- Jim Gettys
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: Disconnect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:17:55 -0400
> To: Ronald Bultje <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Single user linux
> -
> On Wed, 25
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 07:42:25AM -0500, Collectively Unconscious wrote:
> Also it seems to me last I checked PDA's were at least equvalent to the
> 386 which is ostensibly the bottom linux rung.
Check out the Compaq iPaq 3600 series.
> As for the objection about slow compile times, get real. N
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 09:41:13PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > When I first started I compiled my linux kernels on a 386 dx with 8 mb ram
> > heh. I think a lot of the current PDAs are faster.
>
> My pocket computer is 40MHz mips r3902, likely faster than your
> 386dx. That's 3 years old. Any
Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sez:
> available for download? [Besides, anyone knows of vtech helio emulator
> for linux? Only version I saw was windows...]
http://www.kernelconcepts.de/helio/helio-emulator-1.0.6b.tar.gz
Works slowly, but okay. Your X server must be set to 15 or 16bpp.
-
To
Hi!
> > OK. "time make bzImage". Of course, mine's really slow (and I will consider
> > myself publically humiliated if my only Linux machine is beaten on a kernel
> > compile by an iPAQ). I 'spose, if it only goes into suspend, the ability to
> > write "uptime" on it constitutes a walking penis
Hi!
> > > What real value does it have, apart from the geek "look at me, I'm using
> > > bash" value?
> >
> > I don't really want to get into it at the moment, but imagine hacking
> > netfilter without lugging a laptop around. PDA's are sleek and cool,
> > and using UNIX on them lets you write s
Hi!
> >>> And UNIX on a phone is pure overkill.
> >>
> >>Quit being a naysayer. UNIX on a PDA is a wet dream.
> >
> >http://www.agendacomputing.com/ (not that the reviews have been very kind)
>
> Nor has an official product been released. Reviewing hardware
> and software in open development mo
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 09:35:45PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
Hola.
> > > read the news! i'm programming nokia 9210 with c++, is that
> > > computer enough?
> >
> > Aah. I see. Where was this? I never saw it.
>
> 9210 has qwerty keyboard.
He said "read the news". I've seen the 9110 and
Hi!
> > > Since when, did mobile phones == computers?
> >
> > read the news! i'm programming nokia 9210 with c++, is that
> > computer enough?
>
> Aah. I see. Where was this? I never saw it.
9210 has qwerty keyboard.
> > i bet if you programmed one, you'd wish you have posix
> > interface.
>
Helge Hafting wrote:
> You were talking about how a notebook is a personal thing,
> with only one user. Well, the notebook user do of course want to
> do a bunch of nifty things like read email on the thing. Guess what,
> you need an email daemon for that! And many users don't want to know
> th
On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Robert Varga wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 10:34:56AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 01:16:03AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > > > Quit being a naysayer. UNIX on a PDA is a wet dream.
> > > > What real value does it have, apart from the geek "look at
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 03:12:39PM +0200, Robert Varga wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 10:34:56AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 01:16:03AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > > What real value does it have, apart from the geek "look at me, I'm using
> > > > bash" value?
> > >
>
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 10:34:56AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 01:16:03AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > > Quit being a naysayer. UNIX on a PDA is a wet dream.
> > > What real value does it have, apart from the geek "look at me, I'm using
> > > bash" value?
> >
> > It means
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, John Cavan wrote:
> I think you have it backwards here, given that Linux works one way and you
yeah, it was a patch for linux, but i wasn't thinking linux. there
are quite many os out there. and i don't think they're different
just because they have programmers with differen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> i don't understand, that patch is configurable with 'n' as
> default, marked "dangerous". so somebody who turned on that
> option must be know what he's doing, doesn't understand english,
> or has a broken monitor.
This is a very marginal thing that very few people will
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> i wrote somewhere that it was my mistake to call it single-user when i
> mean all user has the same root cap, and reduce "user" (account) to
> "profile".
Seen this way it makes a tad more sense:
1. you and your spouse share the computer
2. you have different shells,
>
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Ian Stirling wrote:
>
> > Also, there is another reason.
> > If you'r logged in as root, then any exploitable bug in large programs,
> > be it netscape, realplayer, wine, vmware, ... means that the
> > cracker owns your machine.
