bash as the root shell while you are
still walking with a limp from your last experience.
There's a lot of stuff that can go wrong when changing a user's
default shell over the lifecycles of the system (think upgrades!),
virtually all operator error, all avoidable, but errors that can
On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 09:29:43AM -0500, Alfredo Perez wrote:
| Just add a few options to /etc/profile and it's like at home again.
|
| export HISTFILE=~/.sh_history
| export HISTSIZE=10
|
| export PS1='[EMAIL PROTECTED] \w \$ '
|
| Any suggestions? :)
|
| I would add set -o vi
2008/12/5 Paul de Weerd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 09:29:43AM -0500, Alfredo Perez wrote:
| Just add a few options to /etc/profile and it's like at home again.
|
| export HISTFILE=~/.sh_history
| export HISTSIZE=10
|
| export PS1='[EMAIL PROTECTED] \w \$ '
|
|
On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 04:24:39PM +0100, G??bri M??t?? wrote:
| If you prefer vi and want to use it for most everything, simply export
| VISUAL=vi. This has the same effect as set -o vi on your command line
| editor.
|
| What does it do if i set this variable?
According to the ksh manpage,
linked copy of bash in /bin if you want bash as your
root shell.
OpenBSD prompts you for a shell name when booting into single-user mode.
There's no need for precautions when using a dynamically-linked shell, as
you can always just type /bin/sh when you need to boot into single-user
mode and find
OpenBSD prompts you for a shell name when booting into single-user mode.
There's no need for precautions when using a dynamically-linked shell, as
you can always just type /bin/sh when you need to boot into single-user
mode and find yourself without your precious libraries.
Good luck doing it
in single-user mode before all partitions are mounted.
The problem is when you break things, you break 'em BIG. Original
thread is a case in point. You win awards for courage, not wisdom,
for still being intent on using bash as the root shell while you are
still walking with a limp from your last
linked copy of bash in /bin if you want bash as your
root shell.
Sorry, no list of Unix variants. After using Unix for over 30 years
the list is just too long. And some of them I'd rather forget.
2008/12/2 Christopher Linn [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
$ sudo su -
Make that
$ sudo -s
Best
Martin
Dieter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
more than 13 years
[...]
If you write shell scripts that depend on being run by a specific
shell, you are supposed to use the #! thing.
Yes, you are great. You've never made any mistake in more than 13 years.
Us mere mortals prefer to avoid the risk of making
On Tue, 2 Dec 2008, Brian wrote:
--- On Tue, 12/2/08, Ted Unangst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Install bash statically linked. That's all.
Never make a mistake. That's all.
Exactly. I don't get this thread. I mean, I could understand
BASH as an option when openBSD was moving off of csh
2008/12/3 Diana Eichert [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, 2 Dec 2008, Brian wrote:
--- On Tue, 12/2/08, Ted Unangst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Install bash statically linked. That's all.
Never make a mistake. That's all.
Exactly. I don't get this thread. I mean, I could understand
BASH as an
Jesse Zbikowski wrote:
Nick Holland wrote:
the generally bad idea of duplicate user numbers
I am not aware that this is considered a bad idea to have two
usernames for the same UID. It is a pretty established practice to
add a so-called toor username for exactly the reason of getting a
nice
Martin Schrvder wrote:
2008/12/2 Christopher Linn [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
$ sudo su -
Make that
$ sudo -s
Best
Martin
amazing how annoying two words can be.
By saying make that, you are saying someone else was wrong, and this
is correct.
For many purposes, sudo su - and sudo -s are
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 12:21:28PM -0500, Nick Holland wrote:
Martin Schrvder wrote:
2008/12/2 Christopher Linn [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
$ sudo su -
Make that
$ sudo -s
Best
Martin
amazing how annoying two words can be.
By saying make that, you are saying someone else was wrong,
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 9:14 AM, Nick Holland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jesse Zbikowski wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toor
Did you actually READ that article? say, maybe, end part under Security
Considerations?
Yup. Did you read it as well, or did you just assume that because
there is
On Dec 1, 2008, at 4:55 AM, Nick Holland wrote:
Other than generating duplicate user number error reports from the
nightly security check, the generally bad idea of duplicate user
numbers, creating confusion and ambiguity that doesn't need to be
there, the likelihood that you will have
2008/12/1 Nick Holland [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Juan Miscaro wrote:
...
