Commentary on the seven words

[darrel barton]

Not to belabor it (but it's probably too late for that)

When I was an operating systems programmer (years ago, 16 bit mini's - in 
assembler) we all too often forgot that the Operating system existed to 
support the application, not the other way around.

Q: Why would you want to do that?

A (1) Because the application software we use is licensed Per Seat and 
there is no discount or migration discount between {existing_platform} and 
the {new_platform} and so it would cost my company close to a quarter 
million dollars to migrate .. and THAT is why I want for FIX this problem 
in my system rather than upgrade to a system that doesn't have this 
problem.  (this was hypothetical)

A (2) Because the application that we run uses a telnet client that doesn't 
support ssh - and that's why I can't run ssh on this system.   (this was 
hypothetical)

A (3) Because the application ........   (that's the key phrase)

When I tell someone that I need to get from the 10th floor to the 1st floor 
and I ask where the window is, he doesn't always do me a favor by assuming 
that I'm going to jump.   I'm going to lower a rope to my counterpart on 
the ground floor and then after securing it, I'll repel down -- JUST AS I 
HAVE BEEN TRAINED TO DO FOR THE LAST 15 YEARS.      By saying "yanno, we 
have elevators over there and stairs over here, but the window is down that 
way ..."  he helps me.

But when you try to steer me away from the window, you're hindering my 
ability to do my job.  I have a wife, two kids, a boss and an idiot 
assistant that already do a nice job of THAT, thank you very much.

Think of it this way:  I know everyone means well and the help is ALWAYS 
appreciated, but in a way it's kind of degrading to have to explain WHY I 
want what I want in order to get that help.   Sometimes it seems like I 
can't get the help I need (where are the windows, please?) until I can get 
them to approve the fact that I need it.

And anyway .. it was JUST a comment.

Which reminds me:   Years ago, as an assembly language programmer for 16 
bit Mini's, we used to have a saying "We don't program in C, Forth, Lisp, 
ADA or any other sissy-assed computer science language!  We program right 
down at the bare metal, in assembler .. and no, we don't document any of it!"



At 02:59 PM 8/25/2006, you wrote:

>Send redhat-list mailing list submissions to
>         redhat-list at redhat.com
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         redhat-list-request at redhat.com
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
>         redhat-list-owner at redhat.com
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of redhat-list digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: 200 PORT command successful. Consider using PASV. Hungs.
>       (Avi Ma'ayan)
>    2. RE: 200 PORT command successful. Consider using PASV. Hungs.
>       (Marc Wiatrowski)
>    3. Re: Permit root login for telnet.. (Steve Rieger)
>    4. Where the heck is mailx (Mark Haney)
>    5. Re: Where the heck is mailx (Wayne Pinette)
>    6. Re: Where the heck is mailx (alan)
>    7. Re: Where the heck is mailx (inode0)
>    8. Commentary on the seven words (darrel barton)
>    9. Re: Where the heck is mailx (Mark Haney)
>   10. Re: Where the heck is mailx (inode0)
>   11. RE: Commentary on the seven words (Burke, Thomas G.)
>   12. Re: Where the heck is mailx (Mark Haney)
>   13. RE: Commentary on the seven words (Marc Wiatrowski)
>   14. RE: Commentary on the seven words (Burke, Thomas G.)
>   15. RE: Commentary on the seven words (Bliss, Aaron)
>   16. RE: Commentary on the seven words (Burke, Thomas G.)
>   17. RE: Permit root login for telnet.. (Shekhar Dhotre)
>   18. RE: Permit root login for telnet.. (Burke, Thomas G.)
>   19. NFS server not responding (Ryan Golhar)
>   20. Re: NFS server not responding (Jeremy Lyon)
>   21. Re: Commentary on the seven words (Greg Golin)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 09:00:48 -0700 (PDT)
>From: "Avi Ma'ayan" <avi_maayan at yahoo.com>
>Subject: Re: 200 PORT command successful. Consider using PASV. Hungs.
>To: "Bliss, Aaron" <ABliss at preferredcare.org>,  General Red Hat Linux
>         discussion list <redhat-list at redhat.com>
>Message-ID: <20060825160048.84188.qmail at web30211.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>Thanks Aaron,
>
>sftp works.
>
>avi
>
>----- Original Message ----
>From: "Bliss, Aaron" <ABliss at preferredcare.org>
>To: Avi Ma'ayan <avi_maayan at yahoo.com>; General Red Hat Linux discussion 
>list <redhat-list at redhat.com>
>Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 11:48:55 AM
>Subject: RE: 200 PORT command successful. Consider using PASV. Hungs.
>
>
>I'm not exactly sure why your seeing what your seeing, but have you
>considered using scp or sftp instead of ftp?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: redhat-list-bounces at redhat.com
>[mailto:redhat-list-bounces at redhat.com] On Behalf Of Avi Ma'ayan
>Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 11:48 AM
>To: redhat-list at redhat.com
>Subject: 200 PORT command successful. Consider using PASV. Hungs.
>
>Hi,
>
>I am trying to tranfer a file from my desktop to a RedHat server using
>FTP. It used to work yesterday but today it just hungs after ftp>put
>file with this message: "200 PORT command successful. Consider using
>PASV." The file is create at the server but it is empty. I can do other
>ftp command such as "cd" which work fine. Any ideas? What might have
>broken, I haven't changed any setting? Could it be something with the
>network?
>
>Thanks for your help.
>
>avi maayan
>
>--
>redhat-list mailing list
>unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request at redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
>https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
>
>
>
>Confidentiality Notice:
>The information contained in this electronic message is intended for the 
>exclusive use of the individual or entity named above and may contain 
>privileged or confidential information.  If the reader of this message is 
>not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible to deliver 
>it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that dissemination, 
>distribution or copying of this information is prohibited.  If you have 
>received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately 
>by telephone and destroy the copies you received.
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 12:06:44 -0400
>From: "Marc Wiatrowski" <wia at iglass.net>
>Subject: RE: 200 PORT command successful. Consider using PASV. Hungs.
>To: "'General Red Hat Linux discussion list'" <redhat-list at redhat.com>
>Message-ID: <001501c6c860$762d8c70$6bb1a8c0 at istructure.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="US-ASCII"
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Avi Ma'ayan
> > Subject: 200 PORT command successful. Consider using PASV. Hungs.
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am trying to tranfer a file from my desktop to a RedHat
> > server using FTP. It used to work yesterday but today it just
> > hungs after ftp>put file with this message: "200 PORT command
> > successful. Consider using PASV." The file is create at the
> > server but it is empty. I can do other ftp command such as
> > "cd" which work fine. Any ideas? What might have broken, I
> > haven't changed any setting? Could it be something with the network?
> >
>
>Any new firewall around your ftp server?  port 20 point to it as well
>as 21?
>
>marc
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 3
>Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:15:02 -0700
>From: Steve Rieger <riegersteve at gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: Permit root login for telnet..
>To: General Red Hat Linux discussion list <redhat-list at redhat.com>
>Cc: "Bliss, Aaron" <ABliss at preferredcare.org>
>Message-ID: <44EF3016.80307 at gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>i would like to know what bank you work for, am gonna make sure to close
>any account i have there.
>
>
>
>sorry for the top post.
>
>
>Shekhar Dhotre wrote:
> > OK , no one has access to network room here than Coms guys . Even I
> > cannot go in as I am in Unix/Storages group. Our comm. guys are not
> > interested in checking our passwords.
> >
> > Also they have access to most of the prod switches, so they are trusted
> > by the business. Again not a risk .
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bliss, Aaron [mailto:ABliss at preferredcare.org]
> > Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 9:44 AM
> > To: Shekhar Dhotre; General Red Hat Linux discussion list
> > Subject: RE: Permit root login for telnet..
> >
> > Sure, just turn on ethereal, plug into the span port on the switch.
