[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 Apr 2001, Ronald Bultje did have
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
>
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
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
[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
[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, 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
[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, mail
[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 want
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 I can do
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.
That may be
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 9210's, I was
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 model before it is
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 shell scripts 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 extension
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
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. Anything
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 Apr 2001, Ronald Bultje did have cause to say:
Who says it needs to compile? Who says
>
> 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
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.
> >
> >
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
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
>
>
> 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,
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
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
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
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_
> >
> 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
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
[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
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
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
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
[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
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,
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.
snip
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, admin
[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 flexible,
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 the
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 generally
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 for
[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
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
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_
inconvenience.
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 convince
us,
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 another
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 turn the
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.
snip
Heh. You receive all your email on your root
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)
- 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
[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
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
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
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
[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
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
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 user (whi
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.
[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
[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
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
> 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
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,
] 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, actually, it is a reality:
http://www.agendacomputing.com
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: [PATCH] Single user linux
At 5:01 PM -0700 2001-04-24
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 it only
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 ipaq
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 misguided
[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 open
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.
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 user (which confuse some people
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 up
[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 single
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)
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
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
[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 with
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, means
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) offer
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
>
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
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
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
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
>
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
1 - 100 of 219 matches
Mail list logo
