Linux-Advocacy Digest #638, Volume #26 Mon, 22 May 00 17:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: The future... (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Is the PC era over? (John Sanders)
Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation' (John Sanders)
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? (steve@howdy)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Karel Jansens)
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX (Pete Goodwin)
Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Chris Wenham)
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. (Pete Goodwin)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 ("Keith T. Williams")
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Your office and Linux. (John Sanders)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (R. Tang)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (D G)
Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX (Julius Apweiler)
Re: Time to prove it's not just words ("Yannick")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: The future...
Date: 22 May 2000 14:02:03 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Full Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>>The Server market distinct from the Workstation is gone. Desktop PCs
>>will either get smaller in the direction of thin-clients, or be
>>indistinguishable from servers.
>>
>
>Users want thick clients. They more or less demand them - it makes
>them feel secure.
>
>I don't know if you've notice but the world has moved away from thin
>clients over the last 20 years. The only way this will change is if
>thin clients appear more or less identical to thick clients from the
>user perspective.
This has nothing to do with user demand other than the artifacts that
pricing and bundling have caused. We have ended up with a file-sharing
client on every desk and servers that don't multitask well enough
to handle applications so they end up doing file sharing, even
for databases where it doesn't work very well. Then since the
apps were already done, some SQL was glued in to cure the worst
problems.
>Even Linux users prefer thick clients. That's why they keep bleating
>about Linux as a desktop OS. They are too stupid to realise the power
>of a Unix system is its ability to support thin clients.
No, they are just cautiously using a cross-platform approach with
web browers and http backends. There is some overhead and
awkwardness but it gives you local editting capability
that would otherwise require a dedicated client per platform.
>Standards in Unix?
>Where is the standard location to install third party software?
Where you want it.
>Where is the standard location for the shadow password file?
Where you want it (and IF you want it).
>What is the standard GIU for a Unix box?
Whichever one you want.
>What is the standard name of the mounted file system table file?
Run the mount command to see what is mounted.
>Why is there a /usr/etc and a /etc on many Unix installs? Why is
>/usr/etc sometimes a symbolic link to /etc?
Why not?
>Were is the standard location to keep users files on a Unix system?
Where you want them.
>What is the standard shell on a Unix system? Why is it traditional to
>write scripts in Bourne shell?
Use the shell with the interactive features you want. Bourne shell
is always available, usually with static linkage in case you
have to recover your shared libs.
>Where is the standard place to assign the path variable for sh?
>cshell? bash? korn shell? trusted cshell?
The answer is the standard place: 'man sh' (etc.).
>Why does Oracle 7 place it's listener configuration files in
>/var/adm/oracle? What is the difference between /usr/adm and
>/var/adm? Why is /usr/adm sometimes a symbolic link to /var/adm?
What does oracle have to do with unix? And the answer to your
third question is to make the answer to the 2nd on 'none'.
>Why is it when I telnet from one Unix system to another I have to
>issue a 'stty erase' command so I can delete characters?
Because you didn't bother to put the command in your .profile?
>Why is /usr/boot a symbolic link to /usr/kvm/boot on some Unix
>systems?
So you don't have to find and fix all the things that expect
the wrong one.
>Why does the SunOS box I just logged into have 1741 symbolic links in
>/etc, /usr and /bin?
To save you a lot of trouble.
>Why was my password just broadcast in clear text on at least two
>subnets?
You don't like ethernet switches?
>What is the standard name of the kernel executable on a Unix box?
If there were such a thing it would make it hard to have
alternates.
>Why is Solaris so different to SunOS?
So you have a choice.
>Why does Linux have so many distributions? What is the 'standard'
>Linux distribution?
So you have many choices.
>How old are you? Have you ever actually managed any real (sic) Unix
>operating systems before? Is installing Red Hat on your PC at home
>the only Unix experience you've had?
50. Yes, starting with some of the first commercial releases
from AT&T (and a bit of xenix before that). Don't be silly - but
it has been some of the best.
Now a question for you: do you understand that 'standard' means
something that everyone agrees on or is established by a
committee? If a single vendor does something a single way,
that means it is their way, not a standard.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: John Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is the PC era over?
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 14:11:42 -0500
Bob Hauck wrote:
>
> On Fri, 19 May 2000 14:50:44 -0500, John Sanders
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > So, you can plug a Compact PCI card into a PCI slot?
>
> No. This is the start of the many fallacies surrounding Compact PCI.
Maybe they push really, really hard.
>
> --
> -| Bob Hauck
> -| Codem Systems, Inc.
> -| http://www.codem.com/
--
John W. Sanders
===============
"there" in or at a place.
"their" of or relating to them.
"they're" contraction of 'they are'.
------------------------------
From: John Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation'
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 14:06:18 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> John Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >sniop<
>
> : Likewise, if you find that you don't want to configure your machine the
> : way you would like it, but would rather take it the way Bill (or Apple)
> : gives it, then Linux is not for you.
>
> This isn't exactly accurate. One can tweak the hell out of both
> traditional Mac OS and Windows. It's not commonly done, but that's
> a different thread.
I've seen comments like this before about 'setting-up' and 'tweaking'
Windows. I've given up on Windows since 3.11. So that's all I know
about tweaking Windows. All you could do with 3.11 was to load, say, a
video driver which supported a specific resolution, alter the colors on
the windows components, and things like that. I've never seen anything
approaching the configurability of UNIX using .profile, .bashrc, and
environment variables for example.
So unless W9X really went beyond 3.11, I don't think you can "tweak the
hell out of" Windows.
>
> --
> -Zenin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) From The Blue Camel we learn:
> BSD: A psychoactive drug, popular in the 80s, probably developed at UC
> Berkeley or thereabouts. Similar in many ways to the prescription-only
> medication called "System V", but infinitely more useful. (Or, at least,
> more fun.) The full chemical name is "Berkeley Standard Distribution".
--
John W. Sanders
===============
"there" in or at a place.
"their" of or relating to them.
"they're" contraction of 'they are'.
------------------------------
From: steve@howdy
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Date: 22 May 2000 11:18:23 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jhair says...
>
>Use the source, Luke.
>
huh?
To enter a bug against linux, you use the source? what does
that mean?
Have you ever heared of a bug tracking system?
sending email messages to Linus is not what I call a software
engineering way of reporting bugs.
A bug tracking system allows others to examin it to see if
such a bug has allready been reported, to examin the state
of the bug, and other such activites.
Check the Apache project for example, they have a bug tracking
system. This is the kind of thing I was looking for for the
linux kernel.
------------------------------
From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: 22 May 2000 20:43:25 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> DOS and Windows are OS's. They're not applications.
>
> Windows cannot run without DOS, thus Windows and DOS are joined.
>
I had a copy of Windows 3.1 running in OS/2 v3. Look ma, no DOS!
Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net
========================================================
This operating system/newsreader does not support the
advanced features of VapourSig 1.1.
Please upgrade your operating system/newsreader to the
latest version of RipOffCorp's product.
Have a nice day.
========================================================
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Date: 22 May 2000 19:37:01 GMT
In comp.os.linux.misc steve@howdy wrote:
: In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jhair says...
: Check the Apache project for example, they have a bug tracking
: system. This is the kind of thing I was looking for for the
: linux kernel.
Tough. Go search elsewhere for such analities. Alan Cox maintains
a list of known bugs and their status for the stable kernel. The
development kernel is well, development.
Peter
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: 22 May 2000 14:53:45 -0500
In article <8g7rgl$qnf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I have, on my desktop, an NT box that will not complete the
>> installation of sp6a due to disk errors that happen in the
>> temp files after it unpacks them. Chkdisk say the partition
>> is OK. I'd appreciate any advice on how to fix this without
>> having to reinstall all the software loaded on the box.
>Have you tried specifying to unpack the files to some other drive (/x) ?
This worked! I unpacked to a network share, then (after hunting
a bit) found the update directory with update.exe and it
ran with no complaints.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Subject: Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 20:06:20 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows) wrote in <8gb7mp$812$1
@m1.cs.man.ac.uk>:
>Not if you're with the right ISP/Telco. <ultrasmug>
I'm jealous. B*}
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 20:07:09 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martijn Bruns) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Hey, that's odd.
