Re: itp: static bins / resolving static debian issues
On Thu, Aug 19, 1999 at 01:06:49AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Thursday, August 19, 1999, 12:48:20 AM, Justin wrote:
> Uhm, what is root's password, by default, on a newly made Debian system?
> Are you now going to assume that the person is going to switch passwords
> before installing packages? *cough*
I don't know what it is, but I certainly know how to get the cryptographic
hash of it out of /etc/shadow or /etc/passwd. The user is asked to type
one in prior to the installation of any packages.
Or didn't you know that?
> Face it, sash can be set to a well known default password because root
> WHEN INSTALLED IS SET TO A WELL KNOWN DEFAULT PASSWORD. SO, SMARTY-PANTS, IF
> YOU JUST USE ROOT'S PASSWORD, WHAT DO YOU HAVE? ***A WELL KNOWN DEFAULT
> PASSWORD!!!*** Geez. Do I have to spell it all out for you or are you going
> to eventually engage the supposed brain of yours and think for more than
> "Mmmm, must get more beer. *BRAP*"
Wrong.
Roots password is changed before Debian launches the package manager
to install whatever packages you might want. Boy do you look stupid,
you made such a big deal out of this, and you're flat out wrong.
> OK, so, let me get this straight. Now you want a statically linked ash to
> be in memory while you do all your work in bash?
I don't care. If you do, you can type "exec bash" instead. The 300k or
so, used only by root, and only once, just isn't going to matter to me.
Note that I am not proposing ordinary users have this as their shell, so
it's a one time cost, and only applies to root. Nobody else. And that
only if root decides to run bash other than via "exec".
You really are being quite silly now.
> > You can always type "bash" or have a .profile that runs bash, so I
> > really just don't see your point at all. If dynamic linking is working,
> > you can get bash going; if it isn't working, you're glad you didn't have
> > something dynamic as your shell!
>
> Memory... Thanks for the memory!!!
Give me a break.
> Is it now? Your solution forces an increased memory load, possible
> security holes, added complexity to *every* Debian system just for the benefit
> of solving your PERCEIVED problems when there are other, better solutions
> which, along with this one, be made by the local system administrator. I
> don't see opinion in there.
My "perceived" problems wiped out my C library last week, and all of your
imaginary "security holes" and other things have been refuted. Except for
the possibility that root might eat an extra 160k or so, and that only
if root is too lazy to type "exec bash".
What your issues are, I just don't know.
> The people who get lazy. Gee, wonder who that could be but damn near
> everyone? Yup, you sure thought that through, didn'tcha. Oh, and let's not
> forget that since it is marked important, IIRC, each time you go to upgrade
> and it has a new version, it will be installed by default unless you shut it
> off. Repeatedly. Endlessly.
And the 0.1% of people who can't afford the disk space can shut it off,
repeatedly. Really, what is your point?
The space that ash might take up is a non-issue to 99.9% of Debian users.
> > That's a very controversial thing to say--in what way would it be
> > "detrimental" to the majority? Go back and read all the posts where I
> > argued against the notion that it costs anything other than disk space
> > before you answer.
>
> I did, it's all bullshit.
My, aren't we pleasant. I am quoting this in case anyone still reading
this thread missed just how mature you are.
I probably won't respond to you anymore, welcome to my kill file. If
you're wondering why you're in it, look at your attitude, as illustrated
in the line quoted above.
> > The vast majority of Debian users can afford the disk space; the very tiny
> > small number who can't can choose not to install it.
>
> Who are you to make that decision? Where are your figures to back up that
> the vast majority of Debian users can afford the disk space? What critiera
> have you set? Have you cleared this with each administrator of each Debian
> install?
I went out and bought the cheapest computer I could awhile back, and it
came with an 8 gig hard drive. My figures are this: A static ash is going
to cost something like 300k. The cheapest computer I could buy came with
an 8 gig hard drive installed, 300k is peanuts, and you damn well know it.
For that matter, the 386 that used to be my powerhouse workstation came
with a 200meg drive, and the 300k was peanuts there too.
If you really are so interested in saving space, you should start raging
about the bytes wasted by the comments in Debian's shell scripts--why
you might save 30k erasing those!
> > I prefer ash as /bin/sh as well, a statically linked one. I only argued for
> > sash because it seemed more popular here, and I figured it was a reasonable
> > compromise. If you are happier with a static ash as /bin/sh, then let's
> > agree on that.
>
> No. A DYNAMIC ash. I've shot down every one of your arguements. Now go
> away, troll.
You've shot yourself in the foot every single time. You think that 300k is
somehow not affordable on a modern drive. You think that package are
installed before roots password gets set, and you think that if root logs
in and then runs bash, the 160k wasted will bring the system down (and
that root wouldn't know to type "exec bash" on a low memory machine).
You think that Debian should drop the "important" designation, and that
this is an argument against sash being important. Nothing you've said
has made any sense, and most of it has actually been wrong.
All you've done here is demonstrate your ignorance. I would advise you
not to respond to this post, lest you embarass yourself some more.
You're in my kill file, I have no interest in wasting the time of the
good people on this list with the kind of angry insults you like to hurl,
so goodbye, and have a nice life.
Justin
Reply to: