The Linux Questions Thread: a bunch of pitfalls, but technically it's possible

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > The Linux Questions Thread: a bunch of pitfalls, but technically it's possible

«‹›1029 »

MW: May 20, 2001; "Nooooooooo!?"

I decided to give Linux another try on the desktop, hoping to overcome some of the issues I'm currently having with my "windows-and-server-running-freebsd-exporting-home-directory"-solution, so I installed Ubuntu. However, I'm having a few weird problems.

My disc layout is pretty straight-forward:

0) Windows XP
1) /
2) Swap
3) Common (FAT32)

where 0-3 are four primary partitions on my one and only hard drive in this computer. It's SATA and there's also a DVD/RW connected via ATA.

First, after booting from the live cd and installing using the manual disc layout manager, grub wasn't properly configured. The entry for Ubuntu was pointing towards (0,0), when it obviously should be (0,1). You would think a bug like this would had been caught, but anyway.

After fixing this, Ubuntu starts to boot but hangs on the loading screen. After several minutes with no action, it dumps to a "busybox" console. After rebooting and selecting the recovery boot option, I see the output from the kernal as it boots, until it eventually hangs on a message stating:

ATA: abnormal status 0x7F on port 0xXXXXXXXX (don't remember the specific port).

I'm guessing it's somehow confused by my setup, something to do with my DVDRW which is my one and only unit on my ATA channel. But I don't see what's so particular with it? Surely I can't be the first person to try Ubuntu with this simple configuration (HD: SATA, DVD: ATA)?

Ubuntu 7.04 if it is of any help.

Any help?

# ? Aug 1, 2007 19:29

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 12, 2024 23:53

Steve French: Sep 8, 2003

Really quick question (hopefully). I'm used to using RHEL, but just (as in like 30 minutes ago) switched to Ubuntu (7.04, 64-bit), and I'm not familiar with Ubuntu/Debian/apt. I'm trying to get my system up and running on NIS, but can't seem to get the necessary packages installed. As far as I can tell, I need portmap and nis, so:

code:

# apt-get install portmap
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree       
Reading state information... Done
Package portmap is not available, but is referred to by another package.
This may mean that the package is missing, has been obsoleted, or
is only available from another source
E: Package portmap has no installation candidate

I'm assuming/hoping that this is some very simple/straightforward oversight, but I haven't been able to find an answer via Google searches or Ubuntu's online docs.

I was successfully able to install debian-helper-scripts, so I know that apt is at least partially working.

Ideas?

# ? Aug 2, 2007 00:23

6174: Dec 4, 2004

jstultz posted:

Ideas?

I'm not sure what is going on, but looking at the package page it appears it should be there. Maybe you could try getting that individual package directly and installing it with dpkg?

# ? Aug 2, 2007 02:27

STFU Pumpkinhead: Jun 25, 2000

How do I mount a drive with OSX permissions in Ubuntu? I am unable to access certain directories that were created when the drive was in a Mac, and would like to avoid having to recreate the contents.

Is there a way to mount the drive while ignoring permissions?

# ? Aug 2, 2007 02:41

Sergeant Hobo: Jan 7, 2007; Zhu Li, do the thing!

I've seen people on the Internet say to use sudo as opposed to su. Is there some specific reason for this? Isn't using sudo the same as using su, running the command and then exiting su? Or is there something I'm missing here?

# ? Aug 2, 2007 03:19

teapot: Dec 27, 2003; by Fistgrrl

MW posted:

ATA: abnormal status 0x7F on port 0xXXXXXXXX (don't remember the specific port).

I'm guessing it's somehow confused by my setup, something to do with my DVDRW which is my one and only unit on my ATA channel. But I don't see what's so particular with it? Surely I can't be the first person to try Ubuntu with this simple configuration (HD: SATA, DVD: ATA)?

Ubuntu 7.04 if it is of any help.

Any help?

You MAY be the first person booting Ubuntu on a box with the only ATA device being a DVD drive configured as slave.

# ? Aug 2, 2007 03:24

teapot: Dec 27, 2003; by Fistgrrl

Sergeant Hobo posted:

I've seen people on the Internet say to use sudo as opposed to su. Is there some specific reason for this? Isn't using sudo the same as using su, running the command and then exiting su? Or is there something I'm missing here?

You don't have to enter the root password when using sudo, and it will not ask you for password if you run multiple commands from the same terminal in a short period of time. You can also configure some particular commands/arguments to never ask for password, making sudo usable for calling "safe" operations from scripts started by a regular user.

# ? Aug 2, 2007 03:27

n3rd: Oct 8, 2001; The straw that breaks.

Sergeant Hobo posted:

I've seen people on the Internet say to use sudo as opposed to su. Is there some specific reason for this? Isn't using sudo the same as using su, running the command and then exiting su? Or is there something I'm missing here?

sudo also logs each command run with sudo. After someone uses su they can use any command and you won't know exactly what they did. With sudo you see every command they run with sudo, thus making for some accountablity.

# ? Aug 2, 2007 03:30

teapot: Dec 27, 2003; by Fistgrrl

STFU Pumpkinhead posted:

How do I mount a drive with OSX permissions in Ubuntu? I am unable to access certain directories that were created when the drive was in a Mac, and would like to avoid having to recreate the contents.

Is there a way to mount the drive while ignoring permissions?

You can mount it manually with options "uid=username,gid=groupname" where username and groupname are your current user.

code:

sudo mkdir /media/macdrive
sudo mount -oro,uid=[i]username[/i],gid=[i]groupname[/i] /dev/sd[i]drive[/i] /media/macdrive

To unmount exit from all programs accessing the drive, then run

code:

sudo umount /media/macdrive
sudo rmdir /media/macdrive

# ? Aug 2, 2007 03:41

Sergeant Hobo: Jan 7, 2007; Zhu Li, do the thing!

Interesting, thanks. I guess I'll be looking into sudo more now.

# ? Aug 2, 2007 03:43

Splashy Gravy: Dec 21, 2004; I HAVE FURY!; Slippery Tilde

I'm have a small issue that I'm struggling to fix. I'm using chroot to run 32 bit firefox on my 64 bit install. I managed to get metacity themes working with it, but the only issue I'm having is that, aside from the default themes, the menus(such as the edit menu) in firefox don't use the theme(everything else in it seems to).

I'm have trouble getting a screenshot of it since "print screen" doesn't seem to work with menus open.

The following lines are in my fstab. Most are from the chroot tutorial I followed, but I added the last 2 lines myself to get themes (partially) working in the chroot environment. Is there a directory I'm missing here?

code:

/home /chroot/home none bind 0 0
/tmp /chroot/tmp none bind 0 0
/dev /chroot/dev none bind 0 0
/proc /chroot/proc proc defaults 0 0
/media/cdrom0 /chroot/media/cdrom0 none bind 0 0
/usr/share/fonts /chroot/usr/share/fonts none bind 0 0
/usr/share/themes /chroot/usr/share/themes none bind 0 0
/usr/share/icons /chroot/usr/share/icons none bind 0 0

Any ideas?

# ? Aug 2, 2007 04:35

JoeNotCharles: Mar 3, 2005; Yet beyond each tree there are only more trees.

jstultz posted:

Really quick question (hopefully). I'm used to using RHEL, but just (as in like 30 minutes ago) switched to Ubuntu (7.04, 64-bit), and I'm not familiar with Ubuntu/Debian/apt. I'm trying to get my system up and running on NIS, but can't seem to get the necessary packages installed. As far as I can tell, I need portmap and nis, so:

First, use "aptitude" instead of apt-get. It's better, mainly in that it tracks things which you chose to install vs. things that were only installed because of dependencies, so if you remove a package it can automatically clean out unused libraries. (And it mostly has the same syntax, and you can mix and match - run apt-get one time, then aptitude the next time - with no ill effects, so don't worry if you forget once. All the web pages and docs will say "apt-get", but that's just tradition.)

Second, do "aptitude update" to be sure your sources list is up to date, then try again. If that doesn't work, post the contents of /etc/apt/sources.list.

# ? Aug 2, 2007 04:36

teapot: Dec 27, 2003; by Fistgrrl

Splashy Gravy posted:

I'm have a small issue that I'm struggling to fix. I'm using chroot to run 32 bit firefox on my 64 bit install. I managed to get metacity themes working with it,

It's really hard not to, considering that there is only one copy of metacity involved, and it's the 64-bit one.

quote:

but the only issue I'm having is that, aside from the default themes, the menus(such as the edit menu) in firefox don't use the theme(everything else in it seems to).

Most likely you have only 64-bit GTK theme engine libraries, so Firefox uses the default one, even though theme data is available. You have to install 32-bit versions of those into your chroot environment. Firefox's own theme support is installed with firefox itself, however AFAIK, menus and other GTK elements (default buttons, checkboxes, radio buttons) use the system theme

teapot fucked around with this message at 05:00 on Aug 2, 2007

# ? Aug 2, 2007 04:58

Splashy Gravy: Dec 21, 2004; I HAVE FURY!; Slippery Tilde

teapot posted:

Most likely you have only 64-bit GTK theme engine libraries, so Firefox uses the default one, even though theme data is available. You have to install 32-bit versions of those into your chroot environment. Firefox's own theme support is installed with firefox itself, however AFAIK, menus and other GTK elements (default buttons, checkboxes, radio buttons) use the system theme

Many of the default Ubuntu Metacity themes work fine with FF and chroot. I previously had to install some components just to get FF themes working(ubuntu-artwork or something like that), but I'm past that. Also, all the themes work fine in the native 64bit FF.

If it's too much trouble I'll just stick with Human, I was just hopin' there might just be another line I need in my fstab or something simple like that. Thanks for the suggestions.

# ? Aug 2, 2007 05:22

fletcher: Jun 27, 2003; ken park is my favorite movie; Cybernetic Crumb

I'm trying to setup lighttpd and when I try to open a php file from a virtual host it prompts me to download the php file (which contains the source of the php I want executed)

# ? Aug 2, 2007 05:30

teapot: Dec 27, 2003; by Fistgrrl

Splashy Gravy posted:

Many of the default Ubuntu Metacity themes work fine with FF and chroot.

Metacity has absolutely nothing to do with Firefox, and it does not run in chroot if your session is running in 64-bit environment. What you need is GTK themes.

quote:

I previously had to install some components just to get FF themes working(ubuntu-artwork or something like that), but I'm past that. Also, all the themes work fine in the native 64bit FF.

GTK themes have three components: engine, configuration and data. Configuration and data should be duplicated between regular and chrooted environment, however engine is a library with executable code, it is specific to a 32-bit or 64-bit x86. For example, Human theme uses /usr/lib/gtk-2.0/2.10.0/engines/libclearlooks.so library from gtk2-engines-clearlooks package, and if you only have a 64-bit version of it, 32-bit Firefox won't work with it.

# ? Aug 2, 2007 05:31

teapot: Dec 27, 2003; by Fistgrrl

fletcher posted:

I'm trying to setup lighttpd and when I try to open a php file from a virtual host it prompts me to download the php file (which contains the source of the php I want executed)

It means, you have not configured php, so http server does not run it. lighttpd uses a fastCGI version of php, and should be configured to do so.

# ? Aug 2, 2007 05:34

fletcher: Jun 27, 2003; ken park is my favorite movie; Cybernetic Crumb

teapot posted:

It means, you have not configured php, so http server does not run it. lighttpd uses a fastCGI version of php, and should be configured to do so.

I compiled it with --enable-fastcgi and put mod_fastcgi in my lighttpd.conf

edit: ah I think I need to recompile php with fastcgi support

fletcher fucked around with this message at 05:42 on Aug 2, 2007

# ? Aug 2, 2007 05:40

Splashy Gravy: Dec 21, 2004; I HAVE FURY!; Slippery Tilde

teapot posted:

Metacity has absolutely nothing to do with Firefox, and it does not run in chroot if your session is running in 64-bit environment. What you need is GTK themes.

GTK themes have three components: engine, configuration and data. Configuration and data should be duplicated between regular and chrooted environment, however engine is a library with executable code, it is specific to a 32-bit or 64-bit x86. For example, Human theme uses /usr/lib/gtk-2.0/2.10.0/engines/libclearlooks.so library from gtk2-engines-clearlooks package, and if you only have a 64-bit version of it, 32-bit Firefox won't work with it.

I got it going 2 minutes after reading this. I could go on a while about how I thought this was that and that was this, but I'll spare us all and just say "You are the man".
Thanks for the concise explanation.

Splashy Gravy fucked around with this message at 06:20 on Aug 2, 2007

# ? Aug 2, 2007 06:17

Furd_Terguson: Nov 17, 2004; "sheeeeeit"

teapot posted:

code:
#!/bin/sh
target="$1"
if [ -n "$target" ]; then
  cdrecord -v dev=6,0,0 driveropts=burnfree "$target"
else echo "Usage: script.sh <foo.iso>"
fi
Your script checks for target file's existence, so it only works if you already have a file (to overwrite?). The fixed version checks if target is a non-empty string.

It turns out the original script partially works, and I didn't realize that the iso I tested with has a space in the name which threw things off. I tried both of these scripts however, and both generate an error regarding a SCSI device configuration. This error scrolls endlessly down the screen, but it is never present if I run the command by itself. Any ideas?

Also, I just got my Debian dedicated server setup this evening by LayeredTech, I want to install apache to link some images. Do I need to change any settings for apache after apt-getting the package? The links will not be posted publicly, they will only be referenced in forums posts for a private message board. This will be the only thing hosted by the web server. Thanks goons.

# ? Aug 2, 2007 06:21

dfn_doe: Apr 12, 2005; I FOR ONE WELCOME OUR NEW STUPID FUCKING CATCHPHRASE OVERLORDS

RE: sudo vs su

I'm not sure why people favor sudo over su for normal no specific uses, I.E. not using the sudo config for granting access to specific binaries to be run as root. However I do have one caution against sudo, when you use sudo to execute a command it is my understanding that it elevates the privileges of the executing user accross the entirety of the OS, which means that other VTY/TTY logins using the same auth may be escalated to root privileges when you didn't intend for that to happen. SU OTOH will spawn a subshell AS root without changing the privileges of a non-root user in any way.

For example imagine you have a normal non-privileged account you use on an mythtv box in your living room and you are remotely logged into that same account via ssh to install some package updates. Now you execute your apt-get using sudo and it escalates your login privileges for a few minutes after you've provided a password, now in your living room during that same window of escalated priviledges your girl friend attempts to delete your back episodes and accidentally 'rm -rf /' instead of whatever she was trying to do. Blammo your root dir is unceremoniously cast into the ether.

I'm not sure 100% that this is still the case, but it certainly was a few years ago according to the CTO of my company. And is thusly the reason sudo sin't available on any of my production machines for work....

# ? Aug 2, 2007 06:30

crazysim: May 23, 2004; I AM SOOOOO GAY

On my Mac, sudo escalates whatever the user pipes into sudo across the OS about 15 minutes from when the password was put in. Unless your hypothetical girlfriend deliberately puts in `sudo rm -rf /` and not `rm -rf /`, you should have nothing to worry about.

# ? Aug 2, 2007 06:56

MW: May 20, 2001; "Nooooooooo!?"

teapot posted:

You MAY be the first person booting Ubuntu on a box with the only ATA device being a DVD drive configured as slave.

