f



What's the difference between alt.os.linx and comp.os.linux

What's the difference between alt.os.linx and comp.os.linux
(and alt.comp.os.linux)?

I would like to learn how to use linux, but if I just want
a single newsgroup for basic questions, which would it be?
0
Baker
1/14/2015 2:41:25 AM
comp.os.linux 3406 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

72 Replies
723 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 59

On 2015-01-14, Baker Charles <bakercharles@example.com> wrote:
> What's the difference between alt.os.linx and comp.os.linux
> (and alt.comp.os.linux)?
>
> I would like to learn how to use linux, but if I just want
> a single newsgroup for basic questions, which would it be?

What distribition? You might want to use that first. Then alt.os.linux
has a larger posting 

What distribition? You might want to use that first. Then alt.os.linux
has a larger posting 
0
William
1/14/2015 3:43:16 AM
On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 03:43:16 +0000, William Unruh wrote:

> What distribition? You might want to use that first.

I haven't decided yet.

I read up on how to choose distributions and everyone has 
a (very) different set of criteria for choosing.

There are so many threads on that topic that I don't want
this one to be yet another "what distribution". I just 
want to know what the difference is between these three
newsgroups, all of which sound similar.
0
Baker
1/14/2015 10:19:48 AM
On Wednesday 14 January 2015 11:19, Baker Charles conveyed the following 
to alt.comp.os.linux...

> On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 03:43:16 +0000, William Unruh wrote:
> 
>> What distribition? You might want to use that first.
> 
> I haven't decided yet.
> 
> I read up on how to choose distributions and everyone has
> a (very) different set of criteria for choosing.
> 
> There are so many threads on that topic that I don't want
> this one to be yet another "what distribution". I just
> want to know what the difference is between these three
> newsgroups, all of which sound similar.

Groups under the alt.* hierarchy are not as strictly regulated as those 
under the comp.* hierarchy ─ essentially, anyone can start a group 
there, which is why there are so many ─ but that said, like Bill Unruh 
told you, you'll get the most replies from the alt.os.linux newsgroup, 
and if you choose a particular distribution, go with the group for that 
distribution first.

Most of the distribution-specific newsgroups are under the 
alt.os.linux.* hierarchy, e.g.:

  alt.os.linux.debian
  alt.os.linux.mageia
  alt.os.linux.pclinuxos
  alt.os.linux.ubuntu
  ...

Another, relatively popular group for generic GNU/Linux-related stuff is 
comp.os.linux.misc, albeit that its traffic is lower than that of 
alt.os.linux.

-- 
= Aragorn =

         http://www.linuxcounter.net - registrant #223157
0
Aragorn
1/14/2015 10:42:28 AM
On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 11:42:28 +0100, Aragorn wrote:

> Most of the distribution-specific newsgroups are under the
> alt.os.linux.* hierarchy

Good to know when I finally choose a distribution! 

I'm leaning away from Canonical and toward Blue at the 
moment but I haven't chosen yet. My XP laptop will be
my sacrificial lamb. LOL.
0
Baker
1/14/2015 10:57:46 AM
On 14/01/15 11:19, Baker Charles wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 03:43:16 +0000, William Unruh wrote:
>
>> What distribition? You might want to use that first.
>
> I haven't decided yet.

If you list what you want out of the distribution (what you want to do 
with it, what kind of hardware), then people can give you some 
suggestions, then it's far less than looking trough all distributions 
you find at distrowatch.com

-- 

  //Aho

0
J
1/14/2015 8:05:00 PM
On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 04:57:46 -0600, Baker Charles wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 11:42:28 +0100, Aragorn wrote:
> 
>> Most of the distribution-specific newsgroups are under the
>> alt.os.linux.* hierarchy
> 
> Good to know when I finally choose a distribution!
> 
> I'm leaning away from Canonical and toward Blue at the moment but I
> haven't chosen yet. My XP laptop will be my sacrificial lamb. LOL.

If you have no specific requirements, you may as well just choose at 
random and hack away. Hey - you're gonna break your system five times 
*minimum*. :) It's during the fixing of your system that you actually 
decide which distro is for you.
0
Aleksandar
1/14/2015 8:58:36 PM
On 2015-01-14, Aleksandar Kuktin <akuktin@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 04:57:46 -0600, Baker Charles wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 11:42:28 +0100, Aragorn wrote:
>> 
>>> Most of the distribution-specific newsgroups are under the
>>> alt.os.linux.* hierarchy
>> 
>> Good to know when I finally choose a distribution!
>> 
>> I'm leaning away from Canonical and toward Blue at the moment but I
>> haven't chosen yet. My XP laptop will be my sacrificial lamb. LOL.
>
> If you have no specific requirements, you may as well just choose at 
> random and hack away. Hey - you're gonna break your system five times 
> *minimum*. :) It's during the fixing of your system that you actually 
> decide which distro is for you.

Sheesh. Nonsense. Most distros will work "out of the box". Some things
might be easier some harder. 
I would say stay away from the "compile yourself" distros, unless you
really really want to get involved in the nitty gritty. If what you want
is to use something to accomplish some tasks (connect to the internet,
edit documents, watch movies, etc) 
The differences can arise when you have to debug things because
something is not working quite correctly. 

These days one of the big fault lines is systemd vs sysV initialisation
( what happens when the system comes up) systemd is the newest thing
out. It delivers very fast booting, hibernating, etc. It also delivers
some bugs. It is hard to debug if something goes wrong.  sysv is older, slower, but almost everything is in human readable shell scripts. 
Another is display manager. Since you almost certainly want to use X you
hae the desktop managers. KDE is probbly the biggest one, Gnome, next,
and various others with advantages (smaller, faster, and fewer features
for example) 

Another is package management. There is the debian one, and the redhat,
rpm one. Then there is the overall manager which keeps you out of
dependency hell ( package A depends on B which depends on C which
depends of EFG and A) There are a bunch
yum, aptitude, urpmi. Again they all do more of less the same thing-- if
you try to install A, it checks what A needs and installs everything A
needs and everything that those need at the same time. 

Then there is support time. How long is a distro supported-- ie how long
are security and other updates issued for a distro. that can vary from a
year to 20 years.The lo9nger support times may come at a financial cost. 





Remember that at heart all distros are the same-- ie you can do anything
on one that you can on the other. Just that some make some things
easier, some other things. 

 happen to like Mageia (Mandriva, Mandrake, originally split from
 RedHat) both because I am used to it and it seems to have almost
 everything prepackaged that I want. It uses systemd, KDE (you can
 install Gnome, or others ), rpm, urpmi, and support lasts 18 months. 


0
William
1/14/2015 9:42:59 PM
On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 04:19:48 -0600, Baker Charles wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 03:43:16 +0000, William Unruh wrote:
> 
>> What distribition? You might want to use that first.
> 
> I haven't decided yet.
> 
> I read up on how to choose distributions and everyone has a (very)
> different set of criteria for choosing.
> 
> There are so many threads on that topic that I don't want this one to be
> yet another "what distribution". I just want to know what the difference
> is between these three newsgroups, all of which sound similar.

Understood, but IMHO the best thing you can do is pick a distro - even if 
at random - and start using it. They are generally quite easy to install, 
so if you change your mind after a bit, that's fine - simply install 
another one. Or, at least, try some of the live cd/dvd/usb distros or run 
in a virtual machine.
0
ray
1/14/2015 9:49:08 PM
On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 21:05:00 +0100, J.O. Aho wrote:

> If you list what you want out of the distribution (what you want to do
> with it, what kind of hardware), then people can give you some
> suggestions, then it's far less than looking trough all distributions
> you find at distrowatch.com

It's a home desktop. So, I'm going to use one of the "standard" 
supported distributions. Probably Ubuntu based, but not Unity.

I don't really care about the windowing environment, other than
I like the old style menus (winxp style is fine by me) and 
task bar.

I'm going to put my window controls on the top right so Unity
I already know can't do that (yes, I know it can "almost" do 
it, but not quite) since I still have windows around. I want
consistency in the window controls.

For software, I'm not doing much of office stuff, so, the basic
browser and newsreader and picture editor and dvd creation 
stuff will be fine (which is why it probably won't be redhat
based as friends told me they're years behind on the latest 
video editing versions).

Pretty much, I have easy requirements, which I would think
are just about the same as any other desktop.
0
Baker
1/14/2015 10:28:33 PM
Baker Charles writes:
> I'm going to put my window controls on the top right so Unity I
> already know can't do that (yes, I know it can "almost" do it, but not
> quite) since I still have windows around. I want consistency in the
> window controls.

Your choice of distribution need not dictate your choice of desktop
environment.  They all have defaults but that's just what they give you
if you tell the installer you don't know what you want.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
0
John
1/14/2015 10:37:19 PM
On 2015-01-14, Baker Charles <bakercharles@example.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 21:05:00 +0100, J.O. Aho wrote:
>
>> If you list what you want out of the distribution (what you want to do
>> with it, what kind of hardware), then people can give you some
>> suggestions, then it's far less than looking trough all distributions
>> you find at distrowatch.com
>
> It's a home desktop. So, I'm going to use one of the "standard" 
> supported distributions. Probably Ubuntu based, but not Unity.