> > Very straight forward; there are even software based packet sniffers
> > than can sniff past switches.
> >
> > Aaron
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Shekhar Dhotre [mailto:sdhotre at Cedardoc.com]
> > Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 9:25 AM
> > To: Bliss, Aaron; General Red Hat Linux discussion list
> > Subject: RE: Permit root login for telnet..
> >
> > Again that's all good . But, can you tell me how to see password of
> > other sysadmin if he is accessing system via telnet?
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bliss, Aaron [mailto:ABliss at preferredcare.org]
> > Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 9:22 AM
> > To: Bliss, Aaron; Shekhar Dhotre; General Red Hat Linux discussion list
> > Subject: RE: Permit root login for telnet..
> >
> > Telnet is also vulnerable to man in the middle attacks and ssh offers
> > post authentication; telnet does not.
> >
> > Aaron
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: redhat-list-bounces at redhat.com
> > [mailto:redhat-list-bounces at redhat.com] On Behalf Of Bliss, Aaron
> > Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 9:13 AM
> > To: Shekhar Dhotre; General Red Hat Linux discussion list
> > Subject: RE: Permit root login for telnet..
> >
> > Telent is a clear text protocol; ssh isn't.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: redhat-list-bounces at redhat.com
> > [mailto:redhat-list-bounces at redhat.com] On Behalf Of Shekhar Dhotre
> > Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 9:11 AM
> > To: General Red Hat Linux discussion list
> > Subject: RE: Permit root login for telnet..
> >
> > I have used telnet before ssh came in to the market . Do you know how to
> > hack telnet ? or break a root password without having physical access to
> > the system ? most likely the answer will be - NO .. so what's the big
> > deal in ssh vs. telnet ?
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: redhat-list-bounces at redhat.com
> > [mailto:redhat-list-bounces at redhat.com] On Behalf Of Greg Golin
> > Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 2:12 AM
> > To: General Red Hat Linux discussion list
> > Subject: Re: Permit root login for telnet..
> >
> > Dear Arun,
> >
> > You do NOT want to enable root login via telnet - trust me on this
> > one. Please tell the list what you are trying to accomplish - 99.9%
> > chance is that whatever you are trying to do can, and should be done
> > via ssh.
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Gregory Golin
> > Systems Admin
> >
> > On 8/24/06, Arun Williams <perks_williams at yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> >
> >> How can i enable root login for telnet....
> >>
> >>   I tried editing /etc/pam.d/login .... but no use
> >>
> >>
> >> ____________________________
> >> Regards
> >> A.Williams
> >> IN THIS WORLD FULL OF DREAMS AND IMAGINATION, LOOK FOR
> >>
> > POSSIBILITIES...
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------
> >>  Here's a new way to find what you're looking for - Yahoo! Answers
> >>  Send FREE SMS to your friend's mobile from Yahoo! Messenger Version
> >>
> > 8. Get it NOW
> >
> >> --
> >> redhat-list mailing list
> >> unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request at redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
> >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>--
>--
>eats the blues for breakfast,
>does unix for rent,
>plays harp for food,
>will play the flute for kicks
>rides for the freedom
>scrapes for thechallenge
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 4
>Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 13:31:23 -0400
>From: "Mark Haney" <mhaney at ercbroadband.org>
>Subject: Where the heck is mailx
>To: "General Red Hat Linux discussion list" <redhat-list at redhat.com>
>Message-ID: <44EF33EB.4050703 at ercbroadband.org>
>Content-Type: text/plain;       format=flowed;  charset="ISO-8859-1"
>
>I'm running RHEL3 on a server and I'm trying to find the mailx binary.
>The RPM db says it's installed (and the latest one I could find), but I
>cannot find mailx anywhere.  I have a script that I want to be able to
>mail certain data to myself and I've always used mailx for things like
>that.  Did I miss something?
>
>--
>Ceterum censeo, Carthago delenda est.
>
>Mark Haney
>Sr. Systems Administrator
>ERC Broadband
>(828) 350-2415
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 5
>Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:43:43 -0700
>From: "Wayne Pinette" <Wpinette at tru.ca>
>Subject: Re: Where the heck is mailx
>To: <mhaney at ercbroadband.org>, <redhat-list at redhat.com>
>Message-ID: <s4eed47e.027 at Groupwise3.TRU.CA>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
>if the mailx rpm is installed, you should be able to do a rpm -q -l
>mailx  (or whatever the rpm is listed under) and that will tell you all
>the files that were installed and their locations.
>
>Wayner
>
>
> >>> mhaney at ercbroadband.org 08/25/06 10:31 am >>>
>I'm running RHEL3 on a server and I'm trying to find the mailx binary.
>
>The RPM db says it's installed (and the latest one I could find), but I
>
>cannot find mailx anywhere.  I have a script that I want to be able to
>
>mail certain data to myself and I've always used mailx for things like
>
>that.  Did I miss something?
>
>--
>Ceterum censeo, Carthago delenda est.
>
>Mark Haney
>Sr. Systems Administrator
>ERC Broadband
>(828) 350-2415
>
>--
>redhat-list mailing list
>unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request at redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
>https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 6
>Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:44:42 -0700 (PDT)
>From: alan <alan at clueserver.org>
>Subject: Re: Where the heck is mailx
>To: General Red Hat Linux discussion list <redhat-list at redhat.com>
>Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608251044160.9932 at blackbox.fnordora.org>
>Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>
>On Fri, 25 Aug 2006, Mark Haney wrote:
>
> > I'm running RHEL3 on a server and I'm trying to find the mailx 
> binary.  The
> > RPM db says it's installed (and the latest one I could find), but I cannot
> > find mailx anywhere.  I have a script that I want to be able to mail 
> certain
> > data to myself and I've always used mailx for things like that.  Did I 
> miss
> > something?
>
>rpm -qp --filesbypkg mailx | less
>
>--
>"Oh, Joel Miller, you've just found the marble in the oatmeal. You're a
>lucky, lucky, lucky little boy. 'Cause you know why? You get to drink
>from... the FIRE HOOOOOSE!"
>          - The Stanley Spudoski guide to mailing list administration
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 7
>Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 12:57:31 -0500
>From: inode0 <inode0 at gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: Where the heck is mailx
>To: "General Red Hat Linux discussion list" <redhat-list at redhat.com>
>Message-ID:
>         <e8a30f560608251057g46e4cfat4065729390f19a0e at mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>On 8/25/06, Mark Haney <mhaney at ercbroadband.org> wrote:
> > I'm running RHEL3 on a server and I'm trying to find the mailx binary.
> > The RPM db says it's installed (and the latest one I could find), but I
> > cannot find mailx anywhere.  I have a script that I want to be able to
> > mail certain data to myself and I've always used mailx for things like
> > that.  Did I miss something?
>
>On RHEL4 it is in redhat-lsb but it doesn't appear to be there on
>RHEL3. I believe it is just a symlink to the mail command in any
>event.
>
>Out of curiosity, what rpm command did you run that suggests it is
>installed? Perhaps that will clear things up...
>
>John
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 8
>Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 11:10:33 -0700
>From: darrel barton <darrel at lantera.com>
>Subject: Commentary on the seven words
>To: redhat-list at redhat.com
>Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20060825104205.03265f30 at 207.155.48.221>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
>As a programmer, I routinely turn to guru's for support -- especially for
>operating system and utility advice and assistance and there are SEVEN
>words -- seven very unwelcome words that I hear from time to time that
>drive me up the wall.   Not George Carlin's 7 words but another set:
>
>Why Do You Want To Do That?
>
>I don't want to seem like I'm attacking anyone here, because I know that
>almost everyone means well and help, whether it's what we intend or not --
>is still help.  But there is a danger too.   When someone writes to say
>
>200 PORT command successful. Consider using PASV. Hangs.
