David Lloyd wrote:
But why would this stop Indiana from being released, presuming Indiana
some form of Sun blessed products? Given that the current SXCE contains
this proprietary code and it can be obtained for free, so could Indiana
contain this proprietary code and be obtained for
It's promising to see that Mac OS X, a strong BSD
UNIX, is looking
more and more like Solaris with every new release. Go
play with
Leopard if you get a chance.
-john
Yes, Mac OS is probably trying to catch up with Solaris. But do you think
Solaris will be allowed to stand still?
It's promising to see that Mac OS X, a strong BSD
UNIX, is looking
more and more like Solaris with every new release. Go
play with
Leopard if you get a chance.
I was actually referring more along the lines of pure BSDs, like Free and
OpenBSD.
I have Tiger at home. I had hoped that it
Second - backwards compatibility is something we take
seriously but it
isn't an absolute. Not even in the Solaris world.
Apparently not.
That's really strange because on my laptop which is
running the Indiana
prototype released on October 31st, I see exactly
SunOS myhostname 5.11
Shawn Walker wrote:
There was some confusion internally, but I believe that it has been
resolved. SXCE is not going away any time soon. It serves several
functions, one of which is as a beta test version of the next
Solaris release. As long as the next marketing release of Solaris
contains
Maintain a single local user account that is assigned
the root role.
Give that user a ridiculously long password, kept in
escrow by your IS
Security department. Now you have a guaranteed path
in via the console
when everything else goes to pot.
Careful: in setups which use a diskless
On Dec 4, 2007, at 2:04 AM, UNIX admin wrote:
I'm still on the fence about whether I want to shell out 180 bucks
for an OS with a pretty dock upgrade and icomplete ZFS support.
Mmmm, I think I'll wait before I give my money to Apple Computer.
Since they are asking serious dough (when
$180? Where are you buying Leopard?
In a country where a liter of motor oil and a kilogram of meat cost almost $18
USD (meat up to $60). Tja, that's life!
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
I guess you don't live in Europe where it is €129.
UNIX admin wrote:
$180? Where are you buying Leopard?
In a country where a liter of motor oil and a kilogram of meat cost almost
$18 USD (meat up to $60). Tja, that's life!
This message posted from opensolaris.org
Brian,
I think that you need to remember that SXCE serves more than one
purpose. One purpose is to serve as the base binary distribution
system on which OpenSolaris development is based.
In another thread, though, it appears that Indiana is meant to replace
SXCE...
This is required
On Dec 4, 2007 3:36 PM, David Lloyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brian,
I think that you need to remember that SXCE serves more than one
purpose. One purpose is to serve as the base binary distribution
system on which OpenSolaris development is based.
In another thread, though, it appears
Funny, one of the first things I always do after
installing an instance of SXCE is to edit the passwd
file, change the home root directory to /root and the
default shell to /bin/bash. I know think I am not
alone.
That's most likely because you haven't typed in `man tcsh` yet. Have you read
Given all the other incompatibilities you note (and
you missed a few
known incompatibilities, like libX11 libXext in the
Preview breaking
binary compatibility with Solaris X apps), isn't it a
good thing that
uname warns you this isn't SunOS, so you know it's
not compatible and
your
You are aware that Indiana hasn't gone through ARC
yet and is an early
prototype; right?
No. As I wrote before, I purposely stayed out of the whole debacle. I described
my experiences, with what I was able to pinpoint as broken in the first 15
minutes of installing Indiana without any prior
Oh yeah: and I can no longer log in as root. On the
CONSOLE. Because if I create an account for myself
during the install, root will be turned into a
role.
If that wasn't bad enough, it's not a sudo role, that
I could use and transfer to HP-UX or IRIX, or AIX, or
Mac OS X, oh no.
We have
UNIX admin writes:
Given all the other incompatibilities you note (and
you missed a few
known incompatibilities, like libX11 libXext in the
Preview breaking
binary compatibility with Solaris X apps), isn't it a
good thing that
uname warns you this isn't SunOS, so you know it's
not
I always change any Solaris systems I setup to use
/root for root's
home for this very reason.
I like being confident that any files created when
logged in as root
will go to a relatively secure place.
You should never be logged in as root directly, unless you are on the console,
in text
On 03/12/2007, Richard L. Hamilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The one problem I have with either /root or root as a role is what there
is in the way of recovery options (on SPARC too eventually!) under very
degraded conditions in the absence of being able to log in to the console
directly as
Hi
On Dec 2, 2007 12:50 PM, UNIX admin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The unthinkable has happened: SunOS backwards
compatibility has been broken.
Broken:
`uname -a` returns some funky opensolaris bla bla
bla string instead of the standard
SunOS hostname 5.11 snv_## i86pc i386 i86pc.
Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
The one problem I have with either /root or root as a role is what there
is in the way of recovery options (on SPARC too eventually!) under very
degraded conditions in the absence of being able to log in to the console
directly as root. There needs to be something -
Hi,
Considering Solaris' rbac capabilities as well, I
look for root to be
extinct in the not too distant future.
Roles / Profiles are a far better way to accomplish
this.