>I thought i had heard someone say the UK had fiberglass cable and
>cable-modemconnections already. It could be he (not the poster)
>was lying. :-)
Not that I've heard of, certainly not in Ruislip, Middx.
Pete
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 20:08:19 GMT
jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens) writes:
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > DOS and Windows are OS's. They're not applications.
> >
> > Windows cannot run without DOS, thus Windows and DOS are joined.
> >
>
> I had a copy of Windows 3.1 running in OS/2 v3. Look ma, no DOS!
Please tell me you know about the DOS VDM that Windows 3.1 runs atop
of in OS/2?
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 20:12:59 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sean Akers) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Fade in/out and/or scrollup/down menus are possibly the most
>irritating user interface features I've ever come across. Thankfully,
>Microsoft did manage to provide the facility to turn the bloody things
>off.
Fun the first time you see them, as in, "Hey look at that". Then it becomes
irritating the second time.
>The other new 'feaure' of the UI, namely the helpful abbreviation of
>menus with the helpful facility of automatically putting the menu item
>you actually want to click on in the hidden part so you have to move
>to the little scroll arrows to get to it is totally top. I also love
>the wait involved for it to get its act together to actually display
>the stuff its hidden for you. Thankfully, this also is a feaure you
>can switch off. (Except in IE5 of course).
I turn this one off too. Oh, yeah, I don't use IE5. Netscape is more buggy,
but I'm happy with it. About the only time I do use IE5 is when I access
Microsoft sites that don't work in Netscape.
>2 years to improve the user interface with these helpful and
>thankfully switch offable features was obviously time well spent.
Go read the long description by an Open Source Advocate about the
interesting improvements in Windows 2000 that he claims makes it faster
than NT.
>Oh and I mustn't forget the shadow on the mouse pointer. Fantastic
>that is.
I did say "Depends what you mean by improvements". I turn them off as a
waste of time. Though the shadow on the mouse I like!
Pete
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 20:14:57 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jhair Triana (Praktikant Atkinson)) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Fortunately Linux can not do that, and will never be capable to do that.
>Linux is an operating system, not an user interface.
Oh I'm sure it will come (KDE? Gnome?). After all, this feature is
available as an API on Win32. Along with transparent windows/layers (not
regions) on Windows 2000.
Pete
------------------------------
From: "Keith T. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.lang.basic
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 16:20:18 -0400
Roger <roger@.> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 17 May 2000 07:05:22 -0400, someone claiming to be Keith T.
> Williams wrote:
>
> >Roger <roger@.> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >> On Mon, 15 May 2000 22:06:04 -0400, someone claiming to be Keith T.
> >> Williams wrote:
>
> >> >Roger <roger@.> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >> >> On Sun, 14 May 2000 22:54:46 -0400, someone claiming to be Keith T.
> >> >> Williams wrote:
>
> >> >> >No it wasn't. There were major discussions as to whether it should
be
> >> >> >patented or copyrighted prior to the changes in the copyright law.
>
> >> >> Proof?
>
> >> >go read some computer magazines from the 70's.
>
> >> Which specific "computer magazines" from the 70's had you in mind?
> >>
> >> IOW, "I have no proof of my contention."
>
> >IOW, I don't remember which magazines were around then. Certainly not PC
> >ones. The discussion at the time was centered around if software was
> >patentable, then any algorithms which included in the software were also
> >patented, which meant that no one else could use them without at least
> >paying a royalty fee. And since an algorithm is a technique, which may
be
> >independantly discovered that would have been an inappropriate venue.
>
> IOW, "I * really * have no proof, since I cannot even recall which
> resources were available at the time I am claiming such resources
> support my claim."
>
> >You can claim copyright on anything, by declaring a copyright in the body
of
> >work. Until that right is tested in a court of law, or specifically
granted
> >by an appropriate legislative body, it may or may not exist.
>
> Wrong. The only way it would * not * exist is proof that the material
> in question had been copywritten prior to your creation of it, or if
> you do not aggressively defend it.
Proof?
>
> >Even so, patents are still issued for software, witness U.S. Patent No.