>
>and the response he gets is "try sftp" there seem to be a hugely missing
>ingredient:   All we did was give the man a work around to a problem.  Even
>if there are 400 alternatives ... FTP is SUPPOSED to work and someone
>should CARE that it doesn't.   Well, sftp helped him and he's on his way
>and that's great.   The only problem is that, in this case, 'sftp' was
>merely a workaround to a problem and if people aren't careful, Linux will
>become wat the original AT&T Unix was -- and that is to say nothing more
>that a PILE of workarounds.
>
>I wrote in with a complaint that Linux will allow a process (like Tar,
>Cpio, DD, etc) to create archives larger than that same system can read
>back.   Think of it as that elusive Write Only Memory we're all heard
>about.   Several people contacted me and told me all about Gzip and how to
>make the archive smaller and other people said it wasn't Linux' fault it
>was the file's fault and etc., etc., and etc.   I wonder if these same
>people would be so forgiving of a workaround if the problem was that Linux
>would allow a process to write to disc blocks in excess of the number of
>physical blocks without reporting errors?
>
>There is a guy that wants to be able to log in to ROOT via Telnet and
>people write back telling him that he doesn't want to even do that.   Well
>guess what?   I administrate one system that has 128 clients on it and it's
>NOT EVEN CONNECTED TO THE INTERNET.   Or .. Intranet.   One server, 128
>thin clients.   Why can't I log on to Root from one of those clients if I
>want to without the 262 additional levels of complication that ssh
>provides?   (OK -- I know that YOU have never ever EVER had a problem with
>ssh.  Nor anyone you've ever known.  And every ssh client you have ever
>seen works seamlessly with every ssh server that's ever been written .. but
>trust me, out there ... once ... back in 1986 .. there WAS a guy who had
>ssh problems.
>
>So when a guy writes to ask about how to enable root login from telnet,
>can't someone just say "I hope you know that's not as secure as ssh -- but
>here's how you enable that ...... ?
>
>Please just remember that some of us here have been slogging through this
>stuff for the last 20 years, trying to get an application to run, a
>documented operating system function to actually function -- and
>occasionally get enough things working that a client actually PAYS
>us.   We're not always here to hear about the way we coulda, shoulda,
>woulda restructured the whole process around stuff that some of you guys
>only invented last week, ok?
>
>"Why Do You Want To Do That?"
>
>Would be a more fair question if someone needed that answer in order to
>better understand the request -- but far too often it's not that -- it's
>the beginning of someone telling me how THEY think I should be doing my job.
>
>So please, folks, the next time we want to do something differently that
>you think you'd do it if you were in our shoes ... cut us some slack and
>just help us out, OK?  We'd do the same for you.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-------------- next part --------------
>
>
>No virus found in this outgoing message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.6/427 - Release Date: 8/24/2006
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 9
>Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 14:01:00 -0400
>From: "Mark Haney" <mhaney at ercbroadband.org>
>Subject: Re: Where the heck is mailx
>To: "General Red Hat Linux discussion list" <redhat-list at redhat.com>
>Message-ID: <44EF3ADC.1030301 at ercbroadband.org>
>Content-Type: text/plain;       format=flowed;  charset="ISO-8859-1"
>
>inode0 wrote:
> >
> > Out of curiosity, what rpm command did you run that suggests it is
> > installed? Perhaps that will clear things up...
> >
> > John
> >
>Yeah I missed something.  Apparently, mailx is just a symlink to mail.
>But this doesn't really fix the problem I'm having now, which is my
>script doesn't run as mail requires a CTRL+D in order to send the
>message.  How do I get around that?
>
>
>--
>Ceterum censeo, Carthago delenda est.
>
>Mark Haney
>Sr. Systems Administrator
>ERC Broadband
>(828) 350-2415
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 10
>Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 13:07:43 -0500
>From: inode0 <inode0 at gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: Where the heck is mailx
>To: "General Red Hat Linux discussion list" <redhat-list at redhat.com>
>Message-ID:
>         <e8a30f560608251107y78e441f6s7637807e628c05bb at mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>On 8/25/06, Mark Haney <mhaney at ercbroadband.org> wrote:
> > inode0 wrote:
> > >
> > > Out of curiosity, what rpm command did you run that suggests it is
> > > installed? Perhaps that will clear things up...
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > Yeah I missed something.  Apparently, mailx is just a symlink to mail.
> > But this doesn't really fix the problem I'm having now, which is my
> > script doesn't run as mail requires a CTRL+D in order to send the
> > message.  How do I get around that?
>
>I usually do something like
>
>mail -s subject foo at bar.com < some-file
>
>or
>
>echo "text to mail" | mail -s subject foo at bar.com
>
>John
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 11
>Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 14:16:26 -0400
>From: "Burke, Thomas G." <tg.burke at ngc.com>
>Subject: RE: Commentary on the seven words
>To: "General Red Hat Linux discussion list" <redhat-list at redhat.com>
>Message-ID:
>         <CBFD6AB08691C048B78837436917EE1B0205DF7A at XMBMD104.northgrum.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="us-ascii"
>
>Ditto...  But...  WDYWTDT?
>
>;)
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: redhat-list-bounces at redhat.com
>[mailto:redhat-list-bounces at redhat.com] On Behalf Of darrel barton
>Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 2:11 PM
>To: redhat-list at redhat.com
>Subject: Commentary on the seven words
>
>
>As a programmer, I routinely turn to guru's for support -- especially
>for operating system and utility advice and assistance and there are
>SEVEN words -- seven very unwelcome words that I hear from time to time
>that
>drive me up the wall.   Not George Carlin's 7 words but another set:
>
>Why Do You Want To Do That?
>
>I don't want to seem like I'm attacking anyone here, because I know that
>almost everyone means well and help, whether it's what we intend or not
>--
>is still help.  But there is a danger too.   When someone writes to say
>
>200 PORT command successful. Consider using PASV. Hangs.
>
>and the response he gets is "try sftp" there seem to be a hugely missing
>
>ingredient:   All we did was give the man a work around to a problem.
>Even
>if there are 400 alternatives ... FTP is SUPPOSED to work and someone
>should CARE that it doesn't.   Well, sftp helped him and he's on his way
>
>and that's great.   The only problem is that, in this case, 'sftp' was
>merely a workaround to a problem and if people aren't careful, Linux
>will become wat the original AT&T Unix was -- and that is to say nothing
>more that a PILE of workarounds.
>
>I wrote in with a complaint that Linux will allow a process (like Tar,
>Cpio, DD, etc) to create archives larger than that same system can read
>back.   Think of it as that elusive Write Only Memory we're all heard
>about.   Several people contacted me and told me all about Gzip and how
>to
>make the archive smaller and other people said it wasn't Linux' fault it
>
>was the file's fault and etc., etc., and etc.   I wonder if these same
>people would be so forgiving of a workaround if the problem was that
>Linux would allow a process to write to disc blocks in excess of the
>number of physical blocks without reporting errors?
>
>There is a guy that wants to be able to log in to ROOT via Telnet and
>people write back telling him that he doesn't want to even do that.
>Well
>guess what?   I administrate one system that has 128 clients on it and
>it's
>NOT EVEN CONNECTED TO THE INTERNET.   Or .. Intranet.   One server, 128
>thin clients.   Why can't I log on to Root from one of those clients if
>I
>want to without the 262 additional levels of complication that ssh
>provides?   (OK -- I know that YOU have never ever EVER had a problem
>with
>ssh.  Nor anyone you've ever known.  And every ssh client you have ever
>seen works seamlessly with every ssh server that's ever been written ..
>but trust me, out there ... once ... back in 1986 .. there WAS a guy who
>had ssh problems.
>
>So when a guy writes to ask about how to enable root login from telnet,
>can't someone just say "I hope you know that's not as secure as ssh --
>but here's how you enable that ...... ?
>
>Please just remember that some of us here have been slogging through
>this stuff for the last 20 years, trying to get an application to run, a
>documented operating system function to actually function -- and
>occasionally get enough things working that a client actually PAYS
>us.   We're not always here to hear about the way we coulda, shoulda,
>woulda restructured the whole process around stuff that some of you guys
>only invented last week, ok?
>
>"Why Do You Want To Do That?"
>
>Would be a more fair question if someone needed that answer in order to
>better understand the request -- but far too often it's not that -- it's
>the beginning of someone telling me how THEY think I should be doing my
>job.
>
>So please, folks, the next time we want to do something differently that
>you think you'd do it if you were in our shoes ... cut us some slack and
>just help us out, OK?  We'd do the same for you.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 12
>Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 14:16:48 -0400
>From: "Mark Haney" <mhaney at ercbroadband.org>
>Subject: Re: Where the heck is mailx
>To: "General Red Hat Linux discussion list" <redhat-list at redhat.com>
>Message-ID: <44EF3E90.7060703 at ercbroadband.org>
>Content-Type: text/plain;       format=flowed;  charset="ISO-8859-1"
>
>inode0 wrote:
> > On 8/25/06, Mark Haney <mhaney at ercbroadband.org> wrote:
> >> inode0 wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Out of curiosity, what rpm command did you run that suggests it is
> >> > installed? Perhaps that will clear things up...
> >> >
> >> > John
> >> >
> >> Yeah I missed something.  Apparently, mailx is just a symlink to mail.
> >> But this doesn't really fix the problem I'm having now, which is my
> >> script doesn't run as mail requires a CTRL+D in order to send the
> >> message.  How do I get around that?
> >
> > I usually do something like
> >
> > mail -s subject foo at bar.com < some-file
> >
> > or
> >
> > echo "text to mail" | mail -s subject foo at bar.com
> >
> > John
> >
>Yep, that did it.  Thanks a bunch everyone.
>
>
>--
>Ceterum censeo, Carthago delenda est.
>
>Mark Haney
>Sr. Systems Administrator
>ERC Broadband
>(828) 350-2415
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 13
>Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 14:22:41 -0400
>From: "Marc Wiatrowski" <wia at iglass.net>
>Subject: RE: Commentary on the seven words
>To: "'General Red Hat Linux discussion list'" <redhat-list at redhat.com>
>Message-ID: <002c01c6c873$73b98490$6bb1a8c0 at istructure.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="US-ASCII"
>
>When someone going down a dead end road stops and asks for
>directions, do you explain the correct route or help him
>make a new road the way he is headed?
>
>marc
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: darrel barton
> > Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 2:11 PM
> > To: redhat-list at redhat.com
> > Subject: Commentary on the seven words
> >
> >
> > As a programmer, I routinely turn to guru's for support --
> > especially for
> > operating system and utility advice and assistance and there
> > are SEVEN
> > words -- seven very unwelcome words that I hear from time to
> > time that
> > drive me up the wall.   Not George Carlin's 7 words but another set:
> >
> > Why Do You Want To Do That?
> >
> > I don't want to seem like I'm attacking anyone here, because
> > I know that
> > almost everyone means well and help, whether it's what we
> > intend or not --
> > is still help.  But there is a danger too.   When someone
> > writes to say
> >
> > 200 PORT command successful. Consider using PASV. Hangs.
> >
> > and the response he gets is "try sftp" there seem to be a
> > hugely missing
> > ingredient:   All we did was give the man a work around to a
> > problem.  Even
> > if there are 400 alternatives ... FTP is SUPPOSED to work and someone
> > should CARE that it doesn't.   Well, sftp helped him and he's
> > on his way
> > and that's great.   The only problem is that, in this case,
> > 'sftp' was
> > merely a workaround to a problem and if people aren't
> > careful, Linux will
> > become wat the original AT&T Unix was -- and that is to say
> > nothing more
> > that a PILE of workarounds.
> >
> > I wrote in with a complaint that Linux will allow a process
> > (like Tar,
> > Cpio, DD, etc) to create archives larger than that same
> > system can read
> > back.   Think of it as that elusive Write Only Memory we're all heard
> > about.   Several people contacted me and told me all about
> > Gzip and how to
> > make the archive smaller and other people said it wasn't
> > Linux' fault it
> > was the file's fault and etc., etc., and etc.   I wonder if
> > these same
> > people would be so forgiving of a workaround if the problem
> > was that Linux
> > would allow a process to write to disc blocks in excess of
> > the number of
> > physical blocks without reporting errors?
> >
> > There is a guy that wants to be able to log in to ROOT via Telnet and
> > people write back telling him that he doesn't want to even do
> > that.   Well
> > guess what?   I administrate one system that has 128 clients
> > on it and it's
> > NOT EVEN CONNECTED TO THE INTERNET.   Or .. Intranet.   One
> > server, 128
> > thin clients.   Why can't I log on to Root from one of those
> > clients if I
> > want to without the 262 additional levels of complication that ssh
> > provides?   (OK -- I know that YOU have never ever EVER had a
> > problem with
> > ssh.  Nor anyone you've ever known.  And every ssh client you
> > have ever
> > seen works seamlessly with every ssh server that's ever been
> > written .. but
> > trust me, out there ... once ... back in 1986 .. there WAS a
> > guy who had
> > ssh problems.
> >
> > So when a guy writes to ask about how to enable root login
> > from telnet,
> > can't someone just say "I hope you know that's not as secure
> > as ssh -- but
> > here's how you enable that ...... ?
> >
> > Please just remember that some of us here have been slogging
> > through this
> > stuff for the last 20 years, trying to get an application to run, a
> > documented operating system function to actually function -- and
> > occasionally get enough things working that a client actually PAYS
> > us.   We're not always here to hear about the way we coulda, shoulda,
> > woulda restructured the whole process around stuff that some
> > of you guys
> > only invented last week, ok?
> >
> > "Why Do You Want To Do That?"
> >
> > Would be a more fair question if someone needed that answer
> > in order to
> > better understand the request -- but far too often it's not
> > that -- it's
> > the beginning of someone telling me how THEY think I should
> > be doing my job.
> >
> > So please, folks, the next time we want to do something
> > differently that
> > you think you'd do it if you were in our shoes ... cut us
> > some slack and
> > just help us out, OK?  We'd do the same for you.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 14
>Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 14:25:40 -0400
>From: "Burke, Thomas G." <tg.burke at ngc.com>
>Subject: RE: Commentary on the seven words
>To: "General Red Hat Linux discussion list" <redhat-list at redhat.com>
>Message-ID:
>         <CBFD6AB08691C048B78837436917EE1B0205DF7F at XMBMD104.northgrum.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="us-ascii"
>
>His point is, that maybe he's trying to build a bridge, not go around
>the long way.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: redhat-list-bounces at redhat.com
>[mailto:redhat-list-bounces at redhat.com] On Behalf Of Marc Wiatrowski
>Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 2:23 PM
>To: 'General Red Hat Linux discussion list'
>Subject: RE: Commentary on the seven words
>
>When someone going down a dead end road stops and asks for directions,
>do you explain the correct route or help him make a new road the way he
>is headed?
>
>marc
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: darrel barton
> > Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 2:11 PM
> > To: redhat-list at redhat.com
> > Subject: Commentary on the seven words
> >
> >
> > As a programmer, I routinely turn to guru's for support -- especially
> > for operating system and utility advice and assistance and there are
> > SEVEN words -- seven very unwelcome words that I hear from time to
> > time that
> > drive me up the wall.   Not George Carlin's 7 words but another set:
> >
> > Why Do You Want To Do That?
> >
> > I don't want to seem like I'm attacking anyone here, because I know
> > that almost everyone means well and help, whether it's what we intend
> > or not --
> > is still help.  But there is a danger too.   When someone
> > writes to say
> >
> > 200 PORT command successful. Consider using PASV. Hangs.
