On 02/12/2011 12:57 AM, Joseph L. Casale wrote:
In fact, you can do things very easily with *nix acls that are very
difficult in Windows. For example, you can set different 'Default'
permissions (what will be on things created in the directory) than the
permissions that are actually on the
regardless of the OS, any time you start to get tricky with per object
permissions, before long you end up with a complex mess that's a pain in
the butt to keep track of.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Drew drew@gmail.com wrote:
RHEL and CentOS have much, much tighter basic privilege handling. The
complexity of the NTFS ACL structure, for example, is so frequently
mishandled that it's often ignored and simply dealt with as
Administrator. The result is
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 3:38 AM, Drew drew@gmail.com wrote:
RHEL and CentOS have much, much tighter basic privilege handling. The
complexity of the NTFS ACL structure, for example, is so frequently
mishandled that it's often ignored and simply dealt with as
Administrator. The result is
On Saturday, February 12, 2011 09:02 PM, Natxo Asenjo wrote:
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 3:38 AM, Drewdrew@gmail.com wrote:
RHEL and CentOS have much, much tighter basic privilege handling. The
complexity of the NTFS ACL structure, for example, is so frequently
mishandled that it's often
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 8:09 AM, Christopher Chan
christopher.c...@bradbury.edu.hk wrote:
On Saturday, February 12, 2011 09:02 PM, Natxo Asenjo wrote:
Anyway, neither in windows nor in unix/linux you want to specify
permissions on a per user level. Always groups. If the user leaves the
On 2/12/11 4:05 AM, John R Pierce wrote:
regardless of the OS, any time you start to get tricky with per object
permissions, before long you end up with a complex mess that's a pain in
the butt to keep track of.
And this is especially true if you don't first map the users to a group role or
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Christopher Chan
christopher.c...@bradbury.edu.hk wrote:
On Saturday, February 12, 2011 09:02 PM, Natxo Asenjo wrote:
Anyway, neither in windows nor in unix/linux you want to specify
permissions on a per user level. Always groups. If the user leaves the
On Sunday, February 13, 2011 03:38 AM, Natxo Asenjo wrote:
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Christopher Chan
christopher.c...@bradbury.edu.hk wrote:
On Saturday, February 12, 2011 09:02 PM, Natxo Asenjo wrote:
Anyway, neither in windows nor in unix/linux you want to specify
permissions on a
On 11/02/11 03:05, Always Learning wrote:
[...snip...]
Sometimes I just wonder about the luckiness of us non-Windoze people. We
have a really marvellous choice of operating systems (BSDs, Solaris,
Linux et al) and its all free and outstandingly good and reliable.
I feel sorry for the
On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 16:03 +0100, David Sommerseth wrote:
On 11/02/11 03:05, Always Learning wrote:
[...snip...]
Sometimes I just wonder about the luckiness of us non-Windoze people. We
have a really marvellous choice of operating systems (BSDs, Solaris,
Linux et al) and its all free
David Sommerseth wrote:
On 11/02/11 03:05, Always Learning wrote:
[...snip...]
Sometimes I just wonder about the luckiness of us non-Windoze people. We
have a really marvellous choice of operating systems (BSDs, Solaris,
Linux et al) and its all free and outstandingly good and reliable.
I
On 2/11/2011 9:58 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Be careful with saying such things. A lot can be said about Windows as an
operating system and Microsoft as a company. But be very careful about
Yes, there can, and has been, a lot said. A *LOT* of it has not been
positive (at least since
Les Mikesell wrote:
On 2/11/2011 9:58 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Be careful with saying such things. A lot can be said about Windows as
an operating system and Microsoft as a company. But be very careful
about
Yes, there can, and has been, a lot said. A *LOT* of it has not been
positive
On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 10:58 -0500, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
mark actually liked DOS
Me too!
--
With best regards,
Paul.
