From: Digestifier To: Linux-Admin@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu Reply-To: Linux-Admin@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu Date: Sat, 25 Sep 93 00:13:31 EDT Subject: Linux-Admin Digest #75 Linux-Admin Digest #75, Volume #1 Sat, 25 Sep 93 00:13:31 EDT Contents: What's the Difference? (X) (Rick Miller) Re: [Summary] /etc/shutdown by non-root (James Chacon) Re: [Summary] /etc/shutdown by non-root (James Chacon) Linux Administration books (Davor Cubranic) Re: [Summary] /etc/shutdown by non-root (Mark Crafts) Re: How to use use 1.4MB 5 1/4 disk. Was: Not enough SLS bashing (Byron A Jeff) Re: Setting up "xdm" (Joseph T. Batt) $25.95 *NEW* Release Yggdrasil CD-ROM (Randy Just) e2fsck exit codes (Chris Thompson) Re: Linux Administration books (rich@mulvey.com) Re: Slackware's 3.5" requirements, was Re: [Not] enough SLS bashing (Kevin Fluet) Re: [Not] enough SLS bashing (Jerry Gaiser) Bypassing a hung modem (Rich Braun) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: rick@ee.uwm.edu (Rick Miller) Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.help,comp.windows.x Subject: What's the Difference? (X) Date: 24 Sep 1993 18:26:22 GMT I've had a hell of a time getting things working right under the latest TAMU Linux release. Now, finally, everything *works*... except "more". No, it's *not* a permissions problem, and yes, I *know* that "less" would still work... but it really makes me nervous. What could be the difference between logging in then doing startx and logging in through xdm? Why on earth would it screw up "more"??? Here's the scoop: In the beginning (when I installed Linux [TAMU.99pl12+] onto a clean drive), all I had to do was login as root and type "startx"... and everything worked. (Actually, I had to futz with the Xconfig, but that's beside the point.) Then I thought, "It's not good to be root all the time." So I created "rick". I copied all the 'hidden' files from / to /home/rick, then logged in as rick. Then I tried to "startx"... The "File Manager" and "xclock" came up alright, but no "xterm". Flipping back to virtual console #1 showed me that xterm couldn't find "//libXaw.so.3". Well, I thought that was strange, since LD_LIBRARY_PATH was properly set in my .profile. Why wasn't the proper library path searched for "rick" even though it showed no problem for "root"? WHERE SHOULD I DEFINE LD_LIBRARY_PATH SO THAT IT WILL GET SEARCHED??? Starting "xdm" showed similar troubles, which I'm still sorting out. I've got an interim solution (a workaround, really) where all of the shared libraries in /usr/X386/lib are symbolically linked up to the root directory. It's *ugly*, folks. ...and "more" doesn't work. It's really wierd! Any user, logging in then using "startx", has no problems at all. It works great. But if I use "xdm", *NOBODY* can get "more" to work properly. It displays the first 24 lines, then exits. Can anyone give me a clue what could cause "more" to behave this way??? RICK MILLER Voice: +1 414 221-3403 P.O. BOX 1759 FAX: +1 414 221-4744 MILWAUKEE, WI Send a postcard and I'll send one back. 53150-1759 USA Sendu bildkarton kaj mi retrosendos unu. ------------------------------ From: jmc@pawnee.telecom.ksu.edu (James Chacon) Crossposted-To: comp.unix.admin Subject: Re: [Summary] /etc/shutdown by non-root Date: 24 Sep 1993 14:36:55 -0500 fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus James HENDERSON) writes: >jmc@pawnee.telecom.ksu.edu (James Chacon) writes: >>josch@pc.chemie.th-darmstadt.de (Joachim Schnitter) writes: >> >>>Sorry to say that this seems to be real nonsense. A script is simply fed >>>into a shell or another interpreter. It is the shell's permissions which >>>counts - not the script's. >> >>Please get some information about this sort of situation before attempting >>to spout off "fact". >An excellent suggestion, one you should perhaps follow yourself :-) >>A setuid shell script runs setuid, so does the shell that interprets it. It >>can be spoofed very very easily. >This is not correct - the correct answer is that it is system dependent. >This whole issue is described in detail in comp.unix.questions FAQ #4.7 >"How can I get setuid shell scripts to work?". It is not system dependent. If a system allows setuid scripts to be executed, then they can be gotten around. I am referring to current system's here. Even if you fix the race condition, the environment coming in plays a big factor. Also, as one person already pointed out, the -i trick still works plenty of times as well. Are you going to clear the environment for setuid scripts as well? If not, its rather simple to get around it once again. >Since this is cross-posted to comp.os.linux.admin, I should mention >that Linux ignores setuid bits on shell scripts, although a I have a >patch that implements _secure_ setuid shell scripts for Linux. That linux does this has always been a good thing in my mind, but I really doubt no matter what you do that shell scripts can made secure always. James ------------------------------ From: jmc@pawnee.telecom.ksu.edu (James Chacon) Crossposted-To: comp.unix.admin Subject: Re: [Summary] /etc/shutdown by non-root Date: 24 Sep 1993 15:14:41 -0500 fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus James HENDERSON) writes: >On the other hand, supposing that your operating system and shell support >secure setuid scripts, then > #!/bin/sh - > /bin/echo Hah! You\'re not root! >would be quite safe. I don't think so. What if I do this before I run your "safe" shell script? cd /tmp cat bin #!/bin/sh IFS=" " export IFS /bin/sh PATH=.:$PATH;export PATH IFS=" \";export IFS Are you going to require the kernel to clear the environment before calling setuid shell scripts?? This is a groddy hack to have to put in a kernel, and definitly shouldn't have to be in the shell either. Setuid shell scripts in general are a bad idea, and people really shouldn't watse valuable time trying to hack in a "safe" way to do them when other easier methods could be used. James ------------------------------ From: cubranic@whale.st.usm.edu (Davor Cubranic) Subject: Linux Administration books Date: 24 Sep 93 20:18:49 GMT OK, I read quite a bit of Linux documentation, from old FAQ's to new HOWTO's and even ALPHA version of SAG, but I haven't found an answer to this question (which is why I'm posting it to this newsgroup): I'm going to install Linux on my machine within next two weeks. I'll be the sole user and administrator of it so I want to get a good sys admin book on this. I read a few bibliographies, and in Unix Review August 1992, Richard Morin writes "BSD (SunOS 4.x) administrators should get the classic _UNIX System Administrator's Handbook_. SVR4 (SunOS 5.x) administrators should buy UNIX System V Release 4 Admini- stration..." Well, here is the problem: which one of these is more applicable to Linux administration since it is neither/both BSD and SVR4?? Or maybe some of you have some other personal favorite that you could recommend to me? BTW, I've got the SAG ALPHA 1, and it is really ALPHA. I definitely need some other book in addition to it. -- Davor Cubranic cubranic@whale.st.usm.edu ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.unix.admin From: mcrafts@dale.ksc.nasa.gov (Mark Crafts) Subject: Re: [Summary] /etc/shutdown by non-root Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1993 19:54:18 GMT smd@floyd.brooks.af.mil (Sten Drescher) writes: ># whoami >root Doesn't it only change your effective user id to root? Not that it matters, I'm just nitpicking. Mark -- <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Mark Crafts :: mcrafts@dale.ksc.nasa.gov Harris Space Systems :: Melbourne, FL ------------------------------ From: byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) Subject: Re: How to use use 1.4MB 5 1/4 disk. Was: Not enough SLS bashing Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1993 21:29:35 GMT In article <1993Sep23.135836.892@krikkit1.apana.org.au>, Matt McLeod wrote: >KPARSONS@kentvm.kent.edu wrote: >: You can easily use 1.44MB floppies if you only have a 5 1/4" drive. >: Use the popular FDRORM18.ZIP package. With it you format your 1.2MB >: floppies as 1.44MB. Then adjust the CMOS setup to tell it your 1.2 >: drive is a 1.44. Then Linux will work with your 1.44 MB 5 1/4" >: floppies. I didn't try this, but I told a friend with this problem >: to do this, and he reported back to me that it works fine. So there >: is no reason to have 1.2 MB versions. > >The other option of course is to use BOOT-B... So as long as you do >actually have a 3.5" drive, it won't matter which size you want to boot >from... For Slackware (where this discussion originated a long time ago) you have the right answer but the wrong reason. Slackware has a 5.25 boot/root pair or disks at ftp.cdrom.com:/pub/linux/test. You can boot your system with the pair and load the distribution with the 3.5" floppy. BAJ --- Another random extraction from the mental bit stream of... Byron A. Jeff - PhD student operating in parallel! Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332 Internet: byron@cc.gatech.edu ------------------------------ From: mgrjtb@cornflower (Joseph T. Batt) Subject: Re: Setting up "xdm" Date: 24 Sep 1993 21:56:07 GMT Rick has reported that he has run into problems running more under xdm. I have experienced problems running gdb under xdm. Furthermore, a program we were writing using curses spontatiously bus errored every time we ran it while waiting on input within the standard curses calls. Looking at the core file, we didn't even find a main() frame..??! Also, (using ext2fs),the file system sporadically fails. The gdb failure I am speaking of is strange. It complained that it could find the file that we requested to debug, even thought we could attempt to run it, and it started. (It was the curses program) All this is very confusing to me. How could one process conflict with others? ALL the problems went away, when we took the same actions from within a console. mgrjtb@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu ____________________________________ ------------------------------ From: rjust@crl.com (Randy Just) Subject: $25.95 *NEW* Release Yggdrasil CD-ROM Date: 24 Sep 1993 10:37:18 -0700 Yes, the new version of the Yggdrasil LINUX CD-ROM is going to be here on October 1, 1993. This release promises to be the most comprehensive plug-and-play operating system distribution ever. Based on LINUX 0.99.13 kernel, GCC 2.4.5, Xfree86 1.3 (X11R5) X-Windows and hundreds of other programs. The CD-ROM will include 235MB of binaries and 445MB of source code. Also included will be a graphical "fill in the blanks" install interface. Almost all CD-ROM interfaces are now supported including SCSI, Mitsumi, Sony 535, Sony CDU-31A and the Soundblaster compatible drives such as the new double controller. As a special promotional offer, between now and October 1, I am offering the release for $25.95 ea. Between October 1 and November 1, the release will be $27.95. After October 31, the price will be $39.95. Shipping charges for U.S. customers will be $4. 707-769-1648 Just Computers! 707-765-2447 FAX P.O. Box 751414 707-765-1431 BBS Petaluma, CA 94975-1414 rjust@justcomp.com OR rjust@crl.com Visa and Mastercard accepted as well. International orders welcomed!!! ------------------------------ From: thompsch@ccmail.orst.edu (Chris Thompson) Subject: e2fsck exit codes Date: 24 Sep 1993 22:07:03 GMT Does anybody know the exit code numbers, and if you do could you include a short description. Thanks Chris Thompsoc@kerr.orst.edu ------------------------------ From: rich@mulvey.com Subject: Re: Linux Administration books Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1993 22:26:00 GMT Davor Cubranic (cubranic@whale.st.usm.edu) wrote: : OK, I read quite a bit of Linux documentation, from old FAQ's to new : HOWTO's and even ALPHA version of SAG, but I haven't found an answer : to this question (which is why I'm posting it to this newsgroup): : I'm going to install Linux on my machine within next two weeks. I'll : be the sole user and administrator of it so I want to get a good : sys admin book on this. I read a few bibliographies, and in Unix : Review August 1992, Richard Morin writes "BSD (SunOS 4.x) administrators : should get the classic _UNIX System Administrator's Handbook_. SVR4 : (SunOS 5.x) administrators should buy UNIX System V Release 4 Admini- : stration..." : Well, here is the problem: which one of these is more applicable to : Linux administration since it is neither/both BSD and SVR4?? Or maybe : some of you have some other personal favorite that you could recommend to : me? BTW, I've got the SAG ALPHA 1, and it is really ALPHA. I definitely : need some other book in addition to it. Personally, I use the Unix System V Release 4 Administration book published by Hayden Books. I've been through just about every major section, and have yet to find anything that didn't relate pretty directly to Linux administration. It's a little simplistic at times, but useful. - Rich -- Rich Mulvey Amateur Radio: N2VDS Rochester, NY rich@mulvey.com "Ignorance should be painful." ------------------------------ From: user1@valis.ampr.ab.ca (Kevin Fluet) Subject: Re: Slackware's 3.5" requirements, was Re: [Not] enough SLS bashing Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1993 06:56:19 GMT > From: rich@mulvey.com > Come on - 10 minutes and 40 bucks will get you a nice new 1.44 drive > installed in your machine. It will help not only with Linux, but a lot > of commercial software as well. Why should Patrick force those of us > with 1.44MB drives to use 5 extra disks, just to satisfy the people who > refuse to use a reasonable setup? Hmm, which is more of a problem? Which is more likely to keep people from trying Linux out: "Oh no, I have to format these 5 extra disks," or "Oh no, I have to go out and buy a new drive"? A 386 with just a 5.25 should BE a reasonable setup for running Linux. It was before Slackware came out. You just seem to consider what YOU have to be what is reasonable. What if Slackware was only available on tape? Lots of people have tape drives (I and most of my friends do). Is that reasonable? I don't think so. > From: byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) > Be aware that it doesn't take much disk space to store the distribution. The > whole thing is 40 Meg and it can be installed piecemeal (A, then X, etc.) > and each series takes less than 16M of temporary storage. True, but many people don't get Linux electronically. Many people get it in a box. That's the whole idea behind putting distributions together in disk images. Even if they were downloading it, why should a person have to call another computer 3 or 4 times to install Slackware in pieces when they don't have to. They don't have to with SLS. > Lastly here are your options if you have 5.25 only: > 1) Temporarily hook you machine to a network with NFS (This can even be a > larger Linux box.) Use the NFS option. Kinda tough when you are Joe average-BBS-caller. > 2) Temporarily store the distribution on a local HD. Use the HD option. This increases the space needed to install Slackware from about 90MB to 130MB. > 3) Temporarily borrow a 1.44M floppy drive. You