> >4974159 (1985), issued to Hargrove, et al, and assigned to Microsoft, for
a
> >"Method of transferring control in a multi-tasking computer system"
>
> And this is significant to this discussion because ... ?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 20:17:47 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Erik Funkenbusch) wrote in
<lcaW4.2578$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>NT had scalability limits, like most OS's. For instance, Solaris has a
>maximum of 64 processors IIRC. NT was limited to in commercial designs.
>There have been custom HAL's written for NT 4 that gave it much better
>scaleability.
I thought it was a limit of the Intel chip - four processors? Oh yeah, it
can't be that if Linux/Solaris can do it.
>Windows 2000 has much fewer limitations and has commercial products
>capable of up to 32 processors. I imagine that 64 bit NT will be able
>to scale even further.
I remember the DEC Alpha could do 64 processors. Oh dear, Compaq Alpha
doesn't do NT anymore. So much for the dream <sniff>.
Pete
------------------------------
From: John Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Your office and Linux.
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 14:49:49 -0500
Charlie Ebert wrote:
> After the U.S. Court system breaks up Microsoft, their estimated LIFE
> will
> be less than a decade. And that's the peices....
>
> Charlie
I don't know. Look at AT&T and the baby Bell's after that break up.
MS could be like a flat worm; 5 pieces EACH worth 300 billion.
--
John W. Sanders
===============
"there" in or at a place.
"their" of or relating to them.
"they're" contraction of 'they are'.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (R. Tang)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 22 May 2000 19:56:33 GMT
In article <8gbv1p$h4i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Or they could just tough out this DOJ PR railroad case and win with
>real justice in the appealate courts and forget about this whole thing
>and watch their stock rise higher than before this whole BS?
>
>The DOJ wants/needs a victory over big-business. They've been marginally
>successful with big-tobacco and with big-firearms.
Snicker, snicker.
>They need a BIG victory. MS was an easy target as there is no real
>precedence set in software industry trials or dealing with intellectual
>property and rights of innovation.
>
>So, they set up a talking head half-dead judge that will do whatever they
>say and railroad the whole trial and get their win. Yeah! Liberals win
>another battle over all those mean capitalist pig-dogs! Elect Al Gore!
>He'll punish all those mean big businesses! First software, next guns and
>tobacco!
>
>Appealate courts usually don't play politics and get down to law and justice,
>which is why MS is holding out for the appeal, because they know they'll win.
Ummmm....lemmme guess...another newsgroup.lawyer, right?
Some points to consider:
A) Appeals courts generally focus on the findings of law, but
leave the finding of facts alone. Microsoft supporters should not depend
on reversal by the appelate court on the findings of fact, because it
won't happen. Most probable would be a moderation of remedies based on the
findings of law, but not an outright reversal.
B) Jackson was Republican appointee, rather friendly to business.
C) Anyone who calls the tobacco cases marginally succuessful
isnt't really on the same planet.
D) You bucking for a job in Microsoft legal? I can puke a better
legal defense than this...
--
-Roger Tang, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Artistic Director PC Theatre
- Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL]
- http://www.abcflash.com/a&e/r_tang/AATR.html
-Declared 4-F in the War Between the Sexes
------------------------------
From: D G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 13:13:52 -0700
JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
> On Sat, 20 May 2000 13:05:15 GMT, Full Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On 18 May 2000 09:50:55 +0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Victor Wagner)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>: 1. A streamlined, easy install process;
> >>
> >>Disagree. System should be installed by competent techinicans in
> >>computer shops. Windows is not any more easy to install than say
> >>Mandrake 7.0, only user do it much more frequently, so get used to it.
> >>
> >
> >What can someone say to such a stupid statement.
>
> That you are a moron.
>
> Windows and DOS are where they are today because most people
> don't have to deal with installing them.
Windows and DOS are where they are for entirely different reasons.
Besides, I can go buy a pre-installed linux system and not have to deal
with installing it.
> Any little quirk in
> your setup and any WinDOS, Solaris, BeOS or Linux install can
> quickly become nasty.
>
> This is a side effect of the PC being a random collection of
> spare parts. That adds a level of complexity to the whole
> situation that is very difficult to just 'program around'.