> >
> > and the response he gets is "try sftp" there seem to be a hugely
> > missing
> > ingredient:   All we did was give the man a work around to a
> > problem.  Even
> > if there are 400 alternatives ... FTP is SUPPOSED to work and someone
> > should CARE that it doesn't.   Well, sftp helped him and he's
> > on his way
> > and that's great.   The only problem is that, in this case,
> > 'sftp' was
> > merely a workaround to a problem and if people aren't careful, Linux
> > will become wat the original AT&T Unix was -- and that is to say
> > nothing more that a PILE of workarounds.
> >
> > I wrote in with a complaint that Linux will allow a process (like Tar,
>
> > Cpio, DD, etc) to create archives larger than that same system can
> > read
> > back.   Think of it as that elusive Write Only Memory we're all heard
> > about.   Several people contacted me and told me all about
> > Gzip and how to
> > make the archive smaller and other people said it wasn't Linux' fault
> > it
> > was the file's fault and etc., etc., and etc.   I wonder if
> > these same
> > people would be so forgiving of a workaround if the problem was that
> > Linux would allow a process to write to disc blocks in excess of the
> > number of physical blocks without reporting errors?
> >
> > There is a guy that wants to be able to log in to ROOT via Telnet and
> > people write back telling him that he doesn't want to even do
> > that.   Well
> > guess what?   I administrate one system that has 128 clients
> > on it and it's
> > NOT EVEN CONNECTED TO THE INTERNET.   Or .. Intranet.   One
> > server, 128
> > thin clients.   Why can't I log on to Root from one of those
> > clients if I
> > want to without the 262 additional levels of complication that ssh
> > provides?   (OK -- I know that YOU have never ever EVER had a
> > problem with
> > ssh.  Nor anyone you've ever known.  And every ssh client you have
> > ever seen works seamlessly with every ssh server that's ever been
> > written .. but trust me, out there ... once ... back in 1986 .. there
> > WAS a guy who had ssh problems.
> >
> > So when a guy writes to ask about how to enable root login from
> > telnet, can't someone just say "I hope you know that's not as secure
> > as ssh -- but here's how you enable that ...... ?
> >
> > Please just remember that some of us here have been slogging through
> > this stuff for the last 20 years, trying to get an application to run,
>
> > a documented operating system function to actually function -- and
> > occasionally get enough things working that a client actually PAYS
> > us.   We're not always here to hear about the way we coulda, shoulda,
> > woulda restructured the whole process around stuff that some of you
> > guys only invented last week, ok?
> >
> > "Why Do You Want To Do That?"
> >
> > Would be a more fair question if someone needed that answer in order
> > to better understand the request -- but far too often it's not that --
>
> > it's the beginning of someone telling me how THEY think I should be
> > doing my job.
> >
> > So please, folks, the next time we want to do something differently
> > that you think you'd do it if you were in our shoes ... cut us some
> > slack and just help us out, OK?  We'd do the same for you.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>--
>redhat-list mailing list
>unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request at redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
>https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 15
>Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 14:27:21 -0400
>From: "Bliss, Aaron" <ABliss at preferredcare.org>
>Subject: RE: Commentary on the seven words
>To: "Marc Wiatrowski" <wia at iglass.net>, "General Red Hat Linux
>         discussion list" <redhat-list at redhat.com>
>Message-ID:
> 
><FFF3441ECA73784EAAAD9B8ABFB0CC2B02EE3979 at ms-win-s21.preferredcare.org>
>
>Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="us-ascii"
>
>Didn't mean to step on anyone's toes; I was just trying to help; I'm
>sure some people will disagree, but it's generally a better security
>practice not to use clear text protocols such as telnet or ftp whenever
>possible, which why I recommend sftp and ssh...
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: redhat-list-bounces at redhat.com
>[mailto:redhat-list-bounces at redhat.com] On Behalf Of Marc Wiatrowski
>Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 2:23 PM
>To: 'General Red Hat Linux discussion list'
>Subject: RE: Commentary on the seven words
>
>When someone going down a dead end road stops and asks for
>directions, do you explain the correct route or help him
>make a new road the way he is headed?
>
>marc
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: darrel barton
> > Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 2:11 PM
> > To: redhat-list at redhat.com
> > Subject: Commentary on the seven words
> >
> >
> > As a programmer, I routinely turn to guru's for support --
> > especially for
> > operating system and utility advice and assistance and there
> > are SEVEN
> > words -- seven very unwelcome words that I hear from time to
> > time that
> > drive me up the wall.   Not George Carlin's 7 words but another set:
> >
> > Why Do You Want To Do That?
> >
> > I don't want to seem like I'm attacking anyone here, because
> > I know that
> > almost everyone means well and help, whether it's what we
> > intend or not --
> > is still help.  But there is a danger too.   When someone
> > writes to say
> >
> > 200 PORT command successful. Consider using PASV. Hangs.
> >
> > and the response he gets is "try sftp" there seem to be a
> > hugely missing
> > ingredient:   All we did was give the man a work around to a
> > problem.  Even
> > if there are 400 alternatives ... FTP is SUPPOSED to work and someone
> > should CARE that it doesn't.   Well, sftp helped him and he's
> > on his way
> > and that's great.   The only problem is that, in this case,
> > 'sftp' was
> > merely a workaround to a problem and if people aren't
> > careful, Linux will
> > become wat the original AT&T Unix was -- and that is to say
> > nothing more
> > that a PILE of workarounds.
> >
> > I wrote in with a complaint that Linux will allow a process
> > (like Tar,
> > Cpio, DD, etc) to create archives larger than that same
> > system can read
> > back.   Think of it as that elusive Write Only Memory we're all heard
> > about.   Several people contacted me and told me all about
> > Gzip and how to
> > make the archive smaller and other people said it wasn't
> > Linux' fault it
> > was the file's fault and etc., etc., and etc.   I wonder if
> > these same
> > people would be so forgiving of a workaround if the problem
> > was that Linux
> > would allow a process to write to disc blocks in excess of
> > the number of
> > physical blocks without reporting errors?
> >
> > There is a guy that wants to be able to log in to ROOT via Telnet and
> > people write back telling him that he doesn't want to even do
> > that.   Well
> > guess what?   I administrate one system that has 128 clients
> > on it and it's
> > NOT EVEN CONNECTED TO THE INTERNET.   Or .. Intranet.   One
> > server, 128
> > thin clients.   Why can't I log on to Root from one of those
> > clients if I
> > want to without the 262 additional levels of complication that ssh
> > provides?   (OK -- I know that YOU have never ever EVER had a
> > problem with
> > ssh.  Nor anyone you've ever known.  And every ssh client you
> > have ever
> > seen works seamlessly with every ssh server that's ever been
> > written .. but
> > trust me, out there ... once ... back in 1986 .. there WAS a
> > guy who had
> > ssh problems.
> >
> > So when a guy writes to ask about how to enable root login
> > from telnet,
> > can't someone just say "I hope you know that's not as secure
> > as ssh -- but
> > here's how you enable that ...... ?
> >
> > Please just remember that some of us here have been slogging
> > through this
> > stuff for the last 20 years, trying to get an application to run, a
> > documented operating system function to actually function -- and
> > occasionally get enough things working that a client actually PAYS
> > us.   We're not always here to hear about the way we coulda, shoulda,
> > woulda restructured the whole process around stuff that some
> > of you guys
> > only invented last week, ok?
> >
> > "Why Do You Want To Do That?"
> >
> > Would be a more fair question if someone needed that answer
> > in order to
> > better understand the request -- but far too often it's not
> > that -- it's
> > the beginning of someone telling me how THEY think I should
> > be doing my job.
> >
> > So please, folks, the next time we want to do something
> > differently that
> > you think you'd do it if you were in our shoes ... cut us
> > some slack and
> > just help us out, OK?  We'd do the same for you.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>--
>redhat-list mailing list
>unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request at redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
>https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
>
>
>
>Confidentiality Notice:
>The information contained in this electronic message is intended for the 
>exclusive use of the individual or entity named above and may contain 
>privileged or confidential information.  If the reader of this message is 
>not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible to deliver 
>it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that dissemination, 
>distribution or copying of this information is prohibited.  If you have 
>received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately 
>by telephone and destroy the copies you received.