Could be, but I don't see why I would have configured it as slave (not at my computer now at the moment so I can't check though). Or were you able to determine that from my error message?

# ? Aug 2, 2007 07:09

teapot: Dec 27, 2003; by Fistgrrl

MW posted:

Could be, but I don't see why I would have configured it as slave (not at my computer now at the moment so I can't check though). Or were you able to determine that from my error message?

This is a likely reason for that error message -- it may be something else, but judging by bug reports I have found in mailing lists, it appears when there is only slave drive on ATA interface, but it doesn't cause system to hang. Maybe when that device is specifically an optical drive, CD/DVD driver does something stupid as a reaction to this error.

# ? Aug 2, 2007 07:49

teapot: Dec 27, 2003; by Fistgrrl

Furd_Terguson posted:

It turns out the original script partially works, and I didn't realize that the iso I tested with has a space in the name which threw things off.

When using file names as parameters on command line, use quotes around file names with spaces. If file name includes a quote or backslash, add a backslash before it (this also works on spaces, and is a preferred way of automatic tab-completion in bash shell).

quote:

I tried both of these scripts however, and both generate an error regarding a SCSI device configuration. This error scrolls endlessly down the screen, but it is never present if I run the command by itself. Any ideas?

It would be helpful of you have posted actual error messages.

quote:

Also, I just got my Debian dedicated server setup this evening by LayeredTech, I want to install apache to link some images. Do I need to change any settings for apache after apt-getting the package? The links will not be posted publicly, they will only be referenced in forums posts for a private message board. This will be the only thing hosted by the web server. Thanks goons.

Default configuration of apache should be perfectly usable.

# ? Aug 2, 2007 10:30

Furd_Terguson: Nov 17, 2004; "sheeeeeit"

teapot posted:

When using file names as parameters on command line, use quotes around file names with spaces. If file name includes a quote or backslash, add a backslash before it (this also works on spaces, and is a preferred way of automatic tab-completion in bash shell).

It would be helpful of you have posted actual error messages.

Default configuration of apache should be perfectly usable.

I meant to explain that I would need to wait until I am home from work to provide the exact error, but I seemed to have forgotten in this zombie-like stage. I just found it weird how the error was only occurring through the script and when the same command was passed manually there was no issue.

# ? Aug 2, 2007 10:41

teapot: Dec 27, 2003; by Fistgrrl

dfn_doe posted:

RE: sudo vs su

I'm not sure why people favor sudo over su for normal no specific uses, I.E. not using the sudo config for granting access to specific binaries to be run as root. However I do have one caution against sudo, when you use sudo to execute a command it is my understanding that it elevates the privileges of the executing user accross the entirety of the OS, which means that other VTY/TTY logins using the same auth may be escalated to root privileges when you didn't intend for that to happen. SU OTOH will spawn a subshell AS root without changing the privileges of a non-root user in any way.

For example imagine you have a normal non-privileged account you use on an mythtv box in your living room and you are remotely logged into that same account via ssh to install some package updates. Now you execute your apt-get using sudo and it escalates your login privileges for a few minutes after you've provided a password, now in your living room during that same window of escalated priviledges your girl friend attempts to delete your back episodes and accidentally 'rm -rf /' instead of whatever she was trying to do. Blammo your root dir is unceremoniously cast into the ether.

I'm not sure 100% that this is still the case, but it certainly was a few years ago according to the CTO of my company. And is thusly the reason sudo sin't available on any of my production machines for work....

Neither sudo nor any other program can escalate privileges of a running program or session -- you have to execute a setuid executable such as su or sudo to run something as root, so su and sudo do exactly the same thing in this respect. Sudo however also marks the terminal as "I have just received this user's password here, I don't have to do it again for five minutes". So if someone runs sudo as the same user on the same terminal within that time, he won't be asked for a password.