I personally do not like some of the ubuntu decisions on system
adminstration. Its whole sudo mania to me gets in the way, instead of
helps. 
>
> I don't really care about the windowing environment, other than
> I like the old style menus (winxp style is fine by me) and 
> task bar.

Then I suspect you do not want gnome based ubuntu, but rather kde based
(Kubuntu?)

>
> I'm going to put my window controls on the top right so Unity
> I already know can't do that (yes, I know it can "almost" do 
> it, but not quite) since I still have windows around. I want
> consistency in the window controls.
>
> For software, I'm not doing much of office stuff, so, the basic
> browser and newsreader and picture editor and dvd creation 
> stuff will be fine (which is why it probably won't be redhat
> based as friends told me they're years behind on the latest 
> video editing versions).

There is Fedora which is more uptodate, and Redhat Enterprise which is
primarily for servers and is conservative. 

NOte, since you are interested in dvd burning I would get cdrtools, not
the wodim/cdrkit stuff. 
There is an incredibly childish battle going on between the creator of
cdrtools (of which cdrkit is a very (8 years) old version of) and debian
and as a result many of the other distros. 

Video editing is not and easy requirement. It is a pretty demanding
thing and is probably where I would concentrate my attention. Which
video editing software works best on which distro.



>
> Pretty much, I have easy requirements, which I would think
> are just about the same as any other desktop.
0
William
1/14/2015 10:39:27 PM
"Baker Charles" <bakercharles@example.com> wrote in message 
news:387f1$54b6ed91$43da7656$27134@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com...
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 21:05:00 +0100, J.O. Aho wrote:
>
>> If you list what you want out of the distribution (what you want to do
>> with it, what kind of hardware), then people can give you some
>> suggestions, then it's far less than looking trough all distributions
>> you find at distrowatch.com
>
> It's a home desktop. So, I'm going to use one of the "standard"
> supported distributions. Probably Ubuntu based, but not Unity.
>
> I don't really care about the windowing environment, other than
> I like the old style menus (winxp style is fine by me) and
> task bar.
>
> I'm going to put my window controls on the top right so Unity
> I already know can't do that (yes, I know it can "almost" do
> it, but not quite) since I still have windows around. I want
> consistency in the window controls.
>
> For software, I'm not doing much of office stuff, so, the basic
> browser and newsreader and picture editor and dvd creation
> stuff will be fine (which is why it probably won't be redhat
> based as friends told me they're years behind on the latest
> video editing versions).
>
> Pretty much, I have easy requirements, which I would think
> are just about the same as any other desktop.

Sure you can - I have my window controls on the top right hand side of the 
window! Ubuntutweak helped me set that, but I think it's a compiz 
configuration if you don't want to use that 


0
John
1/15/2015 12:09:01 AM
On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 22:39:27 +0000, William Unruh wrote:

> Its whole sudo mania to me gets in the way, instead of helps.

I never quite understood what you call the "sudo mania" in
a personal desktop. On a corporate machine, I can see that
you don't want every user to be root, but, on a personal
desktop, you're root anyway.

So, whether you 'su root' or 'sudo', it seems to me, makes
no difference. At least I don't see the difference.
0
Baker
1/15/2015 4:40:06 AM
On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 16:09:01 -0800, John F wrote:

> Sure you can - I have my window controls on the top right hand side of
> the window! Ubuntutweak helped me set that, but I think it's a compiz
> configuration if you don't want to use that

I've already gotten the lecture from one of my buddies.
It "almost" works in Unity when you put buttons on the top right.
I don't remember which windows where it's impossible, but he showed me, 
and I think it was the fully maximized windows that took up the whole
screen. Those, all of a sudden, put the buttons on the top left.
You have no choice. This buddy was pretty good, so I believe him, 
but we could dig up a reference if you don't believe me.

Anyway, I won't have that problem because I'll avoid Unity for
other reasons anyway.
0
Baker
1/15/2015 4:42:56 AM
On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 16:37:19 -0600, John Hasler wrote:

> Your choice of distribution need not dictate your choice of desktop
> environment.  They all have defaults but that's just what they give you
> if you tell the installer you don't know what you want.
> jhasler@newsguy.com

Maybe I misunderstand.
Does that mean I can have Ubuntu without Unity?
0
Baker
1/15/2015 4:43:24 AM
On 15/01/15 05:43, Baker Charles wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 16:37:19 -0600, John Hasler wrote:
>
>> Your choice of distribution need not dictate your choice of desktop
>> environment.  They all have defaults but that's just what they give you
>> if you tell the installer you don't know what you want.
>> jhasler@newsguy.com
>
> Maybe I misunderstand.
> Does that mean I can have Ubuntu without Unity?

Yes, you can pick another DE as yours, or use a sub-distribution like 
Kubuntu or one of the other *ubuntu.

-- 

  //Aho
0
J
1/15/2015 5:48:23 AM
On 2015-01-15, Baker Charles <bakercharles@example.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 22:39:27 +0000, William Unruh wrote:
>
>> Its whole sudo mania to me gets in the way, instead of helps.
>
> I never quite understood what you call the "sudo mania" in
> a personal desktop. On a corporate machine, I can see that
> you don't want every user to be root, but, on a personal
> desktop, you're root anyway.

That is the reason why Ubuntu went on the kick. No, even on your own
machine you should NOT be root. root should be reserved only for
carrying out system jobs. 

>
> So, whether you 'su root' or 'sudo', it seems to me, makes
> no difference. At least I don't see the difference.

To stop you from forgetting that you are root, and doing stupid things.
It is the nanny state (or rather nanny distribution). Many distro people
get into the state of believing that what is good for themselves should
be forced on everyone else. 

The difference is that you have to sudo before every command you enter,
while when you are root, you do not and can forget that you are root. 


0
William
1/15/2015 5:50:40 AM
On 1/14/2015 9:50 PM, William Unruh wrote:
> On 2015-01-15, Baker Charles <bakercharles@example.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 22:39:27 +0000, William Unruh wrote:
>>
>>> Its whole sudo mania to me gets in the way, instead of helps.
>>
>> I never quite understood what you call the "sudo mania" in
>> a personal desktop. On a corporate machine, I can see that
>> you don't want every user to be root, but, on a personal
>> desktop, you're root anyway.
>
> That is the reason why Ubuntu went on the kick. No, even on your own
> machine you should NOT be root. root should be reserved only for
> carrying out system jobs.
>
>>
>> So, whether you 'su root' or 'sudo', it seems to me, makes
>> no difference. At least I don't see the difference.
>
> To stop you from forgetting that you are root, and doing stupid things.
> It is the nanny state (or rather nanny distribution). Many distro people
> get into the state of believing that what is good for themselves should
> be forced on everyone else.
>
> The difference is that you have to sudo before every command you enter,
> while when you are root, you do not and can forget that you are root.
>
>
Is there a way to use an environment variable to automagically put sudo
before every command?
0
mike
1/15/2015 7:18:31 AM
mike schrieb:

> Is there a way to use an environment variable to automagically put sudo
> before every command?

Could be, but you don't really want this.

Sincerely, Markus

0
Markus
1/15/2015 7:48:57 AM
ray carter schrieb:

> Understood, but IMHO the best thing you can do is pick a distro - even if
> at random - and start using it. They are generally quite easy to install,
> so if you change your mind after a bit, that's fine - simply install
> another one. Or, at least, try some of the live cd/dvd/usb distros or run
> in a virtual machine.

That's the best way. I have installed 5 Distros through VirtualBox after 
using OpenSuse for more then 15 years, but I haven't changed my decision ;-)

Sincerely, Markus
0
Markus
1/15/2015 7:51:33 AM
On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 22:40:06 -0600, Baker Charles <bakercharles@example.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 22:39:27 +0000, William Unruh wrote:
>
>> Its whole sudo mania to me gets in the way, instead of helps.
>
>I never quite understood what you call the "sudo mania" in
>a personal desktop. On a corporate machine, I can see that
>you don't want every user to be root, but, on a personal
>desktop, you're root anyway.
>
>So, whether you 'su root' or 'sudo', it seems to me, makes
>no difference. At least I don't see the difference.

On my personal machine, if I want to mess around with the system then I want
to log in as root and not be pestered with that sudo nonsense. 

And if I don't want to mess around with the system I just want to log in as an
ordinary user. 


-- 
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web:  http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
0
Steve
1/15/2015 10:11:24 AM
William Unruh wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 2015-01-15, Baker Charles <bakercharles@example.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 22:39:27 +0000, William Unruh wrote:
>>
>>> Its whole sudo mania to me gets in the way, instead of helps.
>>
>> I never quite understood what you call the "sudo mania" in
>> a personal desktop. On a corporate machine, I can see that
>> you don't want every user to be root, but, on a personal
>> desktop, you're root anyway.
>
> That is the reason why Ubuntu went on the kick. No, even on your own
> machine you should NOT be root. root should be reserved only for
> carrying out system jobs. 
>
>> So, whether you 'su root' or 'sudo', it seems to me, makes
>> no difference. At least I don't see the difference.
>
> To stop you from forgetting that you are root, and doing stupid things.
> It is the nanny state (or rather nanny distribution). Many distro people
> get into the state of believing that what is good for themselves should
> be forced on everyone else. 
>
> The difference is that you have to sudo before every command you enter,
> while when you are root, you do not and can forget that you are root. 

