Antigen forwarded attachment
The entire message "Re: ifconfig alias: File Exists", originally sent to you by [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), has been forwarded to you from the Antigen Quarantine area. This message may have been re-scanned by Antigen and handled according to the appropriate scan job's settings. <> --- Begin Message --- In a message dated 10/24/04 11:18:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >Is that new? You are right, that fixed it, but didn't think > I had to do > >that before :( > You get it because the guy who maintains ifconfig didn't have > the foresight > to realize the "alias" should imply a host mask, and also > that the guy who > coded the kernel code didn't think that assuming a host mask was > reasonable. > > Welcome to open source. Love it and live with it. > ___ > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > >To assume makes an ass out of u and me. Ok, that out of the way, the config >you assume should be coded into ifconfig and kernel is not 100% going to be >used all the time. In fact I have multiple nets and have multiple netmask >assigned on the one machine. If you actually READ "man ifconfig" it states >that this should be set to what you assume it should be. It helps when >people don't attack things they don't fully understand cause for many it >might be a person's first view at what you are bashing. Unfortunately also, >many people aren't smart enough to get a second opinion or to try beyond >there first try or someone person's like yourselfs comments. As for the "assume" thing, speak for yourself. Your implication that there should be no defaults is quite asinine. If it doesn't work with no netmask specified, then its broken. Its not unreasonable to assume that if no netmask is provided, then a host mask (for an alias) is intended. In the absence of a netmask, the only "assumption" thats reasonable is a host mask. There are lots of "assumptions" made by ifconfig. It "assumes" that you only want the interface to have one address (as if you submit an address to an interface that already has one it explicitly deletes the other). Its not unreasonable to assume that, nor would it be unreasonable to assume that the intention was to add an alias. It would certainly be safer. And I "understand" it a lot better than you do. In today's world, "assuming" the natural mask (which is what ifconfig has done since the beginning of time) is wrong most of the time. Just because someone back in the 1970s decided to do it that way doesn't make it correct. One of the basic properties of a default setting is that it should work. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-que --- End Message --- ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Antigen forwarded attachment
The entire message "Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows", originally sent to you by [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), has been forwarded to you from the Antigen Quarantine area. This message may have been re-scanned by Antigen and handled according to the appropriate scan job's settings. <> --- Begin Message --- - Original Message - From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 4:54 AM Subject: RE: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows > > There > > are more people around that can administer MS systems than unix, > > Yes, > > > and it can > > be done with a lower level of talent. . > > Having seen and dealing with the aftermath of networks owned by > people that thought that, I have to state your out of your gourd. > > Windows today is just as complex as any UNIX system. Sure, maybe > a decade ago a peer-to-peer network of Windows systems your > statement might have been true, but not today. > This type of discussion has been going around the world since Windows and *Nix first clashed. Windows has a gui, *Nix by default on most OS's, doesn't. To configure Windows, you point here, click there, right click and check properties here, add this information in the line provided. Click apply and the program runs and yet there are those that feel it is more complex than *Nix. I'll tell you what. You take any MS certified, high end admin, that's never seen a *Nix OS and see how far he gets. Just tell him to setup ftp with chroot environment, or bind, or heaven forbid Sendmail with rbl, access, virtual aliasing, etc. If he's never seen it, it'll take him forever. To those that live in the *Nix world, we can generally walk up to a Windows DC and make it do what we want. Do you really think that MS was the first to come up with MS Shares? What about AD User propogation to other DC's? DNS? Or even Mail? Where do you think they got those ideas from? Honestly, what makes you think that Windows is more complex in it's administration than a *Nix system? It's common knowledge that Windows is "easier" to manage. That's one of it's selling points and it always has been. "Windows is now easier than ever, just point and click". Tell me how many times have you heard someone say that about any *Nix OS currently available? The human race as a whole, is always looking for something to make doing something easier for them. That's what drives our desire to contstantly design new technology. o Man walked everywhere then he realized, riding a horse was faster and easier than walking 3 hours. o They designed a saddle for the horse because it was easier on the ass than barebacking it. o They designed a car because it was easier than riding a horse and thought to be faster in it's infancy. o Cars were made faster as the years went along because we wanted to get there faster. o The airplane was designed because people wanted to leave the ground and fly to wherever they wanted to go. o Helicopters were made because it's easier to land in a field with no landing strip than to build the runway for a plane. o Computers were made because people got headaches doing complex calculations and wanted something that could do it for them and do it faster as well. and so on and so forth. The human race, as a whole, is lazy and always looking for something to make their lives easier. In this day and age of computer technology, MS provides that to us better than *Nix does. Yet, there are those that are adamant that Windows is more complex than *Nix is. How ironic. > Ted > -- Micheal Patterson Senior Communications Systems Engineer 405-917-0600 Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-que --- End Message --- ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Antigen forwarded attachment