Since terminal numbers are reused, it is possible that you close your terminal in your X session, and someone logged in as you on another screen will run terminal, get the same terminal number, run sudo in it and won't be asked for a password. This is one more reason why sharing accounts is bad, however in all other cases it won't work.

There is an exception to this when a virus/trojan running in the same terminal where you ran sudo can re-run itself as root through sudo -- I have actually seen one of such malicious scripts in the wild. And this is why running things of dubious origin from the same terminal you just used for sudo is a bad idea.

# ? Aug 2, 2007 10:48

covener: Jan 10, 2004; You know, for kids!

dfn_doe posted:

RE: sudo vs su

For example imagine you have a normal non-privileged account you use on an mythtv box in your living room and you are remotely logged into that same account via ssh to install some package updates. Now you execute your apt-get using sudo and it escalates your login privileges for a few minutes after you've provided a password, now in your living room during that same window of escalated priviledges your girl friend attempts to delete your back episodes and accidentally 'rm -rf /' instead of whatever she was trying to do. Blammo your root dir is unceremoniously cast into the ether.

I'm not sure 100% that this is still the case, but it certainly was a few years ago according to the CTO of my company. And is thusly the reason sudo sin't available on any of my production machines for work....

This requires that: You've configured sudo to allow your unpriveleged user to run commands including 'rm' AND to remember passwords AND you're sharing userids/terminals (and your girlfriend explicitly called sudo rm -rf, there's no sudo voodoo that allows implicit privelege escalation across the system)

I can't imagine those two being the case on anything but the most disposable test system in any environment where security or accountability is concerned.

# ? Aug 2, 2007 12:53

STFU Pumpkinhead: Jun 25, 2000

teapot posted:

You can mount it manually with options "uid=username,gid=groupname" where username and groupname are your current user.
code:
sudo mkdir /media/macdrive
sudo mount -oro,uid=[i]username[/i],gid=[i]groupname[/i] /dev/sd[i]drive[/i] /media/macdrive

Thank you for the answer, and sorry to keep asking the stupid ones, but I still can't get this to work.

When you specify /dev/sddrive, I assume I am to specify the partition of the drive I'm trying to mount. Regardless of the hdax I specify I get an error message saying:

code:

mount: special device /dev/sdhda1 does not exist

Forgive me if I'm missing something blatantly obvious, and again thanks for the assistance.

# ? Aug 2, 2007 15:34

Steve French: Sep 8, 2003

JoeNotCharles posted:

First, use "aptitude" instead of apt-get. It's better, mainly in that it tracks things which you chose to install vs. things that were only installed because of dependencies, so if you remove a package it can automatically clean out unused libraries. (And it mostly has the same syntax, and you can mix and match - run apt-get one time, then aptitude the next time - with no ill effects, so don't worry if you forget once. All the web pages and docs will say "apt-get", but that's just tradition.)

Second, do "aptitude update" to be sure your sources list is up to date, then try again. If that doesn't work, post the contents of /etc/apt/sources.list.

Thanks for the advice, I may try out aptitude but I don't really foresee any need to ever remove packages (this is just for a development machine at work, I basically only need xterm, NIS, NFS and ssh).

I got it working yesterday after a lot of tinkering around, pretty sure the problem was just that I needed to uncomment a few repositories in /etc/apt/sources.list

# ? Aug 2, 2007 17:56

RoundsToZero: Dec 3, 2004; An open door is an invitation

STFU Pumpkinhead posted:

Thank you for the answer, and sorry to keep asking the stupid ones, but I still can't get this to work.

When you specify /dev/sddrive, I assume I am to specify the partition of the drive I'm trying to mount. Regardless of the hdax I specify I get an error message saying:
code:
mount: special device /dev/sdhda1 does not exist
Forgive me if I'm missing something blatantly obvious, and again thanks for the assistance.

/dev/sdX for SATA/SCSI, /dev/hdX for PATA. Don't combine them and you should be fine. If you want to see what you have, just do an ls /dev/hd* /dev/sd* and it should show what you have.