My prompt character and red-colored user name "root" are quite sufficient as
reminders.  (Could even make the whole terminal red, if desired).

-- 
Fifty flippant frogs
Walked by on flippered feet
And with their slime they made the time
Unnaturally fleet.
0
Chris
1/15/2015 10:36:01 AM
In alt.comp.os.linux William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote:
> The difference is that you have to sudo before every command you enter,
> while when you are root, you do not and can forget that you are root. 

Even in ubuntu you can do "sudo -i" to get a interactive root shell.

The major difference is that with (the way ubuntu does) sudo, you only
got a single password, so if THAT gets compromised your whole system
is vulnerable, while with a seperate root user you (should) have a
different password FOR root stuff.
Both creating a separate root password as well as requiring a different
password for sudo IS possible in ubuntu, it just isn't the way the
installer sets up the system, though.
0
Eef
1/15/2015 11:49:03 AM
On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 06:48:23 +0100, J.O. Aho wrote:

> Yes, you can pick another DE as yours, or use a sub-distribution like 
> Kubuntu or one of the other *ubuntu.

I had known about Kubuntu, but I hadn't realized you could
just have Ubuntu with KDE (instead of with Unity).
0
Baker
1/15/2015 12:08:44 PM
Yes, in both Linux and Windows I have the desktop wallpaper red to
remind me that I'm root/Administrator.  Normally it's black or blue.

I also tend to find this modern day demotion of root/Administrator to
the equivalent of a first line support role instead of a last line
support role absolutely maddening:

	Linux PITA :-(	The way that permissions on new files are taken
from the user rather than the parent directory.  I find I'm constantly
needing to change file permissions manually, for which you need sudo
or root access.

	Windows PITA :-(	Administrator doesn't have access to a load of
important but non-critical system files, such as the default MMI
module layouts.  This means you cannot customise the default layout to
something more sensible than the absurd postage-stamp-sized mess that
is offered by default.

Etc, etc.

Give me back the ability to log in as root and Windows 2000, please.  

Yes, I know I can hack the Linux, but the moment you choose to go off
the beaten track, you start to encounter things that fail, because
no-one has tested them thoroughly  -  for example, if you are doing a
long job in root, the screen saver might not cut in and you cannot
manually lock the screen, so the person who most needs to be able to
lock the screen can not  -  how stupid is that?

On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 05:36:01 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom
<OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
> 
> My prompt character and red-colored user name "root" are quite sufficient as
> reminders.  (Could even make the whole terminal red, if desired).
--
=========================================================
UK Residents:	If you feel can possibly support it
		please sign the following ePetition
		before closing time of 30/03/2015 23:59:

	http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/71556
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist.  Or use a contact address at:
	http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
	http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
0
Java
1/15/2015 12:17:26 PM
Java Jive wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> Yes, in both Linux and Windows I have the desktop wallpaper red to
> remind me that I'm root/Administrator.  Normally it's black or blue.
>
> I also tend to find this modern day demotion of root/Administrator to
> the equivalent of a first line support role instead of a last line
> support role absolutely maddening:
>
> 	Linux PITA :-(	The way that permissions on new files are taken
> from the user rather than the parent directory.  I find I'm constantly
> needing to change file permissions manually, for which you need sudo
> or root access.
>
> 	Windows PITA :-(	Administrator doesn't have access to a load of
> important but non-critical system files, such as the default MMI
> module layouts.  This means you cannot customise the default layout to
> something more sensible than the absurd postage-stamp-sized mess that
> is offered by default.
>
> Etc, etc.
>
> Give me back the ability to log in as root and Windows 2000, please.  
>
> Yes, I know I can hack the Linux, but the moment you choose to go off
> the beaten track, you start to encounter things that fail, because
> no-one has tested them thoroughly  -  for example, if you are doing a
> long job in root, the screen saver might not cut in and you cannot
> manually lock the screen, so the person who most needs to be able to
> lock the screen can not  -  how stupid is that?

I don't use a desktop as root.  I'm either in a terminal window or a virtual
console.

-- 
"BYTE editors are men who separate the wheat from the chaff, and then
 print the chaff."
		-- Lionel Hummel (uiucdcs!hummel), derived from a quote by Adlai Stevenson, Sr.
0
Chris
1/15/2015 12:40:39 PM
mike writes:
> Is there a way to use an environment variable to automagically put
> sudo before every command?

Just install a root password and do what you want.  Nothing is being
"enforced".
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
0
John
1/15/2015 2:12:42 PM
Steve Hayes writes:
> On my personal machine, if I want to mess around with the system then
> I want to log in as root and not be pestered with that sudo nonsense.

Then install a root password and do it.  The disabling of root logins is
just a default configuration.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
0
John
1/15/2015 2:15:10 PM
Baker Charles writes:
> I had known about Kubuntu, but I hadn't realized you could just have
> Ubuntu with KDE (instead of with Unity).

The window manager is just another package (and the "desktop
environment" a metapackage).  Unity is merely the one Ubuntu has chosen
as default when the user expresses a wish for a "desktop" but no
preference for which one.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
0
John
1/15/2015 2:22:18 PM
On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 08:22:18 -0600, John Hasler wrote:

> The window manager is just another package (and the "desktop
> environment" a metapackage).  Unity is merely the one Ubuntu has chosen
> as default when the user expresses a wish for a "desktop" but no
> preference for which one.

This is confusing to me still, but I do understand that what you're
saying is that Ubuntu + KDE can be done.

But, then how is that different from Kubuntu with KDE?
0
Baker
1/15/2015 3:35:05 PM
"Eef Hartman" <E.J.M.Hartman@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:54b7a92e$0$2977$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl...
> In alt.comp.os.linux William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote:
>> The difference is that you have to sudo before every command you enter,
>> while when you are root, you do not and can forget that you are root.
>
> Even in ubuntu you can do "sudo -i" to get a interactive root shell.
>
> The major difference is that with (the way ubuntu does) sudo, you only
> got a single password, so if THAT gets compromised your whole system
> is vulnerable, while with a seperate root user you (should) have a
> different password FOR root stuff.
> Both creating a separate root password as well as requiring a different
> password for sudo IS possible in ubuntu, it just isn't the way the
> installer sets up the system, though.

And as should be pointed out, this is to ease the maintenance of an UBU 
install for a single user. But who in their right mind will have that sudo 
access for a multi user system - their can only be one root user, (or more - 
just have to select that in the users/groups gui or do it by /ect/passwords

John 


0
John
1/15/2015 4:54:04 PM
On 15/01/15 16:35, Baker Charles wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 08:22:18 -0600, John Hasler wrote:
>
>> The window manager is just another package (and the "desktop
>> environment" a metapackage).  Unity is merely the one Ubuntu has chosen
>> as default when the user expresses a wish for a "desktop" but no
>> preference for which one.
>
> This is confusing to me still, but I do understand that what you're
> saying is that Ubuntu + KDE can be done.
>
> But, then how is that different from Kubuntu with KDE?
>

Kubuntu tries to make all their administration tools (GUI based) to use 
the QT framework while Unbuntu will be mainly using GTK, which makes 
that tools may look a bit different and have some differences in 
functionality.

The thing you will notice most is that GTK (Mac button order) tools has 
their OK button on a different location than QT (classic button order).


Note that I'm not an *ubuntu user and I'm only talking theoretically.


-- 

  //Aho
0
J
1/15/2015 5:21:21 PM
John F writes:
> But who in their right mind will have that sudo access for a multi
> user system

Sudo can be quite useful in some multiuser systems.  You can grant
limited privileges to some users and other limited privileges to
others.  It also provides logging so that you can know who did what
using sudo.

The default Ubuntu installation grants full rights to the first user
created and none at all to all others.  You are, of course, free to
change this just as you are free to enable root logins.

I don't understand why people get so worked up over this.  It's just a
default configuration.  You can *change* it.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
0
John
1/15/2015 5:24:59 PM
Baker Charles writes:
> This is confusing to me still, but I do understand that what you're
> saying is that Ubuntu + KDE can be done.

> But, then how is that different from Kubuntu with KDE?

Is it?
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
0
John
1/15/2015 5:26:33 PM
On 1/14/2015 11:48 PM, Markus Grob wrote:
> mike schrieb:
>
>> Is there a way to use an environment variable to automagically put sudo
>> before every command?
>
> Could be, but you don't really want this.
>
> Sincerely, Markus
>
Thanks for your concern, but you don't really have input into what I want.
Input to help me GET what I want would be appreciated.
Is sudo -i persistent?

If you were to supply some actual content stating why YOU don't want this,
I might be swayed.

At least user account control gives you the option of different
levels of nanny protection in addition to "OFF".  I choose "OFF".
0
mike
1/15/2015 5:27:54 PM
On 1/15/2015 2:36 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> William Unruh wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On 2015-01-15, Baker Charles <bakercharles@example.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 22:39:27 +0000, William Unruh wrote:
>>>
>>>> Its whole sudo mania to me gets in the way, instead of helps.
>>>
>>> I never quite understood what you call the "sudo mania" in
>>> a personal desktop. On a corporate machine, I can see that
>>> you don't want every user to be root, but, on a personal
>>> desktop, you're root anyway.
>>
>> That is the reason why Ubuntu went on the kick. No, even on your own
>> machine you should NOT be root. root should be reserved only for
>> carrying out system jobs.
>>
>>> So, whether you 'su root' or 'sudo', it seems to me, makes
>>> no difference. At least I don't see the difference.
>>
>> To stop you from forgetting that you are root, and doing stupid things.
>> It is the nanny state (or rather nanny distribution). Many distro people
>> get into the state of believing that what is good for themselves should
>> be forced on everyone else.
>>
>> The difference is that you have to sudo before every command you enter,
>> while when you are root, you do not and can forget that you are root.
>
> My prompt character and red-colored user name "root" are quite sufficient as
> reminders.  (Could even make the whole terminal red, if desired).
>
I had that problem with virtual machines. Made the background different 
color
for different virtual machines.  Problem solved.
0
mike
1/15/2015 5:32:07 PM
On 1/15/2015 4:17 AM, Java Jive wrote:
> Yes, in both Linux and Windows I have the desktop wallpaper red to
> remind me that I'm root/Administrator.  Normally it's black or blue.
>
> I also tend to find this modern day demotion of root/Administrator to
> the equivalent of a first line support role instead of a last line
> support role absolutely maddening:
>
> 	Linux PITA :-(	The way that permissions on new files are taken
> from the user rather than the parent directory.  I find I'm constantly
> needing to change file permissions manually, for which you need sudo
> or root access.
>
> 	Windows PITA :-(	Administrator doesn't have access to a load of
> important but non-critical system files, such as the default MMI
> module layouts.  This means you cannot customise the default layout to
> something more sensible than the absurd postage-stamp-sized mess that
> is offered by default.

For windows, there's a program called dropmyrights which can be used to
launch an application with reduced rights.  I don't know how effective 
it is,
but I expect someone will chime in to diss it.
Anyway, you can have two launch icons with different privileges.
With a GUI-centric os, it's difficult to configure the GUI when you're
logged in as a different user.
Does something like dropmyrights exist for linux?
>
> Etc, etc.
>
> Give me back the ability to log in as root and Windows 2000, please.
>
> Yes, I know I can hack the Linux, but the moment you choose to go off
> the beaten track, you start to encounter things that fail, because
> no-one has tested them thoroughly  -  for example, if you are doing a
> long job in root, the screen saver might not cut in and you cannot
> manually lock the screen, so the person who most needs to be able to
> lock the screen can not  -  how stupid is that?
VERY.  Another symptom of "lack of oversight".
>
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 05:36:01 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom
> <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
>>
>> My prompt character and red-colored user name "root" are quite sufficient as
>> reminders.  (Could even make the whole terminal red, if desired).
>
0
mike
1/15/2015 5:45:15 PM
On 1/15/2015 6:15 AM, John Hasler wrote:
> Steve Hayes writes:
>> On my personal machine, if I want to mess around with the system then
>> I want to log in as root and not be pestered with that sudo nonsense.
>
> Then install a root password and do it.  The disabling of root logins is
> just a default configuration.
>
If you're working on configuration of YOUR GUI, how does logging in as root
help do that...without having to go CLI and try to figger how to configure
your GUI setup from the root CLI?
0
mike
1/15/2015 5:48:54 PM
On 2015-01-15, Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 22:40:06 -0600, Baker Charles <bakercharles@example.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 22:39:27 +0000, William Unruh wrote:
>>
>>> Its whole sudo mania to me gets in the way, instead of helps.
>>
>>I never quite understood what you call the "sudo mania" in
>>a personal desktop. On a corporate machine, I can see that
>>you don't want every user to be root, but, on a personal
>>desktop, you're root anyway.
>>
>>So, whether you 'su root' or 'sudo', it seems to me, makes
>>no difference. At least I don't see the difference.
>
> On my personal machine, if I want to mess around with the system then I want
> to log in as root and not be pestered with that sudo nonsense. 

I agree, although I would log on as yourself and then do 
su
or
su -
to log on as root in a termial. Doing a full X logon as root opens too
many potential cracks. 

>
> And if I don't want to mess around with the system I just want to log in as an
> ordinary user. 
>
>
0
William
1/15/2015 6:01:24 PM
On 2015-01-15, mike <ham789@netzero.net> wrote:
> On 1/15/2015 6:15 AM, John Hasler wrote:
>> Steve Hayes writes:
>>> On my personal machine, if I want to mess around with the system then
>>> I want to log in as root and not be pestered with that sudo nonsense.
>>
>> Then install a root password and do it.  The disabling of root logins is
>> just a default configuration.
>>
> If you're working on configuration of YOUR GUI, how does logging in as root
> help do that...without having to go CLI and try to figger how to configure
> your GUI setup from the root CLI?

Not at all clear what y ou are asking. Your GUI is yours, not roots. You
configure your GUI logging in as you, not root. What do you have in
mind. 

0
William
1/15/2015 6:03:36 PM
On 2015-01-15, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> Yes, in both Linux and Windows I have the desktop wallpaper red to
> remind me that I'm root/Administrator.  Normally it's black or blue.
>
> I also tend to find this modern day demotion of root/Administrator to
> the equivalent of a first line support role instead of a last line
> support role absolutely maddening:
>
> 	Linux PITA :-(	The way that permissions on new files are taken
> from the user rather than the parent directory.  I find I'm constantly
> needing to change file permissions manually, for which you need sudo
> or root access.

Do you mean ownership, not permissions?

>
> 	Windows PITA :-(	Administrator doesn't have access to a load of
> important but non-critical system files, such as the default MMI
> module layouts.  This means you cannot customise the default layout to
> something more sensible than the absurd postage-stamp-sized mess that
> is offered by default.
>
> Etc, etc.
>
> Give me back the ability to log in as root and Windows 2000, please.  
>
> Yes, I know I can hack the Linux, but the moment you choose to go off
> the beaten track, you start to encounter things that fail, because
> no-one has tested them thoroughly  -  for example, if you are doing a
> long job in root, the screen saver might not cut in and you cannot
> manually lock the screen, so the person who most needs to be able to
> lock the screen can not  -  how stupid is that?

(Almost) any job demanding root can be cone from the cli. Thus log in as
user, su to root in a terminal and proceed. Now the user's screensaver
will cut in. 

0
William
1/15/2015 6:07:08 PM
"John Hasler" <jhasler@newsguy.com> wrote in message 
news:87sifcc5xw.fsf@thumper.dhh.gt.org...
> John F writes:
>> But who in their right mind will have that sudo access for a multi
>> user system
>
> Sudo can be quite useful in some multiuser systems.  You can grant
> limited privileges to some users and other limited privileges to
> others.  It also provides logging so that you can know who did what
> using sudo.
>
> The default Ubuntu installation grants full rights to the first user
> created and none at all to all others.  You are, of course, free to
> change this just as you are free to enable root logins.
>
> I don't understand why people get so worked up over this.  It's just a
> default configuration.  You can *change* it.
> -- 
> John Hasler
> jhasler@newsguy.com
> Dancing Horse Hill
> Elmwood, WI USA

exactly!


0
John
1/15/2015 6:47:14 PM
"Baker Charles" <bakercharles@example.com> wrote in message 
news:2f85d$54b74550$43da7656$32400@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com...
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 16:09:01 -0800, John F wrote:
>
>> Sure you can - I have my window controls on the top right hand side of
>> the window! Ubuntutweak helped me set that, but I think it's a compiz
>> configuration if you don't want to use that
>
> I've already gotten the lecture from one of my buddies.
> It "almost" works in Unity when you put buttons on the top right.
> I don't remember which windows where it's impossible, but he showed me,
> and I think it was the fully maximized windows that took up the whole
> screen. Those, all of a sudden, put the buttons on the top left.
> You have no choice. This buddy was pretty good, so I believe him,
> but we could dig up a reference if you don't believe me.
>
> Anyway, I won't have that problem because I'll avoid Unity for
> other reasons anyway.

Unity stinks - I never use it, it can be uninstalled with synaptic (don't 
worry when it says that it will uninstall the whole desktop - it won't)


0
John
1/15/2015 7:56:03 PM
On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 18:07:08 +0000 (UTC), William Unruh
<unruh@invalid.ca> wrote:
>
> On 2015-01-15, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > 	Linux PITA :-(	The way that permissions on new files are taken
> > from the user rather than the parent directory.  I find I'm constantly
> > needing to change file permissions manually, for which you need sudo
> > or root access.
> 
> Do you mean ownership, not permissions?

Both.

> (Almost) any job demanding root can be cone from the cli. Thus log in as
> user, su to root in a terminal and proceed. Now the user's screensaver
> will cut in. 

True, but that rather negates the usefulness of root having a GUI in
the first place.  GUIs exist because they are supposed to be easier to
use than the CLI, though obviously the CLI wins for batch processing.
--
=========================================================
UK Residents:	If you feel can possibly support it
		please sign the following ePetition
		before closing time of 30/03/2015 23:59:

	http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/71556
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist.  Or use a contact address at:
	http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
	http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
0
Java
1/15/2015 10:03:17 PM
On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 13:01:24 -0500, William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote:

> I agree, although I would log on as yourself and then do
> su
> or
> su -

Always use "su -", not just su, or files in the users home directory
can become owned by root, causing problems later.