only need it for the > installation. This is no better than telling people to buy one. > 4) Shuffle the distribution yourself. Build a extra set of disks. Move > the install.end and z*fix files to the last disk. Does a new user knows enough about Linux to do this? > If folks are unwilling to do any of the above then they are unwilling to > help themselves. Let them complain. The point of a distribution is to help people. If you have to jump through hoops to get it installed, what is the point? Your recommendations still leave out the HUGE number of potential Linux users out there with a 386, a 100MB HD, and a 5.25" floppy drive at home. SLS doesn't leave these users out. Why does Slackware? > Well, you could simply do what I did - fit as many of the packages on > each floppy, and install with pkgtool. Heck, it's better to do it that > way - I don't have to spend time downloading stuff like the smalltalk > interpreter that I'm not interested in, anyhow. :-) You obviously know what you are doing. I'm concerned about the average DOS user who wants to try out Linux. > From: bf703@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Patrick J. Volkerding) > In the first place, I'm not required to improve anything until the day > you start writing out my paychecks. Also, I think the advice is valid. > Should people with 286's start demanding Linux work for them? How about > people with 720K floppies? Linux supports those drives too, you know. Well, I think Slackware is great! That's the whole point. But you are leaving quite a few users behind in your striving for being up to date, and you don't have to. I don't mean to sound like I am flaming Slackware. I see Slackware becoming the STANDARD Linux distribution like SLS was before Peter MacDonald decided to be very un-linux-like with his install script restrictions and turned people off. I would like to see this happen because Slackware seems to be much better put together than SLS, but this 3.5-only restriction will hold it back. -- Kevin ====================================================================== Kevin Fluet Call V.A.L.I.S. Public Access Linux kevin or user1@valis.ampr.ab.ca Usenet, Email (403) 478-1281 fluet@ee.ualberta.ca Ask me about Linux, the FREE Unix clone! ------------------------------ From: jerryg@jaiser.rain.com (Jerry Gaiser) Subject: Re: [Not] enough SLS bashing Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1993 06:31:46 PST Reply-To: jerryg@jaiser.rain.com (Jerry Gaiser) vince@victrola.wa.com (Vince Skahan) writes: > dillon@moonshot.west.oic.com (Matthew Dillon) writes: > >> I suggest that you purchase a 1.44 MB 3.5" drive, then. Not >>necessarily for slackware, but because 3.5" is now the norm. You will find >>yourself closed out of more and more things if all you have are crufty 5.25" >>floppies. > > He said that the problem was that Slackware required a 3.5" (BOOT) disk. > Not that he didn't have a 3.5" floppy. The '386 standard is still the > a: drive as 5.25" in general. > Indeed... My b: drive is 3.5" and my a: (boot) is 5.25". Thanks to a lot of very nice advice, I've gotten the test boot images and will see if Slackware is all it's reported to be. -- Jerry Gaiser (jerryg@jaiser.rain.com) (voice) 503-359-4017 Fidonet 1:105/380 (bbs) 503-359-5111 Inritum est qua legibus prohibitum est ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.mail.uucp From: richb@pioneer.ci.net (Rich Braun) Subject: Bypassing a hung modem Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1993 03:43:05 GMT I came home from work today to find that UUCP had failed to poll for 10 hours on this system. Although I have Taylor UUCP 1.04 configured to hunt through 3 different outbound modems, the configuration isn't smart enough to skip over a wedged modem, only a busy one. It repeatedly tries, once every half hour, to use the wedged unit without skipping to the next one. Any solution to this? Oh, and I'm wondering if anyone has gotten a multiline UUCP system running without hung modems under Linux--I've been running mine for months, and have upgraded to better modems which themselves don't hang, but once every few days I have to reset a line because of software glitches. It's probably a combination of effects between the ZyXEL firmware rev level, the Linux serial driver, and the combination of UUCP and getty software I'm running. If you have a stable combination of these elements I could try to recreate it here. thanks, -rich -- Isn't it time for a new ____ New England Community Internet .signature? \ / Home: richb@pioneer.ci.net \/ Work: braun@leds.enet.dec.com NECI: info@pioneer.ci.net ------------------------------ ** FOR YOUR REFERENCE ** The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is: Internet: Linux-Admin-Request@NEWS-DIGESTS.MIT.EDU You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.admin) via: Internet: Linux-Admin@NEWS-DIGESTS.MIT.EDU Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites: nic.funet.fi pub/OS/Linux tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux End of Linux-Admin Digest ******************************