> Heh. You receive all your email on your
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, [iso-8859-1] Rasmus Bøg Hansen wrote:
> > > i'd be happy to accept proof that multi-user is a solution for
> > > clueless user, not because it's proven on servers. but because it is
> > > a solution by definition.
> >
> > Let's
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Ian Stirling wrote:
> Also, there is another reason.
> If you'r logged in as root, then any exploitable bug in large programs,
> be it netscape, realplayer, wine, vmware, ... means that the
> cracker owns your machine.
> If they are not, then the cracker has to go through ano
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> you're right, we could do it in more than one way. like copying
> with mcopy without mounting a fat disk. the question is where to put it.
> why we do it is an important thing.
> taking place as a clueless user, i think i should be able to do anythin
>
>
> On Thursday, April 26, 2001, at 07:03 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > he owns the computer, he may do anything he wants.
> Any OS worth its weight in silicon will make a distinction between
> blessed and unblessed users. It can be phrased in different ways --
> root vs. non-root, ad
At 09:03 PM 4/26/01 +0700, you wrote:
>right now it's the kernel who thinks that root
>is special, and applications work around that because there's a
>division of super-user and plain user. is that a must?
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: The division is artificial, but is absolutely necessary
On Thursday, April 26, 2001, at 07:03 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> he owns the computer, he may do anything he wants.
This sentence really stood out for me, and implies a profound lack of
understanding of multi-user machines. No offense intended.
I've been a Unix admin for over ten years,
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, [iso-8859-1] Rasmus Bøg Hansen wrote:
> > i'd be happy to accept proof that multi-user is a solution for
> > clueless user, not because it's proven on servers. but because it is
> > a solution by definition.
>
> Let's turn the question the other way. It's you trying to convin
On 2001.04.26 13:31:54 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Helge Hafting wrote:
> > The linux kernel ought to be flexible, so most people can use
> > it as-is. It can be used as-is for your purpose, and
> > it have been shown that this offer more security _without_
> > inconven
> taking place as a clueless user, i think i should be able to do anything.
Yeah, I thought so when I started using Linux. I stopped thinking so,
when I accidentally blew up the FS on my datadrive and lost
nearly _everything_ I had written for 2 years...
> i'd be happy to accept proof that multi
David Weinehall wrote:
> So do us all a favour, send this patch to Linus. I'd give you a 1/10 chance
> of getting a reply at all, and a 1/100 that the answer won't
> be along the terms of "No way in hell, never!" (possibly worded a bit
> different.) If you don't get any response in say
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> i'd be happy to accept proof that multi-user is a solution for
> clueless user, not because it's proven on servers. but because it is
> a solution by definition.
Clueless user deletes files critical to running the system. '!@#$% Why
can't I boot. Oh my gosh!! Linux suck
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 07:11:24PM +0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, John Cavan wrote:
>
> > Several distributions (Red Hat and Mandrake certainly) offer auto-login
> > tools. In conjunction with those tools, take the approach that Apple
> > used with OS X and setup "sudo"
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, John Cavan wrote:
> Several distributions (Red Hat and Mandrake certainly) offer auto-login
> tools. In conjunction with those tools, take the approach that Apple
> used with OS X and setup "sudo" for administrative tasks on the machine.
> This allows the end user to general
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Helge Hafting wrote:
> The linux kernel ought to be flexible, so most people can use
> it as-is. It can be used as-is for your purpose, and
> it have been shown that this offer more security _without_
> inconvenience. Your patch however removes multi-user security
> for th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> so when everybody suggested playing with login, getty, etc.
> i know you have got the wrong idea. if i wanted to play
> on user space, i'd rather use capset() to set all users
> capability to "all cap". that's the perfect equivalent.
>
The linux kernel ought to be flex
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> so i guess i deserve opinions instead of flames. the
> approach is from personal use, not the usual server use.
> if you think a server setup is best for all use just say so,
> i'm listening.
Several distributions (Red Hat and Mandrake certainly) off
- Received message begins Here -
>
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Rick Hohensee wrote:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > for those who didn't read that patch, i #define capable(),
> > > suser(), and fsuser() to 1. the implication is all users
> > > will have root capabilities.
> >
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Rick Hohensee wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > for those who didn't read that patch, i #define capable(),
> > suser(), and fsuser() to 1. the implication is all users
> > will have root capabilities.
>
> How is that not single user?
Every user still has it's own account
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> for those who didn't read that patch, i #define capable(),
> suser(), and fsuser() to 1. the implication is all users
> will have root capabilities.
How is that not single user?
I have been doing single-user oriented Linux/GNU/unix longer than anyone
I'm aware of wit
hi imel,
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> problem is you guys are to unix-centric, try to be user-centric a little.
with all respect: the problem is that you do not listen.
as people keep trying to point out to you:
- you can have your single-user centric user environment (no lo
At 8:45 AM +0100 2001-04-25, Alan Cox wrote:
> > True, but then imagine trying to hack C (no, that's a CURLY BRACE, and a
>> tab! not space! you just broke my makefiles! aargh!), and compiling
>> Netfilter (it takes HOW MANY hours to compile init/main.c?!?) on a PDA.
>
>Usual misguided assumptions
So, are you saying, right now in front of the whole community, that you only
use Linux because you can develop on it? That if it wasn't for GCC you would
be playing Minesweeper right now?
I know thats not what you are saying, but thats how you come across. We
always tell everybody who woul
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Ronald Bultje did have cause to say:
> Who says it needs to compile? Who says it needs software installed? Who
> says it needs to run the software itself?
My current project (and I'm just waiting for nfs and wvlan_cs to stabalize
on ARM before putting the final touches on it
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> for those who didn't read that patch, i #define capable(),
> suser(), and fsuser() to 1. the implication is all users
> will have root capabilities.
And this is better than just having the system auto-login as root because..?
>
> then i tried to bring up the sing
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
> so i guess i deserve opinions instead of flames. the
> approach is from personal use, not the usual server use.
> if you think a server setup is best for all use just say so,
> i'm listening.
>
Heres one.. most of the time I spend cleaning u
Hello [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Once you wrote about "Re: [PATCH] Single user linux":
> first, i think i owe you guys apology for didn't make myself
> clear, which is going harder if you irritated.
> even my subject went wrong, as the patch isn't really about
> single
first, i think i owe you guys apology for didn't make myself
clear, which is going harder if you irritated.
even my subject went wrong, as the patch isn't really about
single user (which confuse some people).
for those who didn't read that patch, i #define capable(),
suser(), and fsuser() to 1. t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> i didn't change all uid/gid to 0!
>
> why? so with that radical patch, users will still have
> uid/gid so programs know the user's profile.
So you:
1. broke security (OK, fine...)
2. didn't remove all the support for security
It would be far more interesting to rip
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> thank you very much fyi.
> if just you tried to understand it a little further:
> i didn't change all uid/gid to 0!
>
> why? so with that radical patch, users will still have
> uid/gid so programs know the user's profile.
>
> if everyone had 0/0 uid/gid, pine will ope
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 08:45:25AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > True, but then imagine trying to hack C (no, that's a CURLY BRACE, and a
> > tab! not space! you just broke my makefiles! aargh!), and compiling
> > Netfilter (it takes HOW MANY hours to compile init/main.c?!?) on a PDA.
>
> Usual misg
> True, but then imagine trying to hack C (no, that's a CURLY BRACE, and a
> tab! not space! you just broke my makefiles! aargh!), and compiling
> Netfilter (it takes HOW MANY hours to compile init/main.c?!?) on a PDA.
Usual misguided assumptions
1. Many PDA's have a keyboard
2. The ip
On 2001.04.25 02:52:22 +0200 Gerhard Mack wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Daniel Stone wrote:
>
> > OK. "time make bzImage". Of course, mine's really slow (and I will
> consider
> > myself publically humiliated if my only Linux machine is beaten on a
> kernel
> > compile by an iPAQ). I 'spose, if
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Jonathan Lundell wrote:
>Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 17:26:29 -0700
>From: Jonathan Lundell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: Aaron Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Subject: Re: [PATC
in; charset=us-ascii
>Subject: Re: [PATCH] Single user linux
>
>On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 11:38:01PM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
>> And UNIX on a phone is pure overkill.
>
>Quit being a naysayer. UNIX on a PDA is a wet dream.
No, actu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
>On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Daniel Stone wrote:
>
>>Hence, Microsoft Windows. It might not be stable, it might not be fast, it
>>might not do RAID, packet-filtering and SQL, but it does a job. A simple
>>job. To give Mum & Dad(tm) (with apologies to maddog) a chance to use
Tomas Telensky wrote:
>But, what I should say to the network security, is that AFAIK in the most
>of linux distributions the standard daemons (httpd, sendmail) are run as
>root! Having multi-user system or not! Why? For only listening to a port
><1024? Is there any elegant solution?
>
Yes, mos
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Aaron Lehmann did have cause to say:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 10:07:48AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > What real value does it have, apart from the geek "look at me, I'm using
> > bash" value?
>
> I don't really want to get into it at the moment, but imagine hacking
> netf
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Daniel Stone wrote:
> OK. "time make bzImage". Of course, mine's really slow (and I will consider
> myself publically humiliated if my only Linux machine is beaten on a kernel
> compile by an iPAQ). I 'spose, if it only goes into suspend, the ability to
> write "uptime" on it
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Quit being a naysayer. UNIX on a PDA is a wet dream.
>> What real value does it have, apart from the geek "look at me, I'm using
>> bash" value?
>
>It means I can do anything on my ipaq I can do anywhere else. I can run
>mul
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 05:35:10PM -0700, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 10:32:46AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > True, but then imagine trying to hack C (no, that's a CURLY BRACE, and a
> > tab! not space! you just broke my makefiles! aargh!), and compiling
> > Netfilter (it take
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 01:16:03AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > Quit being a naysayer. UNIX on a PDA is a wet dream.
> > What real value does it have, apart from the geek "look at me, I'm using
> > bash" value?
>
> It means I can do anything on my ipaq I can do anywhere else. I can run
> multipl
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 10:32:46AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> True, but then imagine trying to hack C (no, that's a CURLY BRACE, and a
> tab! not space! you just broke my makefiles! aargh!), and compiling
> Netfilter (it takes HOW MANY hours to compile init/main.c?!?) on a PDA.
> Hrmz.
I didn't
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 05:20:27PM -0700, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 10:07:48AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > What real value does it have, apart from the geek "look at me, I'm using
> > bash" value?
>
> I don't really want to get into it at the moment, but imagine hacking
>
At 5:01 PM -0700 2001-04-24, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
>On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 11:38:01PM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
>> And UNIX on a phone is pure overkill.
>
>Quit being a naysayer. UNIX on a PDA is a wet dream.
http://www.agendacomputing.com/ (not that the reviews have been very kind)
--
/Jonatha
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 10:07:48AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> What real value does it have, apart from the geek "look at me, I'm using
> bash" value?
I don't really want to get into it at the moment, but imagine hacking
netfilter without lugging a laptop around. PDA's are sleek and cool,
and us
> > Quit being a naysayer. UNIX on a PDA is a wet dream.
> What real value does it have, apart from the geek "look at me, I'm using
> bash" value?
It means I can do anything on my ipaq I can do anywhere else. I can run
multiple apps at a time. I can run X11. I can run the palm emulator even ;)
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 05:01:18PM -0700, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 11:38:01PM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > And UNIX on a phone is pure overkill.
>
> Quit being a naysayer. UNIX on a PDA is a wet dream.
What real value does it have, apart from the geek "look at me, I'm usi
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 11:38:01PM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> And UNIX on a phone is pure overkill.
Quit being a naysayer. UNIX on a PDA is a wet dream.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Tomas Telensky wrote:
>
> But, what I should say to the network security, is that AFAIK in the most
> of linux distributions the standard daemons (httpd, sendmail) are run as
> root! Having multi-user system or not! Why? For only listening to a port
> <1024? Is there any ele
> that also explain why win95 user doesn't want to use NT. not
> because they can't afford it (belive me, here NT costs only
> us$2), but additional headache isn't acceptable.