> to log on as root in a termial. Doing a full X logon as root opens too
> many potential cracks.

Agreed.

Regards, Dave Hodgins

-- 
Change nomail.afraid.org to ody.ca to reply by email.
(nomail.afraid.org has been set up specifically for
use in usenet. Feel free to use it yourself.)
0
David
1/15/2015 10:10:14 PM
Java Jive wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 18:07:08 +0000 (UTC), William Unruh
> <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote:
>>
>> On 2015-01-15, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> > 	Linux PITA :-(	The way that permissions on new files are taken
>> > from the user rather than the parent directory.  I find I'm constantly
>> > needing to change file permissions manually, for which you need sudo
>> > or root access.
>> 
>> Do you mean ownership, not permissions?
>
> Both.
>
>> (Almost) any job demanding root can be cone from the cli. Thus log in as
>> user, su to root in a terminal and proceed. Now the user's screensaver
>> will cut in. 
>
> True, but that rather negates the usefulness of root having a GUI in
> the first place.  GUIs exist because they are supposed to be easier to
> use than the CLI, though obviously the CLI wins for batch processing.

You can spawn the GUI app from a root console (unless Xauthority gets in the
way).

-- 
BOFH excuse #322:
 
Your Pentium has a heating problem - try cooling it with ice cold water.(Do not turn of your computer, you do not want to cool down the Pentium Chip while he isn't working, do you?)
0
Chris
1/16/2015 12:51:25 AM
On 2015-01-15, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 18:07:08 +0000 (UTC), William Unruh
><unruh@invalid.ca> wrote:
>>
>> On 2015-01-15, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> > 	Linux PITA :-(	The way that permissions on new files are taken
>> > from the user rather than the parent directory.  I find I'm constantly
>> > needing to change file permissions manually, for which you need sudo
>> > or root access.
>> 
>> Do you mean ownership, not permissions?
>
> Both.

Permissions do not need root to change, if you own the file ( which if
you created it, you would do).

>
>> (Almost) any job demanding root can be cone from the cli. Thus log in as
>> user, su to root in a terminal and proceed. Now the user's screensaver
>> will cut in. 
>
> True, but that rather negates the usefulness of root having a GUI in
> the first place.  GUIs exist because they are supposed to be easier to
> use than the CLI, though obviously the CLI wins for batch processing.

For most (not all I agree) aministrative things CLI is probably more
convenient. And many gui adminstation things will allow you to open them
as user and ask for a root password in doing so. 
Ie, I disagree that there is a reason to open a root desktop to
accomplish aministration. And it is dangerous. Far too many things
running as root which can be subverted.

0
William
1/16/2015 2:16:56 AM
On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 19:51:25 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us>
wrote:

>Java Jive wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 18:07:08 +0000 (UTC), William Unruh
>> <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2015-01-15, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > 	Linux PITA :-(	The way that permissions on new files are taken
>>> > from the user rather than the parent directory.  I find I'm constantly
>>> > needing to change file permissions manually, for which you need sudo
>>> > or root access.
>>> 
>>> Do you mean ownership, not permissions?
>>
>> Both.
>>
>>> (Almost) any job demanding root can be cone from the cli. Thus log in as
>>> user, su to root in a terminal and proceed. Now the user's screensaver
>>> will cut in. 
>>
>> True, but that rather negates the usefulness of root having a GUI in
>> the first place.  GUIs exist because they are supposed to be easier to
>> use than the CLI, though obviously the CLI wins for batch processing.
>
>You can spawn the GUI app from a root console (unless Xauthority gets in the
>way).

Are there any Linux distros that boot into the CLI, and then let you load a
GUI if you want one?

Or is there any setting that could get one to do that?

I would like to boot to the CLI, and then type "Gnome" or "KDE" if I wanted a
GUI. 

I would like to log in at the CLI, either as root or as myself, and load a GUI
if needed. 


-- 
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web:  http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
0
Steve
1/16/2015 3:45:54 AM
On 2015-01-16, Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 19:51:25 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us>
> wrote:
>
>>Java Jive wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>> On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 18:07:08 +0000 (UTC), William Unruh
>>> <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2015-01-15, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > 	Linux PITA :-(	The way that permissions on new files are taken
>>>> > from the user rather than the parent directory.  I find I'm constantly
>>>> > needing to change file permissions manually, for which you need sudo
>>>> > or root access.
>>>> 
>>>> Do you mean ownership, not permissions?
>>>
>>> Both.
>>>
>>>> (Almost) any job demanding root can be cone from the cli. Thus log in as
>>>> user, su to root in a terminal and proceed. Now the user's screensaver
>>>> will cut in. 
>>>
>>> True, but that rather negates the usefulness of root having a GUI in
>>> the first place.  GUIs exist because they are supposed to be easier to
>>> use than the CLI, though obviously the CLI wins for batch processing.
>>
>>You can spawn the GUI app from a root console (unless Xauthority gets in the
>>way).
>
> Are there any Linux distros that boot into the CLI, and then let you load a
> GUI if you want one?

Sure, all of them. multiuser, non-X. Amd you use startx to get into a
gui.


>
> Or is there any setting that could get one to do that?
>
> I would like to boot to the CLI, and then type "Gnome" or "KDE" if I wanted a
> GUI. 

Make a script called KDE say, and have it start up startx with KDE as
the gui.

>
> I would like to log in at the CLI, either as root or as myself, and load a GUI
> if needed. 

Again, do not have root load a gui. No need and dangerous. 
>
>
0
William
1/16/2015 4:01:14 AM
On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 05:45:54 +0200
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> Are there any Linux distros that boot into the CLI, and then let you
> load a GUI if you want one?
>=20
> Or is there any setting that could get one to do that?
>=20
> I would like to boot to the CLI, and then type "Gnome" or "KDE" if I
> wanted a GUI.=20
>=20
> I would like to log in at the CLI, either as root or as myself, and
> load a GUI if needed.=20

Enter this in a terminal (replace gedit with your favorite
text editor):

    sudo gedit /etc/default/grub

Look for this line:

    GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX_DEFAULT=3D=E2=80=9Dquiet splash=E2=80=9D

Change it to this:

    GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX_DEFAULT=3D=E2=80=9Dquiet splash text=E2=80=9D

Save it and exit the text editor.  In a terminal enter this:

    sudo update-grub

Now when you boot, you will go to the CLI.  When you want the
desktop, enter this:

    startx

Or you can switch to Slackware.  By default it boots to the
CLI but I would only recommend it to experienced users or
someone with an adventurous spirit.

--=20
<Wildman> GNU/Linux user #557453
The cow died so I don't need your bull!

0
Wildman
1/16/2015 4:31:55 AM
On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 22:31:55 -0600, Wildman <best_lay@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 05:45:54 +0200
>Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
>> Are there any Linux distros that boot into the CLI, and then let you
>> load a GUI if you want one?
>> 
>> Or is there any setting that could get one to do that?
>> 
>> I would like to boot to the CLI, and then type "Gnome" or "KDE" if I
>> wanted a GUI. 
>> 
>> I would like to log in at the CLI, either as root or as myself, and
>> load a GUI if needed. 
>
>Enter this in a terminal (replace gedit with your favorite
>text editor):
>
>    sudo gedit /etc/default/grub
>
>Look for this line:
>
>    GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX_DEFAULT=”quiet splash”
>
>Change it to this:
>
>    GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX_DEFAULT=”quiet splash text”
>
>Save it and exit the text editor.  In a terminal enter this:

Thank you!


-- 
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web:  http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
0
Steve
1/16/2015 4:46:48 AM
In alt.comp.os.linux Wildman <best_lay@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Or you can switch to Slackware.  By default it boots to the
> CLI

Being an expert on Slackware (been using it since 1994), no,
it doesn't.
It depends on the runlevel you set - when installing - for init:
3 is commandline, 4 is graphical login through display manager.

# These are the default runlevels in Slackware:
#   0 = halt
#   1 = single user mode
#   2 = unused (but configured the same as runlevel 3)
#   3 = multiuser mode
#   4 = X11 with KDM/GDM/XDM (session managers)
#   5 = unused (but configured the same as runlevel 3)
#   6 = reboot

# Default runlevel. (Do not set to 0 or 6)
id:4:initdefault:
(from /etc/inittab).


Note that must other distributions will use 5 for the graphical X11
display managers (unless they're using systemd, which works
differently).
0
Eef
1/16/2015 6:59:19 AM
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> writes:
> I also tend to find this modern day demotion of root/Administrator to
> the equivalent of a first line support role instead of a last line
> support role absolutely maddening:
>
> 	Linux PITA :-(	The way that permissions on new files are taken
> from the user rather than the parent directory.  I find I'm constantly
> needing to change file permissions manually, for which you need sudo
> or root access.

You don’t say what your use case is here, but in Unix, groups are the
usual approach to shared ownership, rather than users.  At least for
most use cases if you’re constantly having to use root then there’s
probably an easier approach.

-- 
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
0
Richard
1/16/2015 9:00:58 AM
mike schrieb:
> On 1/14/2015 11:48 PM, Markus Grob wrote:
>> mike schrieb:
>>
>>> Is there a way to use an environment variable to automagically put sudo
>>> before every command?
>>
>> Could be, but you don't really want this.
>>
>> Sincerely, Markus
>>
> Thanks for your concern, but you don't really have input into what I want.
> Input to help me GET what I want would be appreciated.
> Is sudo -i persistent?

I don't use Ubuntu (I only have installed a virtual maschine with it). I 
use Suse and I only use root, if I have too.
The problem is, that you easy can destroy your system, if you do all 
automatically as root. Because of this, you sould know, if you change to 
root and don't do it automatically.
It is a savety barrier and I don't wonna search how do destroy it.

Gruss, Markus

0
Markus
1/16/2015 9:45:01 AM
"John F" <j@j.ii> writes:

> "Eef Hartman" <E.J.M.Hartman@gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:54b7a92e$0$2977$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl...
>> In alt.comp.os.linux William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote:
>>> The difference is that you have to sudo before every command you enter,
>>> while when you are root, you do not and can forget that you are root.
>>
>> Even in ubuntu you can do "sudo -i" to get a interactive root shell.
>>
>> The major difference is that with (the way ubuntu does) sudo, you only
>> got a single password, so if THAT gets compromised your whole system
>> is vulnerable, while with a seperate root user you (should) have a
>> different password FOR root stuff.
>> Both creating a separate root password as well as requiring a different
>> password for sudo IS possible in ubuntu, it just isn't the way the
>> installer sets up the system, though.
>
> And as should be pointed out, this is to ease the maintenance of an UBU 
> install for a single user. But who in their right mind will have that sudo 
> access for a multi user system - their can only be one root user, (or more - 
> just have to select that in the users/groups gui or do it by /ect/passwords
>

I know plenty of admins, myself included, that use sudo to control
access on Unix and Linux systems, multi-user or not.

I have some systems that use LDAP for auth, and some that use ssh
keys. The root credentials are kept in a secure place by one of the
managers and not used except in an emergency.

0
Bud
1/16/2015 1:06:39 PM
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> writes:

> On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 18:07:08 +0000 (UTC), William Unruh
> <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote:
>>
>> On 2015-01-15, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> > 	Linux PITA :-(	The way that permissions on new files are taken
>> > from the user rather than the parent directory.  I find I'm constantly
>> > needing to change file permissions manually, for which you need sudo
>> > or root access.
>> 
>> Do you mean ownership, not permissions?
>
> Both.
>
>> (Almost) any job demanding root can be cone from the cli. Thus log in as
>> user, su to root in a terminal and proceed. Now the user's screensaver
>> will cut in. 
>
> True, but that rather negates the usefulness of root having a GUI in
> the first place.  GUIs exist because they are supposed to be easier to
> use than the CLI, though obviously the CLI wins for batch processing.

I don't actually know any Unix or Linux admins that login as root, run
X, and use GUI tools to do anything. :)



0
Bud
1/16/2015 1:16:50 PM
On 16 Jan 2015 06:59:19 GMT
Eef Hartman <E.J.M.Hartman@gmail.com> wrote:

> In alt.comp.os.linux Wildman <best_lay@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Or you can switch to Slackware.  By default it boots to the
> > CLI
> 
> Being an expert on Slackware (been using it since 1994), no,
> it doesn't.
> It depends on the runlevel you set - when installing - for init:
> 3 is commandline, 4 is graphical login through display manager.
> 
> # These are the default runlevels in Slackware:
> #   0 = halt
> #   1 = single user mode
> #   2 = unused (but configured the same as runlevel 3)
> #   3 = multiuser mode
> #   4 = X11 with KDM/GDM/XDM (session managers)
> #   5 = unused (but configured the same as runlevel 3)
> #   6 = reboot
> 
> # Default runlevel. (Do not set to 0 or 6)
> id:4:initdefault:
> (from /etc/inittab).
> 
> 
> Note that must other distributions will use 5 for the graphical X11
> display managers (unless they're using systemd, which works
> differently).

Well, I admit that I am not a Slackware expert, however,
I just installed 14.1 about a week ago into virtualbox.
It boots to the CLI without me doing anything.  There
was no mention of runlevel during installation.

-- 
<Wildman> GNU/Linux user #557453
The cow died so I don't need your bull!

0
Wildman
1/16/2015 4:38:40 PM
On 2015-01-16, Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 19:51:25 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us>
> wrote:
>
>>Java Jive wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>> On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 18:07:08 +0000 (UTC), William Unruh
>>> <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2015-01-15, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > 	Linux PITA :-(	The way that permissions on new files are taken
>>>> > from the user rather than the parent directory.  I find I'm constantly
>>>> > needing to change file permissions manually, for which you need sudo
>>>> > or root access.
>>>> 
>>>> Do you mean ownership, not permissions?
>>>
>>> Both.
>>>
>>>> (Almost) any job demanding root can be cone from the cli. Thus log in as
>>>> user, su to root in a terminal and proceed. Now the user's screensaver
>>>> will cut in. 
>>>
>>> True, but that rather negates the usefulness of root having a GUI in
>>> the first place.  GUIs exist because they are supposed to be easier to
>>> use than the CLI, though obviously the CLI wins for batch processing.
>>
>>You can spawn the GUI app from a root console (unless Xauthority gets in the
>>way).
>
> Are there any Linux distros that boot into the CLI, and then let you load a
> GUI if you want one?

Debian if you uninstall or disable the display manager. same for most others
too I expect.

> Or is there any setting that could get one to do that?

turn off the display manager.

> I would like to boot to the CLI, and then type "Gnome" or "KDE" if I wanted a
> GUI. 

you might need to write some scripts to do exactly that,  the command is
"startx" or possibly "xinit" but I dont recall how customisation works in detail.


-- 
umop apisdn

0
Jasen
1/16/2015 9:42:25 PM
On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 08:16:50 -0500, Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

> I don't actually know any Unix or Linux admins that login as root, run
> X, and use GUI tools to do anything. :)

I do it once, after each new install, to set things like font sizes, etc,
so they are large enough for me to read, when I later use "su -", and
then run a gui based app like gedit.

Regards, Dave Hodgins

-- 
Change nomail.afraid.org to ody.ca to reply by email.
(nomail.afraid.org has been set up specifically for
use in usenet. Feel free to use it yourself.)
0
David
1/16/2015 10:12:04 PM
On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 22:45:54 -0500, Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> Are there any Linux distros that boot into the CLI, and then let you load a
> GUI if you want one?

I think most linux systems allow it, though the methods vary. In most,
you can edit the kernel options at boot time, and add 3 as a kernel
option, to get to run level 3, instead of the default gui mode.
Then use startx gui-desktop-name, if you want to start the gui.

On my Mageia 4.1 system, I currently have the following choices installed ...
# grep NAME /etc/X11/wmsession.d/*
/etc/X11/wmsession.d/01KDE:NAME=KDE4
/etc/X11/wmsession.d/02GNOME:NAME=GNOME
/etc/X11/wmsession.d/03GNOME_CLASSIC:NAME=GNOME Classic
/etc/X11/wmsession.d/03WindowMaker:NAME=Window Maker
/etc/X11/wmsession.d/05razor:NAME=RazorDesktop
/etc/X11/wmsession.d/06Xfce:NAME=Xfce4
/etc/X11/wmsession.d/07IceWM:NAME=IceWM
/etc/X11/wmsession.d/15XBMC:NAME=XBMC
/etc/X11/wmsession.d/23E17:NAME=E17
/etc/X11/wmsession.d/26openbox:NAME=Openbox

Regards, Dave Hodgins

-- 
Change nomail.afraid.org to ody.ca to reply by email.
(nomail.afraid.org has been set up specifically for
use in usenet. Feel free to use it yourself.)
0
David
1/16/2015 10:39:10 PM
Jasen Betts writes:
> Ever hear of an obsure document called DMCA?

From Title 17:

  (a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures.—
    (1)
      (A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively
      controls access to a work protected under this title.

    (3) As used in this subsection—
    
      (A) to “circumvent a technological measure” means to descramble a
      scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to
      avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological
      measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and

     (B) a technological measure “effectively controls access to a work”
     if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires
     the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with
     the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.

  (b)
  
    (2) As used in this subsection—

     (A) to “circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure”
     means avoiding, bypassing, removing, deactivating, or otherwise
     impairing a technological measure; and

     (B) a technological measure “effectively protects a right of a
     copyright owner under this title” if the measure, in the ordinary
     course of its operation, prevents, restricts, or otherwise limits
     the exercise of a right of a copyright owner under this title.

I wrote about modifying a copy of a computer program.  Few computer
programs have access to them controlled by technological measures.
Modifying a copy you own is not a right of the copyright owner.

And then we have:

(f) Reverse Engineering.—

  (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person
  who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer
  program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively
  controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole
  purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program
  that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently
  created computer program with other programs, and that have not
  previously been readily available to the person engaging in the
  circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and
  analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.

  (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a
  person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a
  technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a
  technological measure, in order to enable the identification and
  analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling
  interoperability of an independently created computer program with
  other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such
  interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute
  infringement under this title.

