On Tuesday 22 Nov 2005 4:23 am, Holly Bostick wrote:
Just because you have a lot of packages installed that have the pam USE
flag doesn't mean that much-- is the flag actually enabled for those
packages?
If so, and your system is not having any issues, I wouldn't necessarily
become
On Sunday 20 Nov 2005 7:16 pm, Holly Bostick wrote:
equery hasuse pam
Wow!!! I performed that thing on my system and the stupid PAM is everywhere (I
am scared as shit after reading this thread). What would be the easiest way
to get rid of PAM from a single user desktop system working
Abhay Kedia schreef:
On Sunday 20 Nov 2005 7:16 pm, Holly Bostick wrote:
equery hasuse pam
Wow!!! I performed that thing on my system and the stupid PAM is
everywhere (I am scared as shit after reading this thread). What
would be the easiest way to get rid of PAM from a single user
John Jolet schrieb:
On Nov 19, 2005, at 12:39 AM, Alexander Skwar wrote:
Patrick McLean schrieb:
Running a system withoug pam is a rather strange thing to do on a
modern
Linux system, and I can think of very few reasons to do it.
What do you need PAM for, when there's basically just
Arturo 'Buanzo' Busleiman schrieb:
Alexander Skwar wrote:
What do you need PAM for, when there's basically just one
(human) user on the system and the system acts as a consumer
(ie. no servers)? Why add the complexity of PAM? Where's
the gain - in *THAT* scenario?
Learning. The whole
Arturo 'Buanzo' Busleiman schrieb:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
abhay wrote:
What? What kind of theory is that?
Sorry, I didn't explain myself clearly. I didn't mean to say that use
gnu/linux/oss for the
purpose of learning. However you can't argue that one gets to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Holly Bostick wrote:
So no, I do wish I could agree with you (it would certainly be a more
comfortable environment for me than what we actually have in terms of
geek-friendliness), but I just cannot.
You are probably right... :P - 12 years of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alexander Skwar wrote:
So: Why use PAM on systems that fit to the scenario I laid
out?
Because, in the very near time, your configuration will be obsoleted by an
upgrade, and probably
stop working altogether. It's standard already, I guess.
- --
Arturo 'Buanzo' Busleiman schrieb:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alexander Skwar wrote:
So: Why use PAM on systems that fit to the scenario I laid
out?
Because, in the very near time, your configuration will be obsoleted by an
upgrade, and probably
stop working
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alexander Skwar wrote:
No, it won't, I'd think. But, why DO you think so?
Excessive parts of a working system are curretnly opt-dependant on PAM, but
most also use PAM to get
specific functionality they do not want to provide. It just a guess, but
Arturo 'Buanzo' Busleiman schrieb:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alexander Skwar wrote:
No, it won't, I'd think. But, why DO you think so?
Excessive parts of a working system are curretnly opt-dependant on PAM,
That's wrong. Most support optional PAM support, but
for most
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alexander Skwar wrote:
/etc/passwd like on HP-UX 11.00. Ie. no /etc/shadow.
/etc/shadow was provided by an additional package and libraries. Just like PAM.
Shadow changed from
being a security measure to be an auth storage backend. As a storage
Arturo 'Buanzo' Busleiman schrieb:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alexander Skwar wrote:
/etc/passwd like on HP-UX 11.00. Ie. no /etc/shadow.
/etc/shadow was provided by an additional package and libraries. Just like
PAM. Shadow changed from
being a security measure to
Arturo 'Buanzo' Busleiman schreef:
Alexander Skwar wrote:
/etc/passwd like on HP-UX 11.00. Ie. no /etc/shadow.
/etc/shadow was provided by an additional package and libraries. Just
like PAM. Shadow changed from being a security measure to be an auth
storage backend. As a storage
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alexander Skwar wrote:
You don't need PAM to access /etc/shadow. There
are different ways.
That's why PAM can be skipped. I know that. Please tell me about the
alternatives, as I'm obviously
missing important information here.
- --
Arturo Buanzo
Arturo 'Buanzo' Busleiman schreef:
Holly Bostick wrote:
As you see, all the relevant programs that *can* use PAM (which
is *optional*) do *not* do so on my system. I do not need PAM
authentication, and I do not use PAM authentication. As far as I
know, my system runs fine (or at least has
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Holly Bostick wrote:
Well, defend it, then :-).
:)
Why should I-- who has further had (very) bad
experiences with the use of PAM, give it another try, when my system
clearly runs without it, which suggests I have no need for it?
I'd like to
Arturo 'Buanzo' Busleiman wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Holly Bostick wrote:
Why should I-- who has further had (very) bad
experiences with the use of PAM, give it another try, when my system
clearly runs without it, which suggests I have no need for it?
I'd like to
Alexander Skwar schreef:
Patrick McLean schrieb:
Running a system withoug pam is a rather strange thing to do on a
modern Linux system, and I can think of very few reasons to do it.
What do you need PAM for, when there's basically just one (human)
user on the system and the system
On Nov 19, 2005, at 12:39 AM, Alexander Skwar wrote:
Patrick McLean schrieb:
Running a system withoug pam is a rather strange thing to do on a
modern
Linux system, and I can think of very few reasons to do it.
