Re: itp: static bins / resolving static debian issues
Thursday, August 19, 1999, 1:53:02 AM, Justin wrote:
> 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?
That isn't the default password, then, is it? No, it isn't. IIRC people
can just hit enter twice (reverting back to the same password, IE, none) hit
CNTL-C or whatever so they can "Reset it later" and "get to work now."
> 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.
No, there is a prompt to change it. That does not equate to the password
being changed.
> 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.
And on every invocation of /bin/sh...
> You really are being quite silly now.
No, I'm pointing out all the absurdities in this idiotic thread.
>> Memory... Thanks for the memory!!!
> Give me a break.
You first, pal. I'm tired of people advocating the system save the user
from his self. If I wanted that crap, I'd be running NT on my server, not
Linux. Crap like this is enough to make me want to switch to FreeBSD, which I
despise.
> My "perceived" problems wiped out my C library last week, and all of your
> imaginary "security holes" and other things have been refuted.
No, they have not. So what you're saying is that because *YOU* failed to
take sane steps (of which there are several) for disaster recovery now
everyone has to have something built in you save *YOU* from your own
stupidity?
> What your issues are, I just don't know.
Then learn how to read you illiterate twit.
> 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.
Where are your numbers?
>> 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.
Much more than you. I'm just tired of your crap and don't feel like being
pleasant in expressing that. Here's your immaturity:
"WHAAAA!!! I lost my system last week. Because I'm such an immature
little brat who doesn't know how to take preventative measures I want Debian
to do something about it now!!! It should have saved me from myself because
I'm so childish and pathetic that I cannot think for myself!! Change my
diaper, too!"
> 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.
Good, pretty soon you'll take your sorry ass elsewhere.
> 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.
Funny, the cheapest hardware I can find has a 512Mb HD on it. In fact,
that isn't the cheapest I can find.
You're talking about the cheapest *NEW* hardware *YOU*, as an American,
can find. Debian is not only American and isn't designed just for the latest
and greatest hardware out there. In case you miss why I make that distiction,
it is because outside of America, esp. as one climbs down the "status" of
different countries, the better hardware is not available.
So, who are *YOU* to judge what is and is not to be installed on all of
Debian installs?
> For that matter, the 386 that used to be my powerhouse workstation came
> with a 200meg drive, and the 300k was peanuts there too.
That is your choice. On my 486 laptop, 300k is not peanuts. Not on the
drive, not in memory. I thought we already agreed that personal experience
isn't worth dick.
> 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!
Comments serve a purpose.
> You've shot yourself in the foot every single time. You think that 300k is
> somehow not affordable on a modern drive.
I never said modern drive. I am not making the assuption that Debian is
going to be installed only on modern hardware. You, however, are.
> You think that package are installed before roots password gets set
You're assuming it gets set.
> and you think that if root logs in and then runs bash, the 160k wasted will
> bring the system down
You don't know if it will or won't.
> You think that Debian should drop the "important" designation, and that this
> is an argument against sash being important.
No, I am pointing out that it serves very little purpose.
> Nothing you've said has made any sense, and most of it has actually been
> wrong.
It hasn't been wrong and it makes a lot more sense than what you're
advocating.
> 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.
I'd advise you to go away since you're so obviously in the wrong it isn't
evne funny.
> 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.
I'm touched.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Reply to: