On 7/9/05, Sunil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> if I were to ask my question again, it would be:
>
> is there a version of 'su' or equivalent piece of software which uses rsa/dsa
> keys to authenticate locally, instead of password? I don't want to have sshd
> running for this because its a local l
if I were to ask my question again, it would be:
is there a version of 'su' or equivalent piece of software which uses rsa/dsa
keys to authenticate locally, instead of password? I don't want to have sshd
running for this because its a local login. I didn't find much on this in
google, that's wh
On 7/9/05, Sunil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> is there any plan to provide the non-debug closed bins in near future? I am
> hitting the same error and would like to have non-debug closed bins for
> 20050612 build. Is it possible for someone to provide that?
This has been covered a few times alre
is there any plan to provide the non-debug closed bins in near future? I am
hitting the same error and would like to have non-debug closed bins for
20050612 build. Is it possible for someone to provide that?
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
Hi Sunil,
Sunil wrote:
>does any mechanism allow ssh rsa/dsa key based password less secure local
>login (like su)?
>This message posted from opensolaris.org
>
>
No matter how many time I parse that sentence, I am having trouble
understanding what you mean. I realise that English may not be yo
>But note that these requirements are SYMMETRICALLY incompatible. It
>is not the "fault" of either license. In fact they say essentially
>the same thing.
That's not entirely true; CDDL's license retention clause
only covers the original files and the modifcations to those files; it
does not cov
I was considering building ON from the WOS, and read that b17 of the
SX Community Release is apparently available now. Is there any
compelling reason that I should download and install b17 to build ON
instead of using the b16 install I already have?
For that matter, does anyone know the big change
Guy Gascoigne-Piggford wrote:
What's worse is that we'd been explicitly doing an 'exec /bin/sh' to avoid
these sorts of problems. If I run /bin/sh I want to run /bin/sh not something
else with different behaviour.
Exactly! The Linux clean slate approach is great if you are new, but a
pa
Dragan Cvetkovic wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Dragan Cvetkovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Then you seem to have never tried to abort a layered make system
with ^C.
Smake includes a lot of code just wo work around this kind o
Alexander Kolbasov wrote:
There is one important piece of functionality that Sun engineers use a lot and
that is completely missing in the current OpenSolaris infrastructure is the
mapping between the code and specific bugs. This information is kept in the SCCS
history and thus unavailable for a
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 04:57:06PM -0700, Andy Ross wrote:
>
> Since the developer making the derived work isn't capable of changing
> the license of the original parts, these requirements cannot be
> simultaneously fulfilled. End of game.
As far I know, this is true. But of course none of it i
There is one important piece of functionality that Sun engineers use a lot and
that is completely missing in the current OpenSolaris infrastructure is the
mapping between the code and specific bugs. This information is kept in the SCCS
history and thus unavailable for anyone outside of Sun. I think
On 7/8/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >"Do you want to install a command line prompt or shell
> >that is backwardly compatible to legacy Solaris or
> >would you rather install one that is compatible with
> >Linux/bash. Note: for a detailed discussion of which
> >shell to sele
This is becoming a remarkably persistent meme on these boards, and
it's high time that people stopped repeating it. It is quite clearly
false, as you can see by, heh, reading the licenses:
CDDL 3.1: Any Covered Software that You distribute or otherwise make
available in Executable form
does any mechanism allow ssh rsa/dsa key based password less secure local login
(like su)?
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
> Alexander,
>
> > This is bug 6294481. When you install kernels with Install, they are added
> > in
> > /etc/boot/solaris/filelist.ramdisk. If they also listed in
> > /boot/solaris/filelist.ramdisk, the bootadm will create corrupted 20-byte
> > ramdisk image. This bug was introduced in snv_18. M
I agree. But if the intent is to grow the user base,
I'm guessing that newbies and Linux users would
probably rather get annoyed now instead of later.
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >"Do you want to install a command line prompt or
> shell
> >that is backwardly compatible to legacy Solaris or
OK, here's one.
We have a product that among other things performs expect like functionality by
scripting telnet or ssh sessions into remote machines.
When various Linux distributions stopped shipping /bin/ash as a link to /bin/sh
and replaced it with /bin/bash we suddenly started getting all s
>"Do you want to install a command line prompt or shell
>that is backwardly compatible to legacy Solaris or
>would you rather install one that is compatible with
>Linux/bash. Note: for a detailed discussion of which
>shell to select please press 'h'. The default answer
>is Yes?" ... or something s
On second thought just because there's documentation
doesn't necessarily mean that it'll get read. Having
good and accessible documentation might not be enough
since both words may have a different interpretation.