  (3) The information acquired through the acts permitted under
  paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2), may be
  made available to others if the person referred to in paragraph (1) or
  (2), as the case may be, provides such information or means solely for
  the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created
  computer program with other programs, and to the extent that doing so
  does not constitute infringement under this title or violate
  applicable law other than this section.

  (4) For purposes of this subsection, the term “interoperability” means
  the ability of computer programs to exchange information, and of such
  programs mutually to use the information which has been exchanged.

Thus even if the program is "protected" you can circumvent the
"protection" legally if that's what you have to do to make the program
work.

Also:

(a) In General.— Any person who violates section 1201 or 1202 willfully
and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain—

  (1) shall be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned for not more
  than 5 years, or both, for the first offense; and

  (2) shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned for not more
than 10 years, or both, for any subsequent offense.

Thus no criminal penalties if the violation was not for financial gain.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
0
John
1/17/2015 12:24:45 AM
On 2015-01-17, John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> wrote:
> Jasen Betts writes:
>> Ever hear of an obsure document called DMCA?
>
> From Title 17:

Well, that wasn't as exciting as I though it was. I concede.

-- 
umop apisdn

0
Jasen
1/17/2015 5:07:07 AM
On 01/16/2015 01:59 AM, Eef Hartman wrote:
> In alt.comp.os.linux Wildman <best_lay@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Or you can switch to Slackware.  By default it boots to the
>> CLI
>
> Being an expert on Slackware (been using it since 1994), no,
> it doesn't.
> It depends on the runlevel you set - when installing - for init:
> 3 is commandline, 4 is graphical login through display manager.
>
> # These are the default runlevels in Slackware:
> #   0 = halt
> #   1 = single user mode
> #   2 = unused (but configured the same as runlevel 3)
> #   3 = multiuser mode
> #   4 = X11 with KDM/GDM/XDM (session managers)
> #   5 = unused (but configured the same as runlevel 3)
> #   6 = reboot
>
> # Default runlevel. (Do not set to 0 or 6)
> id:4:initdefault:
> (from /etc/inittab).
>
>
> Note that must other distributions will use 5 for the graphical X11
> display managers (unless they're using systemd, which works
> differently).
>
Debian, Ubuntu and related distros use 2 for the graphical display
manager. Runlevels 2-5 are identical unless you choose to modify them.
Recent versions of Ubuntu and Mint use upstart instead of sysv init by
default. They have an /etc/init directory filled with *.conf files, and
/etc/rc?.d for backward compatibility.

0
Bill
1/19/2015 10:43:29 PM
In alt.comp.os.linux Bill Marcum <bill.marcum57@gmail.com> wrote:
> Debian, Ubuntu and related distros use 2 for the graphical display
> manager. Runlevels 2-5 are identical unless you choose to modify them.

So you don't have a non *dm multi-user level there (that is: text-mode
login).

> Recent versions of Ubuntu and Mint use upstart instead of sysv init by
> default. They have an /etc/init directory filled with *.conf files, and
> /etc/rc?.d for backward compatibility.

That is a bit like systemd does it, I think.
Luckily Slackware will NOT be going that way (even the rc?.d dirs are
for compatibility purposes only, they come in empty, essentially
Slackware's init just has a single rc.d directpry, but no init.d one).
0
Eef
1/19/2015 10:59:44 PM
Eef Hartman <E.J.M.Hartman@gmail.com> writes:
> In alt.comp.os.linux Bill Marcum <bill.marcum57@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Debian, Ubuntu and related distros use 2 for the graphical display
>> manager. Runlevels 2-5 are identical unless you choose to modify them.
>
> So you don't have a non *dm multi-user level there (that is: text-mode
> login).

The text-mode virtual consoles are still there with a login prompt.

-- 
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
0
Richard
1/19/2015 11:40:59 PM
In alt.comp.os.linux Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> The text-mode virtual consoles are still there with a login prompt.

In Slackware's (and most "real unix") runlevel 2 and 3 X is never
started at all. This is useful for servers, that often don't have a
graphics adaptor at all, which work purely on the commandline on its
console, which sometimes even still is a terminal, connected to the
serial port. My HP "server" also runs in level 3 only, it is a
fileserver for the rest of the network (not counting the old Tandon
AT I've got 5 computers).
The HP xW series doesn't come by default with a graphics adaptor,
mine does have one, as a PCI-X extension board, but that's because
I got it as a second-hand workstation.
0
Eef
1/19/2015 11:57:42 PM
Eef Hartman <E.J.M.Hartman@gmail.com> writes:
> Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>> Debian, Ubuntu and related distros use 2 for the graphical display
>>> manager. Runlevels 2-5 are identical unless you choose to modify them.
>> The text-mode virtual consoles are still there with a login prompt.
>
> In Slackware's (and most "real unix") runlevel 2 and 3 X is never
> started at all. This is useful for servers, that often don't have a
> graphics adaptor at all, which work purely on the commandline on its
> console, which sometimes even still is a terminal, connected to the
> serial port. My HP "server" also runs in level 3 only, it is a
> fileserver for the rest of the network (not counting the old Tandon
> AT I've got 5 computers).

If you don’t want an X server at all then I would suggest not installing
one rather than worrying about the default init configuration.

-- 
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
0
Richard
1/20/2015 8:48:38 AM
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 17:59:44 -0500, Eef Hartman <E.J.M.Hartman@gmail.com> wrote:

> That is a bit like systemd does it, I think.

For everyone who hates systemd, please read ...
http://www.linuxvoice.com/interview-lennart-poettering/

Regards, Dave Hodgins

-- 
Change nomail.afraid.org to ody.ca to reply by email.
(nomail.afraid.org has been set up specifically for
use in usenet. Feel free to use it yourself.)
0
David
1/20/2015 10:54:20 AM
Richard Kettlewell writes:
> If you don’t want an X server at all then I would suggest not
> installing one rather than worrying about the default init
> configuration.

Likewise for a display manager.  You can have X installed but not have
it start until you start it.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
0
John
1/20/2015 2:22:55 PM
On Tuesday 20 January 2015 15:22, John Hasler conveyed the following to 
alt.comp.os.linux...

> Richard Kettlewell writes:
>
>> If you don’t want an X server at all then I would suggest not
>> installing one rather than worrying about the default init
>> configuration.
> 
> Likewise for a display manager.  You can have X installed but not have
> it start until you start it.

Which is the way I prefer it.  I see no added value in a display manager 
for anyone who doesn't come from the Microsoft or Apple world, because a 
display manager is another process which needs to be started at boot 
time [*], and it is yet another process running with root privileges 
(because it needs to be able to read /etc/shadow).

Likewise, I also see no added benefit to the bootsplash screens which 
obscure the output from the daemons as they are being started by 
whatever the init system du jour is, and which would be the first 
troubleshooting clue if and when something goes wrong during the boot 
process.

I've never appreciated the splash screens ─ in part because they 
generally look rather hideous, but mostly because they hide important 
messages from the system ─ but I did at one stage use a display manager 
back when I was still very new to GNU/Linux.  It wasn't that I 
/required/ a graphical login screen per se, but just because it seemed 
"easier" to just let the system start the X server at boot time, given 
that I was still a novice ─ I had used Windows NT 4.0 for two years 
before I first installed GNU/Linux, and OS/2 2.x for over five years 
before /that./  I did have a little bit of UNIX experience ─ Sperry OS/3 
and DEC OSF/1 ─ but not all that much, and certainly not with root 
access.


[*] The speed of which, ironically, seems to matter a lot to people from
    the Microsoft or Apple worlds, because they don't tend to leave
    their systems up 24/7 ─ something for which UNIX has traditionally
    always been highly suited.

-- 
= Aragorn =

         http://www.linuxcounter.net - registrant #223157
0
Aragorn
1/20/2015 3:08:45 PM
On 2015-01-15 08:18, mike wrote:

>> The difference is that you have to sudo before every command you enter,
>> while when you are root, you do not and can forget that you are root.
>>
>>
> Is there a way to use an environment variable to automagically put sudo
> before every command?

Don't do that.

You will end doing commands under root powers when none are necessary.
Even for reading nntp groups!

Instead do something (from memory, I don't use Ubuntu) like
 "sudo su -", and then you are root. No need to type any more "sudo" in
that terminal.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
0
Carlos
12/21/2015 11:44:27 PM
On 2015-12-21, Carlos E.R. <cer@invalid.es> wrote:
> On 2015-01-15 08:18, mike wrote:
>
>>> The difference is that you have to sudo before every command you enter,
>>> while when you are root, you do not and can forget that you are root.
>>>
>>>
>> Is there a way to use an environment variable to automagically put sudo
>> before every command?
>
> Don't do that.

I agree. Log in as root instead. And be careful 
(rm -rf * when you are in / and thought you were in ~root/tmp
for example).

Of course some systems do not want to let you log in as root, for some
incomprehensible reason. Then you have to play tricks such as the one
below, where you do not even have to enter a password, and thus do not
have the extra tiny little pause for thought. 