The entire message "RE: ifconfig alias: File Exists", originally sent to you by [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), has been forwarded to you from the Antigen Quarantine area. This message may have been re-scanned by Antigen and handled according to the appropriate scan job's settings. <> --- Begin Message --- -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 4:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: ifconfig alias: File Exists In a message dated 10/24/04 11:18:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >Is that new? You are right, that fixed it, but didn't think > I had to do > >that before :( > You get it because the guy who maintains ifconfig didn't have > the foresight > to realize the "alias" should imply a host mask, and also > that the guy who > coded the kernel code didn't think that assuming a host mask was > reasonable. > > Welcome to open source. Love it and live with it. > ___ > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > >To assume makes an ass out of u and me. Ok, that out of the way, the config >you assume should be coded into ifconfig and kernel is not 100% going to be >used all the time. In fact I have multiple nets and have multiple netmask >assigned on the one machine. If you actually READ "man ifconfig" it states >that this should be set to what you assume it should be. It helps when >people don't attack things they don't fully understand cause for many it >might be a person's first view at what you are bashing. Unfortunately also, >many people aren't smart enough to get a second opinion or to try beyond >there first try or someone person's like yourselfs comments. As for the "assume" thing, speak for yourself. Your implication that there should be no defaults is quite asinine. If it doesn't work with no netmask specified, then its broken. Its not unreasonable to assume that if no netmask is provided, then a host mask (for an alias) is intended. In the absence of a netmask, the only "assumption" thats reasonable is a host mask. There are lots of "assumptions" made by ifconfig. It "assumes" that you only want the interface to have one address (as if you submit an address to an interface that already has one it explicitly deletes the other). Its not unreasonable to assume that, nor would it be unreasonable to assume that the intention was to add an alias. It would certainly be safer. And I "understand" it a lot better than you do. In today's world, "assuming" the natural mask (which is what ifconfig has done since the beginning of time) is wrong most of the time. Just because someone back in the 1970s decided to do it that way doesn't make it correct. One of the basic properties of a default setting is that it should work I find it very wrong to assume anything on a network interface. Assumptions on anything that could open up a security hole are very dangerous. ifconfig has a far greater ability than many things to open up security wholes that may get around an improperly setup firewall. I agree that some assumptions can easily be made and should be but not here. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-que --- End Message --- ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Antigen forwarded attachment
The entire message "RE: ifconfig alias: File Exists", originally sent to you by [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), has been forwarded to you from the Antigen Quarantine area. This message may have been re-scanned by Antigen and handled according to the appropriate scan job's settings. <> --- Begin Message --- > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 5:13 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: ifconfig alias: File Exists > > > In a message dated 10/19/04 3:51:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > writes: > >> # ifconfig fxp0 alias 200.46.204.9 > >> ifconfig: ioctl (SIOCAIFADDR): File exists > >> > >> when I know for a fact that it hasn't been configured? > > > > you should use a netmask of 255.255.255.255 for ipv4 aliases. > > > > ifconfig fxp0 alias 200.46.204.9 netmask 255.255.255.255 > > >Is that new? You are right, that fixed it, but didn't think > I had to do > >that before :( > You get it because the guy who maintains ifconfig didn't have > the foresight > to realize the "alias" should imply a host mask, and also > that the guy who > coded the kernel code didn't think that assuming a host mask was > reasonable. > > Welcome to open source. Love it and live with it. > ___ > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > To assume makes an ass out of u and me. Ok, that out of the way, the config you assume should be coded into ifconfig and kernel is not 100% going to be used all the time. In fact I have multiple nets and have multiple netmask assigned on the one machine. If you actually READ "man ifconfig" it states that this should be set to what you assume it should be. It helps when people don't attack things they don't fully understand cause for many it might be a person's first view at what you are bashing. Unfortunately also, many people aren't smart enough to get a second opinion or to try beyond there first try or someone person's like yourselfs comments. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-que --- End Message --- ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