A better solution is to perhaps tweak OpenSolaris so
that it'll simply and clearly
Sean Sprague wrote:
> Alexander,
>
>
>>This is bug 6294481. When you install kernels with Install, they are added in
>>/etc/boot/solaris/filelist.ramdisk. If they also listed in
>>/boot/solaris/filelist.ramdisk, the bootadm will create corrupted 20-byte
>>ramdisk image. This bug was introduced in
I get:
No results were found for your search. Try refining your search
from http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/index.jsp for these bugs. why is
that?
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss
George Jereza wrote:
This is a good email thread for new Solaris users,
especially for those who are considering moving from
Linux. I'm hoping the community is cutting n' pasting
the main points in this thread and publishing it
somewhere, so that the group can move on to other
issues. Otherwise
> "Shawn" == Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Shawn> On 7/8/05, Alexander Kolbasov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > "Alexander" == Alexander Kolbasov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > "Sunil" == Sunil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Sunil> just to document t
Alexander,
This is bug 6294481. When you install kernels with Install, they are added in
/etc/boot/solaris/filelist.ramdisk. If they also listed in
/boot/solaris/filelist.ramdisk, the bootadm will create corrupted 20-byte
ramdisk image. This bug was introduced in snv_18. Make sure you remove you
On 7/8/05, Alexander Kolbasov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Alexander" == Alexander Kolbasov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Sunil" == Sunil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sunil> just to document the problem here: when I rebooted the kernel with
> Alexander> 'reboot -- 'ke
> "Alexander" == Alexander Kolbasov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Sunil" == Sunil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Sunil> just to document the problem here: when I rebooted the kernel with
Alexander> 'reboot -- 'kernel.mine/unix'' the file
/platform/i86pc/boot_archive was
Ale
> "Sunil" == Sunil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Sunil> just to document the problem here: when I rebooted the kernel with
'reboot -- 'kernel.mine/unix'' the file /platform/i86pc/boot_archive was
updated to be 20bytes. All I did to recover from this failure was to boot in
fails
George Jereza wrote:
This is a good email thread for new Solaris users,
especially for those who are considering moving from
Linux. I'm hoping the community is cutting n' pasting
the main points in this thread and publishing it
somewhere, so that the group can move on to other
issues. Otherwise
On 7/8/05, Dennis Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> bourne shell versus bash for root. So the signal to noise ratio can
> be a bit more messy than some mailling lists like the POVRay UNIX ml
> or ClamAV or GRUB2 mailing lists. Such is life.
Just imagine what the ratio will be like when the com
This is a good email thread for new Solaris users,
especially for those who are considering moving from
Linux. I'm hoping the community is cutting n' pasting
the main points in this thread and publishing it
somewhere, so that the group can move on to other
issues. Otherwise, it'll come up again,
On 7/8/05, Robert Milkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello Dennis,
> Thursday, July 7, 2005, 7:41:22 PM, you wrote:
> DC> On 7/7/05, Robert Milkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Hello Dennis,
> >>
> >> Monday, June 13, 2005, 12:56:26 AM, you wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> I'm just trying it - I actu
Bill Bradford wrote:
On 7/7/05, Tao Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So we have heard from the "conservative" side of the CAB, any "liberals"?
Uh oh, now I need to make a "Red OS vs Blue OS" map! 8-)
And the Greens? You should always have your daily portion of
Greens ;-)
On 7/7/05, Tao Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So we have heard from the "conservative" side of the CAB, any "liberals"?
Uh oh, now I need to make a "Red OS vs Blue OS" map! 8-)
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
On 7/7/05, Gerhard S. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's fine. But why does /bin/sh not just implement
> command line editing? It's not that cursor key support
> is rocket science or anything.
Because it's /bin/sh, not /bin/bash.
Unfortunately, too many Linux systems have a /bin/sh that's actual
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> I hope you don't do it by putting something like:
>
> exec ksh
Of course not!
> into .profile like many people do. This would make your system
> unusable in single user mode when /usr has not yet been mounted
Agreed; that's why I don't do it.
--
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> I did never unserstand why someone would use vi methods at
> the shell prompt. The interface is bad to use because you need to know
> the state of the editor.
Speaking for myself, I use vi because I know it like the back of
my hand. Switching to any o
Sunil wrote:
The operating system on your thousands of Linux boxes have never
had to worry about satisfying the needs of millions of customers
while retaining backwards compatibility. It is a certainty that if
SUN decided to change the default shell that at least some of their
customers (if not
Dragan Cvetkovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> In bash on Linux or in bash in general?
