* Steve Lamb said: > Wednesday, August 18, 1999, 3:11:27 PM, Justin wrote: > > > OK, is there anyone who disagrees with this: > > Me. Yes, we already know that. But you have never said anything substantial on that matter except for stories about you being such a great admin who never has had any failures requiring static bins. But you can't understand that you're not the only admin on the world. > > -- sash becomes an "important" package so that it is installed > > by default. people who know that their systems will never > > fail can deselect it, but by default you get it > > I don't think it should be forced on anyone as they may desire to go the > route of boot disks. Hmm... You still have problems reading what somebody else typed? Read the last line of the quoted sentence above yours. Hint - there's a phrase "can deselect it" - does it ring a bell for you? > > these are run so rarely I don't see why they can't be static > > by default--but if people yell, we can have separate static > > versions. > > Static = bad. It is not up to you to determine how often things are run > nor the relative "cheapness" of the hardware. Nor it is up to you. Every admin has to determine it on his own. Nevertheless, the tools should be there. Not used by default, but usable on emergency. > > -- root's shell be set to sash by default, if sash is installed > > Very bad as sash is not an interactive shell thus making it unusable. Oh geez (you like that one, do you?) - sash is an interactive sheel, I use it on the root account all the time. I wonder how do I do that??? Maybe you should run sash at least once? > Sash is also not a POSIX compliant shell making scripts which may depend on > root's shell unreliable. Nonsense. /bin/sh -> /bin/bash|/bin/tcsh|/bin/ash - chose your option. Now, put it in the script (at the top in case you don't know): #!/bin/sh Hint: make the script executable. Now everytime you execute the script it will execute /bin/sh. Where does sash get executed to process the script? > A better option is to make an alternative UID 0 user with sash that is not > root. However, this introduces a security hole. Bullshit. That account won't be used by sulogin. > > If so please say what is wrong with the idea. > > I disagree and have been telling you what is wrong with the whole idea > several times. You just don't want to listen. yes, because we are unable to recognize your wisdom. marek p.s. I'm sorry for raising a flamewar, I promised myself not to do that - but I just can't stand the man shouting his ramblings without saying anything that makes sense. Please continue the flamewar ONLY to my personal address.
Attachment:
pgplptIPA_1T5.pgp
Description: PGP signature