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 16
>Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 14:36:00 -0400
>From: "Burke, Thomas G." <tg.burke at ngc.com>
>Subject: RE: Commentary on the seven words
>To: "General Red Hat Linux discussion list" <redhat-list at redhat.com>,
>         "Marc Wiatrowski" <wia at iglass.net>
>Message-ID:
>         <CBFD6AB08691C048B78837436917EE1B0205DF87 at XMBMD104.northgrum.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="us-ascii"
>
>And this would have been a good way to preface a message on how to turn
>on root access to telnet.
>
>Shoot, I use SSH & all that, but if I wanted to allow it for some
>reason, I'd ask (especially since I've been using ssh so long I don't
>remember how) - but I can think of reasons why I'd maybe want to do this
>- but only from within a firewalled area, or something completely
>disconnected from the outside world.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: redhat-list-bounces at redhat.com
>[mailto:redhat-list-bounces at redhat.com] On Behalf Of Bliss, Aaron
>Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 2:27 PM
>To: Marc Wiatrowski; General Red Hat Linux discussion list
>Subject: RE: Commentary on the seven words
>
>Didn't mean to step on anyone's toes; I was just trying to help; I'm
>sure some people will disagree, but it's generally a better security
>practice not to use clear text protocols such as telnet or ftp whenever
>possible, which why I recommend sftp and ssh...
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: redhat-list-bounces at redhat.com
>[mailto:redhat-list-bounces at redhat.com] On Behalf Of Marc Wiatrowski
>Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 2:23 PM
>To: 'General Red Hat Linux discussion list'
>Subject: RE: Commentary on the seven words
>
>When someone going down a dead end road stops and asks for directions,
>do you explain the correct route or help him make a new road the way he
>is headed?
>
>marc
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: darrel barton
> > Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 2:11 PM
> > To: redhat-list at redhat.com
> > Subject: Commentary on the seven words
> >
> >
> > As a programmer, I routinely turn to guru's for support -- especially
> > for operating system and utility advice and assistance and there are
> > SEVEN words -- seven very unwelcome words that I hear from time to
> > time that
> > drive me up the wall.   Not George Carlin's 7 words but another set:
> >
> > Why Do You Want To Do That?
> >
> > I don't want to seem like I'm attacking anyone here, because I know
> > that almost everyone means well and help, whether it's what we intend
> > or not --
> > is still help.  But there is a danger too.   When someone
> > writes to say
> >
> > 200 PORT command successful. Consider using PASV. Hangs.
> >
> > and the response he gets is "try sftp" there seem to be a hugely
> > missing
> > ingredient:   All we did was give the man a work around to a
> > problem.  Even
> > if there are 400 alternatives ... FTP is SUPPOSED to work and someone
> > should CARE that it doesn't.   Well, sftp helped him and he's
> > on his way
> > and that's great.   The only problem is that, in this case,
> > 'sftp' was
> > merely a workaround to a problem and if people aren't careful, Linux
> > will become wat the original AT&T Unix was -- and that is to say
> > nothing more that a PILE of workarounds.
> >
> > I wrote in with a complaint that Linux will allow a process (like Tar,
>
> > Cpio, DD, etc) to create archives larger than that same system can
> > read
> > back.   Think of it as that elusive Write Only Memory we're all heard
> > about.   Several people contacted me and told me all about
> > Gzip and how to
> > make the archive smaller and other people said it wasn't Linux' fault
> > it
> > was the file's fault and etc., etc., and etc.   I wonder if
> > these same
> > people would be so forgiving of a workaround if the problem was that
> > Linux would allow a process to write to disc blocks in excess of the
> > number of physical blocks without reporting errors?
> >
> > There is a guy that wants to be able to log in to ROOT via Telnet and
> > people write back telling him that he doesn't want to even do
> > that.   Well
> > guess what?   I administrate one system that has 128 clients
> > on it and it's
> > NOT EVEN CONNECTED TO THE INTERNET.   Or .. Intranet.   One
> > server, 128
> > thin clients.   Why can't I log on to Root from one of those
> > clients if I
> > want to without the 262 additional levels of complication that ssh
> > provides?   (OK -- I know that YOU have never ever EVER had a
> > problem with
> > ssh.  Nor anyone you've ever known.  And every ssh client you have
> > ever seen works seamlessly with every ssh server that's ever been
> > written .. but trust me, out there ... once ... back in 1986 .. there
> > WAS a guy who had ssh problems.
> >
> > So when a guy writes to ask about how to enable root login from
> > telnet, can't someone just say "I hope you know that's not as secure
> > as ssh -- but here's how you enable that ...... ?
> >
> > Please just remember that some of us here have been slogging through
> > this stuff for the last 20 years, trying to get an application to run,
>
> > a documented operating system function to actually function -- and
> > occasionally get enough things working that a client actually PAYS
> > us.   We're not always here to hear about the way we coulda, shoulda,
> > woulda restructured the whole process around stuff that some of you
> > guys only invented last week, ok?
> >
> > "Why Do You Want To Do That?"
> >
> > Would be a more fair question if someone needed that answer in order
> > to better understand the request -- but far too often it's not that --
>
> > it's the beginning of someone telling me how THEY think I should be
> > doing my job.
> >
> > So please, folks, the next time we want to do something differently
> > that you think you'd do it if you were in our shoes ... cut us some
> > slack and just help us out, OK?  We'd do the same for you.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>--
>redhat-list mailing list
>unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request at redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
>https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
>
>
>
>Confidentiality Notice:
>The information contained in this electronic message is intended for the
>exclusive use of the individual or entity named above and may contain
>privileged or confidential information.  If the reader of this message
>is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible to
>deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
>dissemination, distribution or copying of this information is
>prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please
>notify the sender immediately by telephone and destroy the copies you
>received.
>
>
>--
>redhat-list mailing list
>unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request at redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
>https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 17
>Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 14:53:03 -0400
>From: "Shekhar Dhotre" <sdhotre at Cedardoc.com>
>Subject: RE: Permit root login for telnet..
>To: "General Red Hat Linux discussion list" <redhat-list at redhat.com>
>Message-ID:
>         <728BB500F390334196448BD09D34254E0A3E27 at atl0-exchdb01.cedardoc.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="us-ascii"
>
>Bank of China - Shanghai .
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: redhat-list-bounces at redhat.com
>[mailto:redhat-list-bounces at redhat.com] On Behalf Of Steve Rieger
>Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 1:15 PM
>To: General Red Hat Linux discussion list
>Cc: Bliss, Aaron
>Subject: Re: Permit root login for telnet..
>
>i would like to know what bank you work for, am gonna make sure to close
>
>any account i have there.
>
>
>
>sorry for the top post.
>
>
>Shekhar Dhotre wrote:
> > OK , no one has access to network room here than Coms guys . Even I
> > cannot go in as I am in Unix/Storages group. Our comm. guys are not
> > interested in checking our passwords.
> >
> > Also they have access to most of the prod switches, so they are
>trusted
> > by the business. Again not a risk .
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bliss, Aaron [mailto:ABliss at preferredcare.org]
> > Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 9:44 AM
> > To: Shekhar Dhotre; General Red Hat Linux discussion list
> > Subject: RE: Permit root login for telnet..
> >
> > Sure, just turn on ethereal, plug into the span port on the switch.
> > Very straight forward; there are even software based packet sniffers
> > than can sniff past switches.
> >
> > Aaron
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Shekhar Dhotre [mailto:sdhotre at Cedardoc.com]
> > Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 9:25 AM
> > To: Bliss, Aaron; General Red Hat Linux discussion list
> > Subject: RE: Permit root login for telnet..