> >
> > This applied to any OS that uses bash as /bin/sh, however my
> > workarounds in "smake" are only active on Linux.
>
> Why only on Linux and not in general? Because the other OSes have the
> alternativ
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Dragan Cvetkovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Then you seem to have never tried to abort a layered make system with ^C.
Smake includes a lot of code just wo work around this kind of bash bugs
on Linux.
In b
Dragan Cvetkovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Joe Halpin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Rich Teer wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Sunil wrote:
> >>>
> /bin/bash is compatible. our shell scripts (with #!/bin/sh at top)
> >>>
> >>> Not comple
Tao Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I vote for changing the default shell to a better one.
> I personally prefer ksh over bash, mainly because I think it's _technically_
> more efficient to use Esc-k and the traditional vi-key-mode than those
> cursor keys.
This was not true in 1984 when I wr
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Joe Halpin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Rich Teer wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Sunil wrote:
/bin/bash is compatible. our shell scripts (with #!/bin/sh at top)
Not completely so (or at least, that was the case historically).
The points of incompatibi
Joe Halpin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rich Teer wrote:
> > On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Sunil wrote:
> >
> >>/bin/bash is compatible. our shell scripts (with #!/bin/sh at top)
> >
> > Not completely so (or at least, that was the case historically).
>
> The points of incompatibility are very small, and
"Gerhard S." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wasn't even advocating changing /bin/sh to bash.
> Doing so would be nice of course, but I can see
> it truly breaking old scripts when moving from a
> old Bourne shell to something POSIX compliant like bash
> by default.
bash is not POSIX copmpliant,
Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You can save all of us a lot of trouble by reading the POSIX
> specification for how a POSIX compliant shell is supposed to work
> here:
>
> http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/sh.html
>
> You may not understand or agree with it, but th
Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Case in point: one of the first thing I do when I install a new
> system (personal one that is, not in my shared professional
> working environment) is install a .profile for root that runs
> ksh, because I like the features ksh has over sh. Do I find this
>
"Gerhard S." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Gerhard S. wrote:
> >
> > > if I change the root default shell to bash. So now
> > I end up
> > > typing bash or ksh set -o emacs after every su. Not
> > very friendly.
> > So put it into root's .profile. Not exactly hard
> > work.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> Dan Mick put one at
> >>
> >>ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/dmick/iasl
> >
> >A nice program, but unfortunately, it does not work on OpenSolaris
> >unless you create this
> >
> >lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 12 Jul 7 21:00 xsvc -> fbs/aperture
> >
> >s
>Rainer Orth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>
>> > PS: What is the status of iasl? Getting a standard Solaris iasl binary
>> > out would be very helpful.
>>
>> Dan Mick put one at
>>
>> ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/dmick/iasl
>
>A nice program, but unfortunately,
Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Gerhard S. wrote:
>
> > That's fine. But why does /bin/sh not just implement
> > command line editing? It's not that cursor key support
>
> Because then it wouldn't be the Bourne Shell! Solaris takes
> backwards compatibility more serious
Shawn Walker wrote:
On 7/8/05, Danek Duvall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1000 - a post put far more elegantly than I could given your internal
knowledge and experience
Thanks for the mini-insight into SUN's outlook on even "small" changes!
Danek's summary on Solaris' processes prompted
Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > like that. Every user has the right for working cursor keys.
>
> So says you. Personally, I prefer to use the vi editing keys.
I did never unserstand why someone would use vi methods at
the shell prompt. The interface is bad to use because you need to know
Rainer Orth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > PS: What is the status of iasl? Getting a standard Solaris iasl binary
> > out would be very helpful.
>
> Dan Mick put one at
>
> ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/dmick/iasl
A nice program, but unfortunately, it does not
Hello Dennis,
Thursday, July 7, 2005, 7:41:22 PM, you wrote:
DC> On 7/7/05, Robert Milkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hello Dennis,
>>
>> Monday, June 13, 2005, 12:56:26 AM, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> I'm just trying it - I actuall managed to boot kernel this way, can't
>> go any further 'coz et
Hello Louwtjie,
Wednesday, June 29, 2005, 11:52:03 AM, you wrote:
LB> Sorry James, I'll try again :)
LB> You need the Express ISO's to deploy the opensolaris source, yes.
LB> My question is, looking down the line in 3-6 months (or 12), will there be
any opensolaris distro's (directly from Sun)
Funny how one camp goes in a frenzy over commandline editing in an
*interactive* shell while the other camp defends those choices by referring to
backwards compatibility for scripts.
Real admins just change their account to use their preferred shell, and
specifically define which shell to use
57 matches
Mail list logo