>
> You will end doing commands under root powers when none are necessary.
> Even for reading nntp groups!
>
> Instead do something (from memory, I don't use Ubuntu) like
>  "sudo su -", and then you are root. No need to type any more "sudo" in
> that terminal.
>
0
William
12/22/2015 1:09:21 AM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

RE: Obsucure Inquier article about Intel mentions VMS (and not any other OS') other OS') other OS') other OS') other OS') other OS') other OS') other OS') other OS') other OS') other
> -----Original Message----- > From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com]=20 > Sent: October 11, 2004 11:45 PM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com > Subject: Re: Obsucure Inquier article about Intel mentions=20 > VMS (and not any other OS') other OS') other OS') other OS')=20 > other OS') other OS') other OS') other OS') other OS') other=20 > OS') other OS') other OS') other OS') other OS') other OS') other=20 >=20 > "Main, Kerry" wrote: > > Course, there are many ways to offer differen...

RE: Obsucure Inquier article about Intel mentions VMS (and not any other OS') other OS') other OS') other OS') other OS') other OS') other OS') other OS') other OS')
> -----Original Message----- > From: Soterro [mailto:soterroatyahoocom@address.hp.com]=20 > Sent: October 11, 2004 9:43 AM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com > Subject: Re: Obsucure Inquier article about Intel mentions=20 > VMS (and not any other OS') other OS') other OS') other OS')=20 > other OS') other OS') other OS') other OS') other OS') >=20 > Main, Kerry wrote: > >>From: John Smith [mailto:a@nonymous.com]=20 > >>You aren't directly to blame for this and I know you'd like=20 > >>to keep your > &...

[News] Making Linux More Like OS X and OS X More Like Linux
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Mac OS X - Highly Customized Linux ,----[ Quote ] | Few players in the Linux arena creates their Linux distro to look like Mac OS | X or Windows.... | | Here I'm going to list some distro which looks like Mac OS. `---- http://linuxtreat.blogspot.com/2008/07/mac-os-x-highly-customized-linux.html A Linux User's Guide to Mac ,----[ Quote ] | Take a deep breath and repeat after me: A computer is just a tool. It is only | so good as it serves to make life better for users. A "better" life is | obviously not the same thing fo...

Linux is deader than OS/2 and Han's Reiser's wife!!
Munchkins, Congrats! At .06 percent desktop market share, we have successfully held back the adoption of Linux. Even though Vista is the ME of our time, we have proven that we can successfully hold ground. As we know, usually after an ME we have a success like in the case of XP. Windows 7 will be that great OS, especially when integrated with MSN/Yahoo Live! The linux numbers are worse than OS/2's ever were on the desktop, and we must thank our selves for our efforts as the last few years were rough with the borked Vista OS. Thank our OEM team whom pounded the OEMs to not release...

[News] GNU/Linux Claimed Better Than Mac OS X, Vista's Dim View Leads to Linux
Why Mac OS X Sucks and Linux Rocks ,----[ Quote ] | For now, I decided to quit using Leopard (except when I want to take funny | and distorted pictures), and I am more determined than ever in making Linux | (Xubuntu) fully compatible with my Macbook Pro. You may ask why I think Linux | rocks. `---- http://www.junauza.com/2008/04/why-mac-os-x-sucks-and-linux-rocks.html With Vista's View Getting Dimmer, Should You Give Linux A Chance? ,----[ Quote ] | Ease of use. WHAT!?! Ease of use? Yes. I've said it now. It's easy to use. CD | based install (or even one that will go ove...

[News] Palm's Linux-based OS in the Making; =?UTF-8?B?RXhvbuKAmXM=?= Quran PDA Runs Linux Too
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The New Pocket PCs ,----[ Quote ] | That will change in 2009, according to Palm's vice president of smartphone | product marketing, Stephane Maes. The company is developing its own modern, | Linux-based OS, which will replace Palm OS by the end of the year. It will | have a flexible interface and a very easy development environment, and it | will focus on integrating personal information, Maes says. `---- http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,2299027,00.asp Exon’s Quran PDA Phone Boots Windows Mobile 6 and Linux ,----[ Quote ] | It ...

Inconsistency between os.getgroups and os.system('groups') after os.setgroups()
Run this test program as root: import os print "before:", os.getgroups() os.system("groups") os.setgroups([]) print "after:", os.getgroups() os.system("groups") After the os.setgroups, os.getgroups says that the process is not in any gr= oups, just as you would expect. However the groups command run using os.sy= stem says that the process is in the root group. It appears that the new p= rocess started by os.system augments the group membership specified in the = os.setgroups command with the group of the actual user of the original proc= ess (which ...

RE: Obsucure Inquier article about Intel mentions VMS (and not any other OS') other OS') other OS')
> -----Original Message----- > From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com]=20 > Sent: October 10, 2004 2:45 AM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com > Subject: Re: Obsucure Inquier article about Intel mentions=20 > VMS (and not any other OS') other OS') other OS') >=20 [snip..] >=20 > These days, the CIO reads trade mags on the commuter train=20 > and sees people > moving to windows or Linux and decides that his company must=20 > be ahead of the > race and hurry to migrate to this week's trendy product. >=20 >=20 > ITS ALL ABOU...

RE: Obsucure Inquier article about Intel mentions VMS (and not any other OS') other OS') other OS') #2
> -----Original Message----- > From: John Smith [mailto:a@nonymous.com]=20 > Sent: October 10, 2004 6:18 PM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com > Subject: Re: Obsucure Inquier article about Intel mentions=20 > VMS (and not any other OS') other OS') other OS') >=20 [snip...] > How many 30'something CTO's even know what VMS is? How many=20 > of their system > architects or programmers? After the .crash era, there are likely very few CTO's left in their 30's. Those folks are more likely back in the trenches doing mid level mgmt jobs. Hey, I a...

RE: Obsucure Inquier article about Intel mentions VMS (and not any other OS') other OS') other OS') #4
> -----Original Message----- > From: Larry Kilgallen [mailto:Kilgallen@SpamCop.net]=20 > Sent: October 11, 2004 5:33 AM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com > Subject: RE: Obsucure Inquier article about Intel mentions=20 > VMS (and not any other OS') other OS') other OS') >=20 > In article=20 > <FD827B33AB0D9C4E92EACEEFEE2BA2FB45D86E@tayexc19.americas.cpqc > orp.net>, "Main, Kerry" <kerry.main@hp.com> writes: > >=20 > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Larry Kilgallen [mailto:Kilgallen@SpamCop.net]=3D20 > ...

RE: Obsucure Inquier article about Intel mentions VMS (and not any other OS') other OS') other OS') #3
> -----Original Message----- > From: Larry Kilgallen [mailto:Kilgallen@SpamCop.net]=20 > Sent: October 10, 2004 10:52 PM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com > Subject: RE: Obsucure Inquier article about Intel mentions=20 > VMS (and not any other OS') other OS') other OS') >=20 > In article=20 > <FD827B33AB0D9C4E92EACEEFEE2BA2FB45D86D@tayexc19.americas.cpqc > orp.net>, "Main, Kerry" <kerry.main@hp.com> writes: >=20 > > for that matter. However, I know of two major Customers=20 > that wanted to > > convert OpenVMS applica...

OT: linux, FC5 (having trouble with alt.os.linux)
I apologize profusely for posting this topic to this newsgroup but either I'm having trouble with alt.os.linux (going on a few days now) or it's having trouble and I don't know which it is (maybe some one else knows). I figured someone here would be knowledgeable enough to help me and/or let me know if my posting problems are mine or the newsgroups (BTW, I've posted from my work and home without luck but they may both use the same ISP). Well, if you've read this far...here's my (attempted?) post to the other group: Topic: shutdown broadcast not showing up for us...

[News] Reasons to Embrace GNU/Linux at OS X's and Windows' Expense
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Pros and Cons of the Major Operating Systems ,----[ Quote ] | Dean Walden is an avid internet user, watcher, | promoter, website builder and researcher. The | Ubuntu version of the Linux operating system is | easy to use if you can use Windows. `---- http://linux.bihlman.com/2010/02/15/pros-and-cons-of-the-major-operating-systems/ Should You Switch From Microsoft To Linux? ,----[ Quote ] | 4. Usability | | Another of the keys of your future success is | the fact than many issues are already resolved | due to the widespread use of deskto...

do 'os.path' include 'os' for us?
Hi, I wrote a python script to list files in a directory but somehow did it wrongly by importing os.path instead of os. To my astonishment, it works just as charm: #!/usr/bin/python import os.path for file in os.listdir('/root/'): print file I was wondering why? os.path doesn't contain listdir, why there is no complaint like 'os: unknown name'? Does this mean, instead of importing os, we can import os.path? Thanks. On Mar 27, 6:41=A0pm, Jerry Fleming <jerry.flem...@saybot.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I wrote a python script to list files in a directory but ...

Linux is EVIL, it's the OS of HELL ! ! !
Linux is EVIL, it's the work of the devil, made to collect your souls and to turn you into brainless slaves of hell. If you like Linux , you will lose your soul to be damned for eternal torment in hell.Demons and devils will feast on your soul for all eternity. So stop using it now to save your soul. Or the holy inquisition will come for you and burn your flesh to save your soul, because the devil must not collect more souls or nobody can prevent Armageddon. Linux is evil, using it is BLASPHEMY , only heretics and witches like Linux.And heretics and witches shall BURN ! Linux = OS of ...

Web resources about - What's the difference between alt.os.linx and comp.os.linux - comp.os.linux

Resources last updated: 1/26/2016 2:50:42 AM