What do you need PAM for, when there's basically just one
(human) user on the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alexander Skwar wrote:
What do you need PAM for, when there's basically just one
(human) user on the system and the system acts as a consumer
(ie. no servers)? Why add the complexity of PAM? Where's
the gain - in *THAT* scenario?
Learning. The
On Saturday 19 Nov 2005 8:40 pm, Arturo 'Buanzo' Busleiman wrote:
Learning. The whole point of using free, open source software. if you do
not want to get messy, then use windows. Anyway, if this user chosed all of
his use flags, then he is probably willing to LEARN.
What? What kind of theory
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
abhay wrote:
What? What kind of theory is that?
Sorry, I didn't explain myself clearly. I didn't mean to say that use
gnu/linux/oss for the
purpose of learning. However you can't argue that one gets to learn a lot from
simply using it.
So, to
Arturo 'Buanzo' Busleiman schreef:
and, *on the other hand*, the whole point of using free, open source
software, is usually to get hands-on software on a lower level than
in windows like platforms.
That's what I wanted to say. Most gnu/linux/oss users like screwing
up their systems :P
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 06:51:36AM -0600, John Jolet wrote
On Nov 19, 2005, at 12:39 AM, Alexander Skwar wrote:
What do you need PAM for, when there's basically just one
(human) user on the system and the system acts as a consumer
(ie. no servers)? Why add the complexity of PAM? Where's
the
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 12:10:42PM -0300, Arturo 'Buanzo' Busleiman wrote
Alexander Skwar wrote:
What do you need PAM for, when there's basically just one
(human) user on the system and the system acts as a consumer
(ie. no servers)? Why add the complexity of PAM? Where's
the gain - in
On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 10:58:15PM +0100, ?c1lvaro Castro wrote
Uff!
Yes! That's for sure, since I made my own make.conf
and I didn't know this was necessary!
hum... how can I solve that?
I mean, what things should I recompile?
emerge --newuse world???
You need to emerge *EITHER*
On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 06:11:22PM -0500, Willie Wong wrote
Clarify? I certainly run my box without pam and I can still login. Is
this some new development that I am not aware of?
You need to emerge *EITHER* pam *OR* shadow. You can't emerge both,
because they provide the same service. I
Walter Dnes wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 06:11:22PM -0500, Willie Wong wrote
Clarify? I certainly run my box without pam and I can still login. Is
this some new development that I am not aware of?
You need to emerge *EITHER* pam *OR* shadow. You can't emerge both,
because they provide
Patrick McLean schrieb:
Running a system withoug pam is a rather strange thing to do on a modern
Linux system, and I can think of very few reasons to do it.
What do you need PAM for, when there's basically just one
(human) user on the system and the system acts as a consumer
(ie. no servers)?
On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 20:17 +0100, ÿc1lvaro Castro wrote:
Hello all!
This is just a short question...
Does anyone know why it doesn't allow me to log on my
system?
I just installed gentoo...
I KNOW my password. And I also tried the 2 techniques
for changing it (the init=/bin/sh in
On 2005-11-17 20:17 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I KNOW my password. And I also tried the 2 techniques
for changing it (the init=/bin/sh in the bootloader
and chrooting from the live-cd). I change them
succesfully but it still doesn't work!
Check to make sure the console is listed in
Hi!
Yes... I've done it a couple of times to be sure...
Other thing: my console is using UTF-8 ¿maybe...?
The console is still not working properly, it shows
deformed characters because of the resolution.
thanks!
Have you run passwd for the root user while in the
chroot environment?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Michael Kjorling wrote:
Check to make sure the console is listed in /etc/securetty, otherwise
you won't be able to log in as root directly. (However, you can log in
as a normal user and then use `su'.)
... if that user is in the wheel group.
- --
Hello!
Yes, I can find
tts/0
in /etc/securetty
The point is that the normal user can't login neither.
thanks!
.alvaro.castro.
--- Michael Kjorling [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
On 2005-11-17 20:17 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I KNOW my password. And I also tried the 2
techniques
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
ÿc1lvaro Castro wrote:
The point is that the normal user can't login neither.
You probable removed pam from your /etc/make.conf USE flags. That wont allow
you to login, no
matter what user you try.
- --
Arturo Buanzo Busleiman -
Uff!
Yes! That's for sure, since I made my own make.conf
and I didn't know this was necessary!
hum... how can I solve that?
I mean, what things should I recompile?
emerge --newuse world???
!!!thanks
.alvaro.castro.
--- Arturo 'Buanzo' Busleiman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
escribió:
-BEGIN PGP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
ÿc1lvaro Castro wrote:
Yes! That's for sure, since I made my own make.conf
and I didn't know this was necessary!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ $ grep ^pam /usr/portage/profiles/use*
/usr/portage/profiles/use.desc:pam - Adds support PAM (Pluggable
On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 05:50:55PM -0300, Arturo 'Buanzo' Busleiman wrote:
?c1lvaro Castro wrote:
The point is that the normal user can't login neither.
You probable removed pam from your /etc/make.conf USE flags. That wont
allow you to login, no
matter what user you try.
Clarify?
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 22:58:15 +0100 (CET), ÿc1lvaro Castro wrote:
I mean, what things should I recompile?
You need to re-emerge shadow after removing pam.
emerge --newuse world???
That should cover all bases. IMO it's always worth doing --newuse after a
change to your USE flags.
--
40 matches
Mail list logo