> >
> > Again that's all good . But, can you tell me how to see password of
> > other sysadmin if he is accessing system via telnet?
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bliss, Aaron [mailto:ABliss at preferredcare.org]
> > Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 9:22 AM
> > To: Bliss, Aaron; Shekhar Dhotre; General Red Hat Linux discussion
>list
> > Subject: RE: Permit root login for telnet..
> >
> > Telnet is also vulnerable to man in the middle attacks and ssh offers
> > post authentication; telnet does not.
> >
> > Aaron
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: redhat-list-bounces at redhat.com
> > [mailto:redhat-list-bounces at redhat.com] On Behalf Of Bliss, Aaron
> > Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 9:13 AM
> > To: Shekhar Dhotre; General Red Hat Linux discussion list
> > Subject: RE: Permit root login for telnet..
> >
> > Telent is a clear text protocol; ssh isn't.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: redhat-list-bounces at redhat.com
> > [mailto:redhat-list-bounces at redhat.com] On Behalf Of Shekhar Dhotre
> > Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 9:11 AM
> > To: General Red Hat Linux discussion list
> > Subject: RE: Permit root login for telnet..
> >
> > I have used telnet before ssh came in to the market . Do you know how
>to
> > hack telnet ? or break a root password without having physical access
>to
> > the system ? most likely the answer will be - NO .. so what's the big
> > deal in ssh vs. telnet ?
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: redhat-list-bounces at redhat.com
> > [mailto:redhat-list-bounces at redhat.com] On Behalf Of Greg Golin
> > Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 2:12 AM
> > To: General Red Hat Linux discussion list
> > Subject: Re: Permit root login for telnet..
> >
> > Dear Arun,
> >
> > You do NOT want to enable root login via telnet - trust me on this
> > one. Please tell the list what you are trying to accomplish - 99.9%
> > chance is that whatever you are trying to do can, and should be done
> > via ssh.
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Gregory Golin
> > Systems Admin
> >
> > On 8/24/06, Arun Williams <perks_williams at yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> >
> >> How can i enable root login for telnet....
> >>
> >>   I tried editing /etc/pam.d/login .... but no use
> >>
> >>
> >> ____________________________
> >> Regards
> >> A.Williams
> >> IN THIS WORLD FULL OF DREAMS AND IMAGINATION, LOOK FOR
> >>
> > POSSIBILITIES...
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------
> >>  Here's a new way to find what you're looking for - Yahoo! Answers
> >>  Send FREE SMS to your friend's mobile from Yahoo! Messenger Version
> >>
> > 8. Get it NOW
> >
> >> --
> >> redhat-list mailing list
> >> unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request at redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
> >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>--
>--
>eats the blues for breakfast,
>does unix for rent,
>plays harp for food,
>will play the flute for kicks
>rides for the freedom
>scrapes for thechallenge
>
>--
>redhat-list mailing list
>unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request at redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
>https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 18
>Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:02:15 -0400
>From: "Burke, Thomas G." <tg.burke at ngc.com>
>Subject: RE: Permit root login for telnet..
>To: "General Red Hat Linux discussion list" <redhat-list at redhat.com>
>Message-ID:
>         <CBFD6AB08691C048B78837436917EE1B0205DF90 at XMBMD104.northgrum.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="us-ascii"
>
>  Shekhar,
>
>         I don't remember how to turn on telnet.
>
>         That said, *ANY* comuter that can access the netowrk this server
>is on can be used to sniff a clear-text password sent through telnet.  I
>understand that in your specific case, this may be OK, but are you
>absolutely sure that *every* employee accessing one of these computers
>can be trusted not to set up a sniffer?  And any future employees?
>There is no point in having a server if no one's computer can access it.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: redhat-list-bounces at redhat.com
>[mailto:redhat-list-bounces at redhat.com] On Behalf Of Shekhar Dhotre
>Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 2:53 PM
>To: General Red Hat Linux discussion list
>Subject: RE: Permit root login for telnet..
>
>Bank of China - Shanghai .
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: redhat-list-bounces at redhat.com
>[mailto:redhat-list-bounces at redhat.com] On Behalf Of Steve Rieger
>Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 1:15 PM
>To: General Red Hat Linux discussion list
>Cc: Bliss, Aaron
>Subject: Re: Permit root login for telnet..
>
>i would like to know what bank you work for, am gonna make sure to close
>
>any account i have there.
>
>
>
>sorry for the top post.
>
>
>Shekhar Dhotre wrote:
> > OK , no one has access to network room here than Coms guys . Even I
> > cannot go in as I am in Unix/Storages group. Our comm. guys are not
> > interested in checking our passwords.
> >
> > Also they have access to most of the prod switches, so they are
>trusted
> > by the business. Again not a risk .
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bliss, Aaron [mailto:ABliss at preferredcare.org]
> > Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 9:44 AM
> > To: Shekhar Dhotre; General Red Hat Linux discussion list
> > Subject: RE: Permit root login for telnet..
> >
> > Sure, just turn on ethereal, plug into the span port on the switch.
> > Very straight forward; there are even software based packet sniffers
> > than can sniff past switches.
> >
> > Aaron
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Shekhar Dhotre [mailto:sdhotre at Cedardoc.com]
> > Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 9:25 AM
> > To: Bliss, Aaron; General Red Hat Linux discussion list
> > Subject: RE: Permit root login for telnet..
> >
> > Again that's all good . But, can you tell me how to see password of
> > other sysadmin if he is accessing system via telnet?
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bliss, Aaron [mailto:ABliss at preferredcare.org]
> > Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 9:22 AM
> > To: Bliss, Aaron; Shekhar Dhotre; General Red Hat Linux discussion
>list
> > Subject: RE: Permit root login for telnet..
> >
> > Telnet is also vulnerable to man in the middle attacks and ssh offers
> > post authentication; telnet does not.
> >
> > Aaron
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: redhat-list-bounces at redhat.com
> > [mailto:redhat-list-bounces at redhat.com] On Behalf Of Bliss, Aaron
> > Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 9:13 AM
> > To: Shekhar Dhotre; General Red Hat Linux discussion list
> > Subject: RE: Permit root login for telnet..
> >
> > Telent is a clear text protocol; ssh isn't.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: redhat-list-bounces at redhat.com
> > [mailto:redhat-list-bounces at redhat.com] On Behalf Of Shekhar Dhotre
> > Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 9:11 AM
> > To: General Red Hat Linux discussion list
> > Subject: RE: Permit root login for telnet..
> >
> > I have used telnet before ssh came in to the market . Do you know how
>to
> > hack telnet ? or break a root password without having physical access
>to
> > the system ? most likely the answer will be - NO .. so what's the big
> > deal in ssh vs. telnet ?
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: redhat-list-bounces at redhat.com
> > [mailto:redhat-list-bounces at redhat.com] On Behalf Of Greg Golin
> > Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 2:12 AM
> > To: General Red Hat Linux discussion list
> > Subject: Re: Permit root login for telnet..
> >
> > Dear Arun,
> >
> > You do NOT want to enable root login via telnet - trust me on this
> > one. Please tell the list what you are trying to accomplish - 99.9%
> > chance is that whatever you are trying to do can, and should be done
> > via ssh.
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Gregory Golin
> > Systems Admin
> >
> > On 8/24/06, Arun Williams <perks_williams at yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> >
> >> How can i enable root login for telnet....
> >>
> >>   I tried editing /etc/pam.d/login .... but no use
> >>
> >>
> >> ____________________________
> >> Regards
> >> A.Williams
> >> IN THIS WORLD FULL OF DREAMS AND IMAGINATION, LOOK FOR
> >>
> > POSSIBILITIES...