I'm going to speak from experience:
My mother, who is the biggest windoze fan on the face of the universe, got
fed up w
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> hi,
>
> a friend of my asked me on how to make linux easier to use
> for personal/casual win user.
>
>
> from that, i also found out that it is very awkward to type
> username and password every time i use my computer.
> so here's a patch.
Neet hack, but maybe the kern
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 07:44:17PM +0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> come on, it's hard for me as it's hard for you. not everybody
> expect a computer to be like people here thinks how a computer
> should be.
I'm sorry, you're looking at the problem the wrong way around.
Its not a kernel problem,
Hello,
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Now, in order for step 4 to be done safely, procmail should be running
> > as the user it's meant to deliver the mail for. for this to happen
> > sendmail needs to start it as that user in step 3 and to do that it
> > needs extra privs, above and b
> And get_mail must have elevated privileges to search for the users mail...
> or sendmail must have already switched user on reciept to put it in the
> users inbox which also requires privleges...
No. Think instead of blindly following existing implementation
socket(AF_UNIX, SOCK_STREAM
"Thinking out of the box," you don't need to modify the kernel or the
userland utilities to make Linux automatically launch a dedicated terminal
for embedded applications. All you need to do is look at the file
/etc/inittab and read the man pages for this file. For console access, you
merely
- Received message begins Here -
>
> > 1. email -> sendmail
> > 2. sendmail figures out what it has to do with it. turns out it's deliver
> ...
>
> > Now, in order for step 4 to be done safely, procmail should be running
> > as the user it's meant to deliver the mail for. for
> think about personal devices. something like the nokia communicator.
> a system security passwd is acceptable, but that's it. no those-
> device-user would like to know about user account, file ownership,
> etc. they just want to use it.
If you are making a personal device, like an "appliance",
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 04:53:10PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > 1. email -> sendmail
> > 2. sendmail figures out what it has to do with it. turns out it's deliver
> ...
>
> > Now, in order for step 4 to be done safely, procmail should be running
> > as the user it's meant to deliver the mail for. f
> 1. email -> sendmail
> 2. sendmail figures out what it has to do with it. turns out it's deliver
...
> Now, in order for step 4 to be done safely, procmail should be running
> as the user it's meant to deliver the mail for. for this to happen
> sendmail needs to start it as that user in step 3
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, CaT wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 04:49:57PM +0200, Pjotr Kourzanoff wrote:
> > > use port 2525 as SMTP port in your MTA. I've succeed to setup such a
> > > configuration.
> >
> > This requires you to ensure that your MTA is started first on that
> > port...Might be di
Alan Cox wrote:
> > so what the hell is transmeta doing with mobile linux (midori).
> > is it going to teach multi-user thing to tablet owners?
>
> Thats you problem. Distinguish the OS from the user interface.
>
> > surely mortals expect midori to behave like their pc. lets say
> > on redhat, th
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 03:59:28PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> What is this gid mail crap ? You don't need priviledge. You get the mail by
> asking the daemon for it. procmail needs no priviledge either if it is done
> right.
>
> You just need to think about the security models in the right way. Lin
Tomas Telensky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Tomas Telensky wrote:
> >
> > > of linux distributions the standard daemons (httpd, sendmail) are run as
> > > root! Having multi-user system or not! Why? For only listening to a port
> > > <1
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 04:49:57PM +0200, Pjotr Kourzanoff wrote:
> > use port 2525 as SMTP port in your MTA. I've succeed to setup such a
> > configuration.
>
> This requires you to ensure that your MTA is started first on that
> port...Might be difficult to achieve reliably in an automatic
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 04:49:57PM +0200, Pjotr Kourzanoff wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, [iso-8859-2] Gábor Lénárt wrote:
> >
> > Or even without xinetd. Just use local port forwarding eg 2525 -> 25, and
>
> This is more like 25 -> 2525 :-)
OK, that was a hard night for me, I need some sle
> I've always found the root < 1024 to be quite limmited and find myself
> wishing I could assign permissions based on ip/port.
Its been done. Search for 'sockfs' I believe it was called.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL
Le 25 Apr 2001 00:06:57 +1000, Daniel Stone a écrit :
> > problem is you guys are to unix-centric, try to be user-centric a little.