# ? Aug 2, 2007 18:32

dfn_doe: Apr 12, 2005; I FOR ONE WELCOME OUR NEW STUPID FUCKING CATCHPHRASE OVERLORDS

covener posted:

This requires that: You've configured sudo to allow your unpriveleged user to run commands including 'rm' AND to remember passwords AND you're sharing userids/terminals (and your girlfriend explicitly called sudo rm -rf, there's no sudo voodoo that allows implicit privelege escalation across the system)

I can't imagine those two being the case on anything but the most disposable test system in any environment where security or accountability is concerned.

I understand all that, point being that most people (in my experience) who use sudo do use it in a manner as outlined above AND most production unix type systems don't use sudo at all... Those who have access to root do their root tasks in a root shell, those who don't need it don't have access and those who only need some of it submit work requests to those who do have it. Places with more complex privileged requirements than that often use a full blown MAC system instead of trying to emulate one with sudo and hoping that limited sudo users don't find ways to spawn shells or execute arbitrary commands from within the subset of binaries they can execute through sudo.

Point being, I think that people tend to use sudo because it gives them a sense of greater security, however I think that sudo actually provides a FALSE sense of security in allowing more than people tend to think at first glance.

To each their own...

BTW: I just tested my original example case and found that apparently that behavior has been fixed.. which is nice

# ? Aug 2, 2007 18:54

covener: Jan 10, 2004; You know, for kids!

dfn_doe posted:

Point being, I think that people tend to use sudo because it gives them a sense of greater security, however I think that sudo actually provides a FALSE sense of security in allowing more than people tend to think at first glance.

To each their own...

BTW: I just tested my original example case and found that apparently that behavior has been fixed.. which is nice

People use sudo for convenience and not having to share a root password. Those are two big wins.

I don't think that behavior of sudo ever existed.

# ? Aug 2, 2007 18:59

dfn_doe: Apr 12, 2005; I FOR ONE WELCOME OUR NEW STUPID FUCKING CATCHPHRASE OVERLORDS

covener posted:

People use sudo for convenience and not having to share a root password. Those are two big wins.

This is what I'm getting at. What security advantage is there in not having a shared root password? If root access is being shared through a presumably limited sudo config it seems that you only have the perceived benefit of limiting root access until which time as someone finds a way to spawn a shell or execute an arbitrary child command.

I don't even let my non-wheel users execute anything outside of a very limited chroot...

Convenience and security have a inversely proportionate relationship in nearly every way. Why would you want people who you don't trust with your root password to be running commands with root privileges?

quote:

I don't think that behavior of sudo ever existed.

That is possible, my knowledge of it was only second hand. And I never bothered testing it, since once the CTO declares something as not allowable there isn't much point in trying to implement something which doesn't add anything to the end user experience.

# ? Aug 2, 2007 19:09

ColdPie: Jun 9, 2006

Oh man, 30+ pages. Sorry if this has been asked, but I figure it's a pretty easy question in any case.

I'd like to make a headless Linux (or, hell, any UNIX) box that acts as a small fileserver. What I'm looking for in it most is acting as a CVS server to store my source files. I've already got the hardware, but I'd like a suggestion for a distro.

I know my way around a command line and as the box will be headless anyway, I don't need a GUI. When I need to do maintenance, I'll just use PUTTY. Like I said, the main purpose of this box is to do run a CVS server daemon all the time, I'm not going to be using it for much of anything else.

Does anyone have any distro suggestions?

Edit: I'll be doing most things on a local network, but I would like CVS (and possibly a shell) available outside as well.

# ? Aug 3, 2007 01:08

bitprophet: Jul 22, 2004; Taco Defender

ColdPie posted:

Oh man, 30+ pages. Sorry if this has been asked, but I figure it's a pretty easy question in any case.

I'd like to make a headless Linux (or, hell, any UNIX) box that acts as a small fileserver. What I'm looking for in it most is acting as a CVS server to store my source files. I've already got the hardware, but I'd like a suggestion for a distro.