Why not set up a user (ex: bigguy) and then force his uid and gid to
be 0 and 0 with vipw? Give that user a nice coloured bash prompt and
set up directories in his home. This way you get a customized
superuser while keeping
Juan Miscaro wrote:
I turn off those annoying checks and I use the same password.
Works great.
/juan
... until it doesn't.
2008/12/2 Tony Abernethy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Juan Miscaro wrote:
I turn off those annoying checks and I use the same password.
Works great.
/juan
... until it doesn't.
Got anything to back that up?
/juan
as the shell, but not in wheel group and the only users he
could use for wheel were setup for bash and that was screw up. So, he
had access to the server, but couldn't get access to root in anyway as
it was bash for root and he just had to drive there to fix it. He forget
that bash wasn't compile
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 08:46:00AM +, Dieter wrote:
What is wrong with bash as shell for root?
(Assuming bash is in /bin and statically linked.)
all talk of why or why not misses one highly held best practice
for system management, no matter what the OS.
never change the default root
2008/12/2 Daniel Ouellet [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Juan Miscaro wrote:
2008/12/2 Tony Abernethy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Juan Miscaro wrote:
I turn off those annoying checks and I use the same password.
Works great.
/juan
... until it doesn't.
Got anything to back that up?
I remember one
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Juan Miscaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Install bash statically linked. That's all.
Never make a mistake. That's all.
Really? I mean really are we going to put this to bed yet? Cause I am bored
to tears seeing new replies to something so trivial! Next real diagnostic
issue please.
-Jim
-- you install bash as root shell and start installing bash-
specific scripts critical for system operation. Then during an upgrade
bash is no longer available or is no longer statically compiled
(remember bash in packages is dynamic and you have to upgrade the base
OS before you can custom build
accordingly. The converse is also a likely
problem -- you install bash as root shell and start installing bash-
specific scripts critical for system operation. Then during an upgrade
bash is no longer available or is no longer statically compiled
(remember bash in packages is dynamic and you have
Nick Holland wrote:
the generally bad idea of duplicate user numbers
I am not aware that this is considered a bad idea to have two
usernames for the same UID. It is a pretty established practice to
add a so-called toor username for exactly the reason of getting a
nice superuser shell. I have
--- On Tue, 12/2/08, Ted Unangst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Install bash statically linked. That's all.
Never make a mistake. That's all.
Exactly. I don't get this thread. I mean, I could understand BASH as an
option when openBSD was moving off of csh back in the day. But ksh works
-user mode before all partitions are mounted.
The problem is when you break things, you break 'em BIG. Original
thread is a case in point. You win awards for courage, not wisdom,
for still being intent on using bash as the root shell while you are
still walking with a limp from your last
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 11:11:53AM -0500, Nick Holland wrote:
need or want to use bash on OpenBSD. The only good reason I've
found to use bash on OpenBSD is to make it feel like some other OS,
Another reason I've found is the option set -o pipefail, which is
handy when you want the ERR trap
Juan Miscaro wrote:
...
Why not set up a user (ex: bigguy) and then force his uid and gid to
be 0 and 0 with vipw? Give that user a nice coloured bash prompt and
set up directories in his home. This way you get a customized
superuser while keeping the real root environment pristine.
Other
Hi Guys,
Thanks a lot for all replies and discussion, I have recovered root shell today
after scheduling down time. Thanks a lot, excellent forum
Thanks,
Farhan
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 07:55:48 -0500
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: misc@openbsd.org
Subject: Re: bash for root?
Juan Miscaro
Dieter wrote:
2. don't use bash as shell for root.
Or at least understand what you are doing.
What is wrong with bash as shell for root?
(Assuming bash is in /bin and statically linked.)
There's nothing wrong with that if you make it statically linked and put
it in /bin
.
The problem is when you break things, you break 'em BIG. Original
thread is a case in point. You win awards for courage, not wisdom,
for still being intent on using bash as the root shell while you are
still walking with a limp from your last experience.
There's a lot of stuff that can go wrong when
2. don't use bash as shell for root.
Or at least understand what you are doing.
What is wrong with bash as shell for root?
(Assuming bash is in /bin and statically linked.)
Question is how can you make shell statically linked? I thought when you
install package it should be linked rather than manual compiling and
installing
--
Regards,
Farhan Ahmed To: misc@openbsd.org Subject: bash for root? (was: Re: libiconv
problem ) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 08:46:00 + From
37 matches
Mail list logo