I strongly disagree, for two reasons:
1. if the system engineering has done their job correctly, no
On Dec 3, 2007 4:11 PM, UNIX admin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, but most shops wouldn't even know where to begin with ACLs, not to
mention most shops don't even know they exist in UNIX. I happen to know
about them and how to use them, but I'm a rare and dying breed these days.
This is
On Dec 3, 2007 1:45 PM, UNIX admin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You should never be logged in as root directly, unless you are on the
console, in text mode.
That is sysadmin 101.
Yes, and it's dogma. There are plenty of situations where root login is the best
tool for the job.
2. RBAC is
UNIX admin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
If this is the future that awaits us, I shudder at
it. If I wanted to run a *UNIX-like* operating system,
I'd go ahead and run that GNU/Linux garbage, not
SunOS!
---
Well, that 'garbage' is running on the TOP FIVE
supercomputers in the world
UNIX admin wrote:
This is debatable ... Can you provide pros and cons
for this from your
point of view?
For example, I have a package that delivers /.cshrc, /.login and /.logout.
If you prefer /bin/sh for root's shell, then why on earth are you
installing CSH login files of all
UNIX admin wrote:
Funny, one of the first things I always do after
installing an instance of SXCE is to edit the passwd
file, change the home root directory to /root and the
default shell to /bin/bash. I know think I am not
alone.
That's most likely because you haven't typed in `man
UNIX admin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
If this is the future that awaits us, I shudder at
it. If I wanted to run a *UNIX-like* operating
system,
I'd go ahead and run that GNU/Linux garbage, not
SunOS!
---
Well, that 'garbage' is running on the TOP FIVE
supercomputers in the world
UNIX admin wrote:
I'm no religious zealot, but I don't get that. You
flame bash for not
being bourne shell compatible enough, but then go and
suggest tcsh?
So let me explain: for system and package scripts, /sbin/sh. For interactive
use, either tcsh or zsh.
Still confused? A true
I'm no religious zealot, but I don't get that. You
flame bash for not
being bourne shell compatible enough, but then go and
suggest tcsh?
So let me explain: for system and package scripts, /sbin/sh. For interactive
use, either tcsh or zsh.
Still confused? A true sysadmin will have tried it
Yes, and it's dogma. There are plenty of situations
where root login is the best
tool for the job.
On your desktop, yes. And even then, not in a GUI.
That seems a weak argument against it.
In homogenous environments users can just 'alias
sudo=pfexec'.
RBAC is the sysadmins job problem,
I'm still curious what about the csh interface you
prefer for
interactive use?
And I'm not saying you shouldn't prefer it etiher,
I'm just wondering
what I'm missing?
exec tcsh -l
set prompt=[EMAIL PROTECTED] notify correct=cmd autolist symlinks=chase
This message posted from
On Dec 3, 2007, at 10:09 AM, UNIX admin wrote:
I'm no religious zealot, but I don't get that. You
flame bash for not
being bourne shell compatible enough, but then go and
suggest tcsh?
So let me explain: for system and package scripts, /sbin/sh. For
interactive use, either tcsh or zsh.
On Dec 3, 2007, at 10:21 AM, UNIX admin wrote:
...
I don't. I've lived to see so many really, really good technologies
die.
It's about time that one which is trash take the plunge.
This GNU trash propagates, while BSDs, which are much more
deserving, suffer. So much for how fair life
Shawn Walker wrote:
On Dec 2, 2007 12:20 PM, Patrick Ale [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is Sun even sure it's self what will do what and what will replace what? I
just get an email from somebody of this list saying Indiana will replace
SXCE and will be the basis for Solaris 11. Which is ff-ing
On Dec 3, 2007 2:12 PM, Brian Utterback [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shawn Walker wrote:
On Dec 2, 2007 12:20 PM, Patrick Ale [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is Sun even sure it's self what will do what and what will replace what? I
just get an email from somebody of this list saying Indiana will
On Dec 3, 2007 6:36 PM, UNIX admin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, and it's dogma. There are plenty of situations
where root login is the best
tool for the job.
On your desktop, yes. And even then, not in a GUI.
There you go again.
I'm trying to point out gently that you dont' necessarily
root the user is different from the / path component.
And it's pretty useful! I'm on an Ultra 40 m2. When you've got an xdm
running, you can't get to the text console. If you want to log in via root,
you have to log in graphically. It's too easy to forget to set your session to
failsafe.
The unthinkable has happened: SunOS backwards compatibility has been broken.
First of all, you're talking about a prototype and nothing more. Such
an artifact is similar to the BFU archives available from many projects
on opensolaris.org and the ISO represents the (initial) output of a
project.
snip
On the topic of the default shell, yep you can make
it a question during
install. I don't understand why people hate bash, I
like it as a user.
But for scripting I still use /bin/sh all the time.
So my preference
would be to go for /bin/sh as the default shell for
root and then
The unthinkable has happened: SunOS backwards compatibility has been broken.
Broken:
`uname -a` returns some funky opensolaris bla bla bla string instead of the
standard
SunOS hostname 5.11 snv_## i86pc i386 i86pc.
Broken:
root's home directory is in /root; this is a SEVERE ERROR. We're not on
Oh yeah: and I can no longer log in as root. On the CONSOLE. Because if I
create an account for myself during the install, root will be turned into a
role.
If that wasn't bad enough, it's not a sudo role, that I could use and transfer
to HP-UX or IRIX, or AIX, oh no.
We have to be stubborn and
Hi
On Dec 2, 2007 12:50 PM, UNIX admin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The unthinkable has happened: SunOS backwards compatibility has been broken.
Broken:
`uname -a` returns some funky opensolaris bla bla bla string instead of the
standard
SunOS hostname 5.11 snv_## i86pc i386 i86pc.
Broken:
On Dec 2, 2007 1:00 PM, UNIX admin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh yeah: and I can no longer log in as root. On the CONSOLE. Because if I
create an account for myself during the install, root will be turned into a
role.
If that wasn't bad enough, it's not a sudo role, that I could use and
The unthinkable has happened: SunOS backwards
compatibility has been broken.
Broken:
`uname -a` returns some funky opensolaris bla bla
bla string instead of the standard
SunOS hostname 5.11 snv_## i86pc i386 i86pc.
Understandable change for a non Sun OS. But I tend to agree that this
Understandable change for a non Sun OS. But I tend to
agree that this will make things bad for current
scripts.
OK, well, if that's the case, then there needs to be no further discussion.
I'll go back to my Solaris 10 and wait for Solaris 11 to come out. Buh-bye
OpenSolaris.
If that's the
This is debatable ... Can you provide pros and cons
for this from your
point of view?
For example, I have a package that delivers /.cshrc, /.login and /.logout.
Determining root's home directory via public interfaces is unreliable, namely
because such public interfaces aren't well defined. I
Broken, Broken, Broken, Broken, . . . .
Now I know why I am so compellingly addicted to Solaris. Kudos Sun's
management for their willingness to take such bold actions, undoubtedly
accompanied by tons of well-oxidized midnight oil, that will finally take
Solaris to world dominance, or even
On Dec 2, 2007 6:30 PM, W. Wayne Liauh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Broken, Broken, Broken, Broken, . . . .
Now I know why I am so compellingly addicted to Solaris. Kudos Sun's
management for their willingness to take such bold actions, undoubtedly
accompanied by tons of well-oxidized midnight
On Dec 2, 2007 7:03 PM, Patrick Ale [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
lalalalallaa
Is Sun even sure it's self what will do what and what will replace what? I
just get an email from somebody of this list saying Indiana will replace
SXCE and will be the basis for Solaris 11. Which is ff-ing funny since
I too find /root an extremely poor choice; which part of root do
these people not understand?
Of course, if you then say but all the window and browser garbage in /?
I can only say that I think that /.mozilla should be linked to /dev/*mem
in order to ensure maximum damage when you start a
Is Sun even
sure it's self what will do what and what will
replace what?
I am definitely the least qualified person to comment on what Sun should or
should not have done. But I think if there is any doubt, there is always the
good 'ol faithful Solaris 10 (which is also surprisingly
Broken, Broken, Broken, Broken, . . . .
Now I know why I am so compellingly addicted to
Solaris. Kudos Sun's management for their
willingness to take such bold actions, undoubtedly
accompanied by tons of well-oxidized midnight oil,
that will finally take Solaris to world dominance, or
On Dec 2, 2007 5:50 AM, UNIX admin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The unthinkable has happened: SunOS backwards compatibility has been broken.
You are aware that Indiana hasn't gone through ARC yet and is an early
prototype; right?
Broken:
root's home directory is in /root; this is a SEVERE ERROR.
On Dec 2, 2007 12:20 PM, Patrick Ale [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 2, 2007 7:03 PM, Patrick Ale [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
lalalalallaa
Is Sun even sure it's self what will do what and what will replace what? I
just get an email from somebody of this list saying Indiana will replace
SXCE
On Dec 2, 2007 7:40 AM, UNIX admin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is debatable ... Can you provide pros and cons
for this from your
point of view?
For example, I have a package that delivers /.cshrc, /.login and
/.logout. Determining root's home directory via public interfaces is
On Dec 2, 2007 5:22 PM, Josh Lange [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 2, 2007 7:40 AM, UNIX admin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is debatable ... Can you provide pros and cons
for this from your
point of view?
For example, I have a package that delivers /.cshrc,
But I will not stick with a bastardized Solaris, I
can damn well guarantee that.
As my fellow Hawaiian Tim Scanlon suggested in a separate thread, when we get
frustrated with Solaris Express (I don't think Indiana is even ready for
discussion yet--outside the Indiana Forum) we can always seek
Personally I really like the /root thing. But, big but, that's only
because I hate all those /.ghatever :) files in my root filesystem.
And that just because the root user used a browser or some other GUI
program.
And that brings me to my main point, why would 'root' ever, ever use a
UNIX admin wrote:
The unthinkable has happened: SunOS backwards compatibility has been broken.
Broken:
`uname -a` returns some funky opensolaris bla bla bla string instead of the
standard
SunOS hostname 5.11 snv_## i86pc i386 i86pc.
Given all the other incompatibilities you note (and
59 matches
Mail list logo
