Subject: Re: Changing root's shell to /bin/sh
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: dustin sallings <email@example.com>
Date: 03/16/1999 21:23:37
On Tue, 16 Mar 1999 firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
// Personally, I continue to *much* prefer "BSD Authentication". We
// can get source, and it has *significant* advantages. (e.g., a
// non-suid program can do a setuid authentication scheme - if you want
// to let it. You don't have to, but you *can.*) It also comes with
// free support for the magic needed to let root have a different
// datasize limit than other users, and some of those users get even
// smaller limits, etc.
The last time this came up, someone pointed out that it's very
easy to emulate BSD auth via PAM, but not vice versa. IMO, PAM should be
implemented with a BSD auth module. Then you can choose to do BSD auth
via the PAM config. They both look pretty good, but many applications are
PAM aware these days.
// Sympathised, but the SysV method is so ugly you'll never get anyone
// to go along with it.
// (This from someone who would, grudgingly, admit that the SysV method
// would be preferable to what we have now, for my personal use, but
// I'd *love* to see a better system.)
IMO, the SysV way is prettier than putting everything in one large
file. A simple typo could keep half of your software from starting at
all. You wouldn't know this until you rebooted.
Principal Member Technical Staff, beyond.com The world is watching America,
pub 1024/3CAE01D5 1994/11/03 Dustin Sallings <email@example.com>
| Key fingerprint = 87 02 57 08 02 D0 DA D6 C8 0F 3E 65 51 98 D8 BE
L______________________________________________ and America is watching TV. __