>
> We're too UNIX-centric, yet you're the one trying to put UNIX on a phone?
> Come on ...
Hey ! We already put uClinux on a phone ! Full-fledge linux is not far,
> > Copying spool articles matching the peercred to the client does not
>
> Running procmail as the user who is to receive the email for local mail
> delivery as running it with gid mail (for eg) would allow one user to
> modify another's mail.
What is this gid mail crap ? You don't need pri
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Mohammad A. Haque wrote:
> > > Correct. <1024 requires root to bind to the port.
> > ... And nothing says that it should be done by daemon itself.
>
> Or that you shouldnt let inetd do it for you
> And that you shouldn't drop the capa
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 03:37:34PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> What role requires priviledge once the port is open ?
>
> DNS lookup does not
> Spooling to disk does not
> Accepting a connection from a client does not
> Doing peercred auth with a client does not
> Copyin
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, [iso-8859-2] Gábor Lénárt wrote:
>
> Or even without xinetd. Just use local port forwarding eg 2525 -> 25, and
This is more like 25 -> 2525 :-)
> use port 2525 as SMTP port in your MTA. I've succeed to setup such a
> configuration.
This requires you to ensure that your
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > It is possible to implement the entire mail system without anything running
> > > as root but xinetd.
> >
> > You want an MDA with elevated privileges, though...
^
> What role requires priviledge once the port is open ?
.forward hand
> > It is possible to implement the entire mail system without anything running
> > as root but xinetd.
>
> You want an MDA with elevated privileges, though...
What role requires priviledge once the port is open ?
DNS lookup does not
Spooling to disk does not
Accepting a
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 03:18:11PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Mohammad A. Haque wrote:
> > > Correct. <1024 requires root to bind to the port.
> > ... And nothing says that it should be done by daemon itself.
>
> Or that you shouldnt let inetd do it for you
> And that you sho
> > Even my digital tv box has multiple users. The fact you cannot figure out how
> > to make your UI present that to the end user in a suitable manner is not
> > the kernels problem. Get a real UI designer
>
> if it's useful, it's okay. if not, what is it doing there?
For one it allowing you to
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Even my digital tv box has multiple users. The fact you cannot figure out how
>> to make your UI present that to the end user in a suitable manner is not
>> the kernels problem. Get a real UI designer
>
>if it's useful, it's okay. if not, what is it
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Mohammad A. Haque wrote:
> > > Correct. <1024 requires root to bind to the port.
> > ... And nothing says that it should be done by daemon itself.
>
> Or that you shouldnt let inetd do it for you
> And that you shouldn't drop the ca
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Mohammad A. Haque wrote:
> > Correct. <1024 requires root to bind to the port.
> ... And nothing says that it should be done by daemon itself.
Or that you shouldnt let inetd do it for you
And that you shouldn't drop the capabilities except that bind
It is possible to imple
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 09:04:02PM +0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
What's with all these blank lines? Everywhere!
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > Aah. I see. Where was this? I never saw it.
>
> psst, it's a proto.
Right-o. In the news, you say. Hrm.
> > That may be so, so
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > so what the hell is transmeta doing with mobile linux (midori).
> > is it going to teach multi-user thing to tablet owners?
>
> Thats you problem. Distinguish the OS from the user interface.
sigh. is that mean the little thing had to do capable() check
ea
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Tomas Telensky wrote:
> Thanks for the comment. And why not just let it listen to 25 and then
> being run as uid=nobody, gid=mail?
Handling of .forward, for one thing. Or pipe aliases, or...
None of this stuff is unsolvable (e.g. handling of .forward belongs to
MDA, not M
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Aah. I see. Where was this? I never saw it.
psst, it's a proto.
> That may be so, so hack up your own OS. It's a MOBILE PHONE, it needs to be
> absolutely *rock solid*. Look at the 5110, that's just about perfect. The
> 7110, on the other hand ...
mo
> so what the hell is transmeta doing with mobile linux (midori).
> is it going to teach multi-user thing to tablet owners?
Thats you problem. Distinguish the OS from the user interface.
> surely mortals expect midori to behave like their pc. lets say
> on redhat, they have to login as root to a
1 - 100 of 121 matches
Mail list logo
