't lower your security. (because
>>> you're still bound by Linux-user security privileges)
>>>
>>> But it wi
On Thu 31 May 2007 13:01:34 NZST +1200, Randall R Schulz wrote:
> > > name. Whois springs to mind. I'm not sure what the one in /sbin
> > > does, but it doesn't appear to be at all the same thing that the
> > > one in /usr/bin/ does (which is to look up whois directory
> > > information).
> % rpm
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The Wednesday 2007-05-30 at 19:11 -0700, Randall R Schulz wrote:
> It looks like Sax2 has gone on some kind of a weight-loss program
> between versions 2.7 and 8.1.
Or the file has changed name to something more sensible.
- --
Cheers,
Carl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The Thursday 2007-05-31 at 07:13 +0200, Pascal Bleser wrote:
> Anyhow, being the only Linux distribution that would do it is a
> sufficient reason _not_ to do it.
> I find it surprising people fail to see that.
O:-)
No, because it always has had th
On Wednesday 30 May 2007 22:13, Pascal Bleser wrote:
> ...
>
> Anyhow, being the only Linux distribution that would do it is a
> sufficient reason _not_ to do it.
> I find it surprising people fail to see that.
By that logic, we need only one distribution, since there would be no
justification fo
45 matches
Mail list logo