Any OS will give you problems if you're hardware is quirky. The ideal
install program in my mind will give you the option to install only the
basic features of the OS initially. This way, it can install on any
system. Then you reboot, go into the OS and from there you can optimize
as needed (X (or video), sound, modem, network, etc.).
--
DG
e-mail is: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(remove the Z's--they're what I do when I read SPAM!)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 22:39:55 +0200
From: Julius Apweiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > I've never bought a single Linux book. I only bought an
> > official distribution ONCE by choice. Even in 1994, there
> > were low cost options. Now, high speed net access and CD
> > burners are so cheap that there's no good reason anyone
> > should be paying more than they want for a copy of Linux.
>
> In America I guess. Here in the UK we still have local charges for
> telephone calls (nothing is free yet) and a max. of 56K modems. ADSL and
> Cable modems aren't here yet.
Same here in Luxembourg, or everywhere in Europe for that matter. But
frankly, if I have to pay something like 100 DM/$50/30 pounds (should be
very roughly the same) for a six-CD distribution (SuSE) plus a 550-page
manual and 60-day phone support (which I've never used, though), that's
worth the money. More so than 400 DM for a full version of W98 or some
1000+ DM for Win2k
====================
Julius Dominik Apweiler
----
Owner of Julius' Web Site: http://www.geocities.com/jule-apweiler/ ,
----
Inventor of the Creatures Christmas Calendar:
http://www.geocities.com/jule-apweiler/calendar
----
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----
ICQ: 21129422 , no authorization required.
----
Sent from SuSE Linux 6.3
"In a world without walls and fences, who needs Windows and
Gates?"
------------------------------
From: "Yannick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Time to prove it's not just words
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 20:50:05 GMT
I thought (and I thought it was proved by one of my tests, but I may have made a
mistake)
that the fact that httpd is running as nobody/nobody prevents write access to files
owned by joesmith/websitegroup (if the permissions, are, say, rw-rw-r--), even
when nobody is member of websitegroup, because I thought in linux you belonged
to only one group at a time during execution, am I wrong ?
Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message :
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Yannick wrote:
>
> > Okay, so I thought :
> > "I have a problem with the file access permissions on my linux webserver.
> > This, of course, come from the over-simplisitic permissions in linux, always
> > thought I'd eventually come to problems with them. Only I had not expected
> > so soon. Now, there's a lot of people here saying good of linux, and many
> > of them saying the access permissions of linux are sufficient. So surely
> > they know how to solve my problem..."
> >
> > So, here is the problem. I have one solution, which is a five-legged sheep.
> > I will not tell it to you so that you start from a clear view of the problem.
> > I want to know what would be your solution for the problem.
> >
> > * The files discussed here are part of a website. The server machine serves
> > several websites, so major changes to the configuration of httpd are not
> > a good idea. Httpd is running as "nobody/nobody".
> >
> > * The website uses PHP. The PHP scripts may need to create, next to each
> > html file in the website, a sort of "translated" version of it. This file
> > is regenerated when target is older or missing.
> >
> > * Several users have access to parts of the site as authors. They may want to
>update
> > the site, and possibly remove the translated files generated by the server,
> > using FTP, and, possibly, telnet. There is no restriction to how the
> > user accounts must be : they will only be used for that job.
> >
> > So there are files that the user must write and read and the server read,
> > and files that the server can create and read and the user remove.
> >
> > Who has got a solution for my problem ?
> >
> > Thanks in advance for any help.
> >
> > I still regret Windows NT's ACLs.
> >
> > Yannick.
>
> I see a solution, but maybe I didn't understand all the implications, because it's a
> very simple one. I would create a specific group, and I would declare as members of
> this group all users, remote and local which must have read/write access to the
> folder(s) where the files reside. I would make owner of the folder(s) the local user
> (root?, depends on how your local process is started). Setting the appropriate GUID
>in
> the folder should make the trick. You'd have your files with --rw-rw--r permission.
> Only root, owner if different and group members would have read/write access, while
> all others would have read-only access. Speaking in theory because I haven't yet
>done,
> but it is what I'm planning four our project files.
> --
>
> Ing. Giuliano Colla
> Direttore Tecnico
> Copeca srl
> Via del Fonditore 3/E
> 40139 Bologna (Italy)
>
>
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
