On Sunday, February 13, 2011 03:38 AM, Natxo Asenjo wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Christopher Chan
> 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. Alway
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Christopher Chan
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
>> company and the permissions are
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 8:09 AM, Christopher Chan
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
>> company and the permissions ar
On Saturday, February 12, 2011 09:02 PM, Natxo Asenjo wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 3:38 AM, 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 s
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 3:38 AM, 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 es
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 9:38 PM, 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 es
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
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listin
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
>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 differ
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
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
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 escal
> 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 p
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:27 AM, 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
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,
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 10:47 AM, John Hodrien 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 syslog if equipped
with a
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 di
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 erro
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, re
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 (a
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 err
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
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 bee
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 sinc
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 relia
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
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
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
At Thu, 10 Feb 2011 21:25:24 + CentOS mailing list
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 2.6.35.4 on an
> -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 st
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?
_
32 matches
Mail list logo