I know my way around a command line and as the box will be headless anyway, I don't need a GUI. When I need to do maintenance, I'll just use PUTTY. Like I said, the main purpose of this box is to do run a CVS server daemon all the time, I'm not going to be using it for much of anything else.

Does anyone have any distro suggestions?

Edit: I'll be doing most things on a local network, but I would like CVS (and possibly a shell) available outside as well.

Well, any distro can handle that stuff, obviously, so it really comes down to which distro's package manager you like best, how much distro-specific junk you like or don't like, etc.

Since it's just a server and won't do any desktoppery, I'd personally suggest one of the more stripped-down/non-desktop-oriented distros such as Arch ( :love:

), Slackware or Debian (Debian may not be "stripped down" as much as the other two but it's still a good choice if you do the server install and not the workstation one).

# ? Aug 3, 2007 02:12

ColdPie: Jun 9, 2006

bitprophet posted:

Well, any distro can handle that stuff, obviously, so it really comes down to which distro's package manager you like best, how much distro-specific junk you like or don't like, etc.

Since it's just a server and won't do any desktoppery, I'd personally suggest one of the more stripped-down/non-desktop-oriented distros such as Arch (), Slackware or Debian (Debian may not be "stripped down" as much as the other two but it's still a good choice if you do the server install and not the workstation one).

Thanks for the suggestions! I'll take a look at Arch. I've used Slackware before; it's an option too. I think Debian might be a little higher level than I'm looking for.

Also, and this might be important and I regret not mentioning it earlier, the hardware I'm running this on is old. Pentium 3 old. I think that might rule out Arch as it seems to only support i686 and x86-64, both of which are newer than P3 (if I understand correctly). Are there any really stripped-down Linux distros that'd support such old hardware?

# ? Aug 3, 2007 03:54

RocketMermaid: Mar 30, 2004; My pronouns are She/Heir.

Question from a fairly new Linux user: Is there a reasonable way to transfer a Linux install (specifically, Fedora Core 6) from one drive to another? I want to use the 120GB drive it's currently running on as external storage, and would rather not have to go through the whole install process again.

# ? Aug 3, 2007 05:01

teapot: Dec 27, 2003; by Fistgrrl

Ubik posted:

Question from a fairly new Linux user: Is there a reasonable way to transfer a Linux install (specifically, Fedora Core 6) from one drive to another? I want to use the 120GB drive it's currently running on as external storage, and would rather not have to go through the whole install process again.

The easiest way to do it is to copy the entire partition or even the whole drive using dd, partimage or gparted while booted from a live CD, then resize partitions using gparted or similar tool. This will not work if your new drive is too small to fit the old partitions, however you can shrink them before copying.

When I have to do it I create partitions on the new drive, format the filesystems, then use two tars connected by a pipe to transfer all files while preserving their attributes, then reinstall the bootloader on the new drive, however that requires good understanding of booting process and configuration involved.

# ? Aug 3, 2007 06:41

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 12, 2024 23:53

teapot: Dec 27, 2003; by Fistgrrl

ColdPie posted:

Thanks for the suggestions! I'll take a look at Arch. I've used Slackware before; it's an option too. I think Debian might be a little higher level than I'm looking for.

To be fair, Debian Stable in the minimal server configuration is perfectly usable for this purpose.

quote:

Also, and this might be important and I regret not mentioning it earlier, the hardware I'm running this on is old. Pentium 3 old. I think that might rule out Arch as it seems to only support i686 and x86-64, both of which are newer than P3 (if I understand correctly). Are there any really stripped-down Linux distros that'd support such old hardware?

i686 is everything starting from Pentium Pro. I have Ubuntu 7.04 running on P3 450.

# ? Aug 3, 2007 06:57

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > The Linux Questions Thread: a bunch of pitfalls, but technically it's possible

«‹›1029 »