England,
EU.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
They have *everything* to do. Look, I *said* this is OT, but since you
insist, the overwhelmingly *bad* design decision was to put the GUI into
ring 0, instead of the way Windows 3, and X on *Nix, and *everybody* else
did, resulting in a GUI error
On 2/11/2011 10:39 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Be careful with saying such things. A lot can be said about Windows as
an operating system and Microsoft as a company. But be very careful
about
Yes, there can, and has been, a lot said. A *LOT* of it has not been
positive (at least since
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:39:21AM -0500, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
They have *everything* to do. Look, I *said* this is OT, but since you
insist, the overwhelmingly *bad* design decision was to put the GUI into
ring 0, instead of the way Windows 3, and X on *Nix, and *everybody* else
did,
On 02/11/11 8:39 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
They have*everything* to do. Look, I*said* this is OT, but since you
insist, the overwhelmingly*bad* design decision was to put the GUI into
ring 0, instead of the way Windows 3, and X on*Nix, and *everybody* else
did, resulting in a GUI error
John R Pierce wrote:
On 02/11/11 8:39 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
They have*everything* to do. Look, I*said* this is OT, but since you
insist, the overwhelmingly*bad* design decision was to put the GUI into
ring 0, instead of the way Windows 3, and X on*Nix, and *everybody*
else did,
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 10:47 AM, John Hodrien j.h.hodr...@leeds.ac.uk wrote:
It's still the case that a graphics driver error on linux can take out the
entire system, so it's not like linux is some sort of gold standard on this
front.
e.g., any modern Ubuntu can write 300 GB per day of
On Saturday, February 12, 2011 05:27 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
John R Pierce wrote:
On 02/11/11 8:39 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
They have*everything* to do. Look, I*said* this is OT, but since you
insist, the overwhelmingly*bad* design decision was to put the GUI into
ring 0, instead of
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/11/2011 9:58 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Be careful with saying such things. A lot can be said about Windows as an
operating system and Microsoft as a company. But be very careful about
Yes, there can, and has
RHEL and CentOS have much, much tighter basic privilege handling. The
complexity of the NTFS ACL structure, for example, is so frequently
mishandled that it's often ignored and simply dealt with as
Administrator. The result is privilege escalation chaos.
And how is the user-group-world
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 at 6:38pm, Drew wrote
RHEL and CentOS have much, much tighter basic privilege handling. The
complexity of the NTFS ACL structure, for example, is so frequently
mishandled that it's often ignored and simply dealt with as
Administrator. The result is privilege escalation
On 2/11/11 6:55 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
you go back to '95 and look at the security/design flaws in shipping
Linux products it is not pretty either. Pretty much everything had wide
open holes in required network services like bind/sendmail/ftp as well
as the kernel itself (wade through
On 02/11/2011 09:36 PM, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 at 6:38pm, Drew wrote
RHEL and CentOS have much, much tighter basic privilege handling. The
complexity of the NTFS ACL structure, for example, is so frequently
mishandled that it's often ignored and simply dealt with as
In fact, you can do things very easily with *nix acls that are very
difficult in Windows. For example, you can set different 'Default'
permissions (what will be on things created in the directory) than the
permissions that are actually on the directory. You can set different
masks for different
One of my VPS stopped working. After the data centre replaced a disk
normal service resumed, then I notices this:
CentOS release 5.5 (Final)
Kernel 2.6.35.4 on an x86_64
I always thought Centos 5.x would always be on 2.6.18. Any thoughts?
-Original Message-
From: centos-boun...@centos.org
[mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf Of Always Learning
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 4:25 PM
To: centos@centos.org
Subject: [CentOS] Strange Kernel for Centos 5.5
One of my VPS stopped working. After the data
At Thu, 10 Feb 2011 21:25:24 + CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org
wrote:
One of my VPS stopped working. After the data centre replaced a disk
normal service resumed, then I notices this:
CentOS release 5.5 (Final)
Kernel
Hi Brian T. Robert,
Thanks for your input.
I did a uname -a on a selection of Centos 5.5 machines and found the
servers, netbooks and laptops were all a variety of 2.6.18-194.32.1.el5
and 2.6.19-194.32.1.el5-centos.plus. Only the VPS were different most
likely, as Robert suggested, because of
32 matches
Mail list logo