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------
> >>  Here's a new way to find what you're looking for - Yahoo! Answers
> >> Send FREE SMS to your friend's mobile from Yahoo! Messenger Version
> >>
> > 8. Get it NOW
> >
> >> --
> >> redhat-list mailing list
> >> unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request at redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
> >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>--
>--
>eats the blues for breakfast,
>does unix for rent,
>plays harp for food,
>will play the flute for kicks
>rides for the freedom
>scrapes for thechallenge
>
>--
>redhat-list mailing list
>unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request at redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
>https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
>
>--
>redhat-list mailing list
>unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request at redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
>https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 19
>Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 16:06:08 -0400
>From: "Ryan Golhar" <golharam at umdnj.edu>
>Subject: NFS server not responding
>To: "'General Red Hat Linux discussion list'" <redhat-list at redhat.com>
>Message-ID: <003301c6c881$e7d04400$2f01a8c0 at GOLHARMOBILE1>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>I've google'd all over about this and can't seem to find a solution so
>I'm hoping someone here can give some guidance...
>
>I have a NFS server running Solaris in a far-off location
>
>I have a bunch of RHEL 3 WS NFS clients mounting directories off the NFS
>server in another location.
>
>In /etc/fstab I have this entry to mount user home directories:
>
>scifs:/users            /users                  nfs     rw
>0 0
>
>99% of the time things work well, but every once in a while the NFS
>mount causes the machines to hang when used.
>
>When I attempt to tar up a directory tree, the machine tends to hang.  I
>wasn't sure what was going on at first but it looks like I have some
>sort of an NFS issue.
>
>I keep seeing these messages in /var/log/messages:
>
>Aug 25 15:36:54 kernel: nfs: server scifs not responding, still trying
>Aug 25 15:39:09 kernel: nfs: server scifs not responding, still trying
>Aug 25 15:39:09 kernel: nfs: server scifs OK Aug 25 15:40:09 kernel:
>nfs: server scifs not responding, still trying Aug 25 15:40:32 kernel:
>nfs: server scifs OK Aug 25 15:40:42 kernel: nfs: server scifs not
>responding, still trying Aug 25 15:40:43 kernel: nfs: server scifs OK
>
>I check with our network IT folks and they show minimal network usage
>between the machines (they are on different subnets in different
>locations).  I double-checked by doing an scp of an directory structure
>from one machines local disk to another machines local disk and it is
>fast, as expected.
>
>I ran ethereal to capture packets between the two machines and see the
>tar process starting.  At some point, I start to see fragmented packets.
>I'm not sure if this means anything (just yet).
>
>So, I'm at a loss.  I don't know how to track down this problem, or even
>where to start looking.  Google turned up similar issues, but there
>isn't a consensus as to what is causing it.  Any ideas?
>
>Ryan
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 20
>Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 14:39:59 -0600
>From: Jeremy Lyon <Jeremy.Lyon at us.ibm.com>
>Subject: Re: NFS server not responding
>To: golharam at umdnj.edu, General Red Hat Linux discussion list
>         <redhat-list at redhat.com>
>Message-ID:
> 
><OF891DEBEB.484CB46A-ON872571D5.0071045C-872571D5.00718657 at us.ibm.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I have a NFS server running Solaris in a far-off location
>
>You may want to start off looking at the NFS threads on the Solaris
>machine.  I believe the default is 16, which really won't cut it if you
>have many active clients.  We have bumped our threads up to 1000 in our
>production environments.
>
>-Jeremy Lyon, RHCE
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 21
>Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 14:59:08 -0700
>From: "Greg Golin" <greg.golin at gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: Commentary on the seven words
>To: "General Red Hat Linux discussion list" <redhat-list at redhat.com>
>Message-ID:
>         <e32a6a390608251459t6191bf44j685b76d4136f4ceb at mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>This list routinely is asked to help with redhat-8 and 9. It is also
>routinely asked to help with enabling rsh and telnet. (Now if a person
>tells me that "this is just testing", my head says "testing is done
>before production"). So if someone is asking me "hey, um, I need to
>get downstairs from this 10 story building, which window would be best
>to jump out of?", guess what. I will show them the stairs AND the
>elevator and keep them away from the windows.
>
>Sorry.
>
>Regards,
>Gregory Golin
>Systems Administrator
>
>On 8/25/06, Burke, Thomas G. <tg.burke at ngc.com> wrote:
> > And this would have been a good way to preface a message on how to turn
> > on root access to telnet.
> >
> > Shoot, I use SSH & all that, but if I wanted to allow it for some
> > reason, I'd ask (especially since I've been using ssh so long I don't
> > remember how) - but I can think of reasons why I'd maybe want to do this
> > - but only from within a firewalled area, or something completely
> > disconnected from the outside world.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: redhat-list-bounces at redhat.com
> > [mailto:redhat-list-bounces at redhat.com] On Behalf Of Bliss, Aaron
> > Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 2:27 PM
> > To: Marc Wiatrowski; General Red Hat Linux discussion list
> > Subject: RE: Commentary on the seven words
> >
> > Didn't mean to step on anyone's toes; I was just trying to help; I'm
> > sure some people will disagree, but it's generally a better security
> > practice not to use clear text protocols such as telnet or ftp whenever
> > possible, which why I recommend sftp and ssh...
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: redhat-list-bounces at redhat.com
> > [mailto:redhat-list-bounces at redhat.com] On Behalf Of Marc Wiatrowski
> > Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 2:23 PM
> > To: 'General Red Hat Linux discussion list'
> > Subject: RE: Commentary on the seven words
> >
> > When someone going down a dead end road stops and asks for directions,
> > do you explain the correct route or help him make a new road the way he
> > is headed?
> >
> > marc
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: darrel barton
> > > Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 2:11 PM
> > > To: redhat-list at redhat.com
> > > Subject: Commentary on the seven words
> > >
> > >
> > > As a programmer, I routinely turn to guru's for support -- especially
> > > for operating system and utility advice and assistance and there are
> > > SEVEN words -- seven very unwelcome words that I hear from time to
> > > time that
> > > drive me up the wall.   Not George Carlin's 7 words but another set:
> > >
> > > Why Do You Want To Do That?
> > >
> > > I don't want to seem like I'm attacking anyone here, because I know
> > > that almost everyone means well and help, whether it's what we intend
> > > or not --
> > > is still help.  But there is a danger too.   When someone
> > > writes to say
> > >
> > > 200 PORT command successful. Consider using PASV. Hangs.
> > >
> > > and the response he gets is "try sftp" there seem to be a hugely
> > > missing
> > > ingredient:   All we did was give the man a work around to a
> > > problem.  Even
> > > if there are 400 alternatives ... FTP is SUPPOSED to work and someone
> > > should CARE that it doesn't.   Well, sftp helped him and he's
> > > on his way
> > > and that's great.   The only problem is that, in this case,
> > > 'sftp' was
> > > merely a workaround to a problem and if people aren't careful, Linux
> > > will become wat the original AT&T Unix was -- and that is to say
> > > nothing more that a PILE of workarounds.
> > >
> > > I wrote in with a complaint that Linux will allow a process (like Tar,
> >
> > > Cpio, DD, etc) to create archives larger than that same system can
> > > read
> > > back.   Think of it as that elusive Write Only Memory we're all heard
> > > about.   Several people contacted me and told me all about
> > > Gzip and how to
> > > make the archive smaller and other people said it wasn't Linux' fault
> > > it
> > > was the file's fault and etc., etc., and etc.   I wonder if
> > > these same
> > > people would be so forgiving of a workaround if the problem was that
> > > Linux would allow a process to write to disc blocks in excess of the
> > > number of physical blocks without reporting errors?
> > >
> > > There is a guy that wants to be able to log in to ROOT via Telnet and
> > > people write back telling him that he doesn't want to even do
> > > that.   Well
> > > guess what?   I administrate one system that has 128 clients
> > > on it and it's
> > > NOT EVEN CONNECTED TO THE INTERNET.   Or .. Intranet.   One
> > > server, 128
> > > thin clients.   Why can't I log on to Root from one of those
> > > clients if I
> > > want to without the 262 additional levels of complication that ssh
> > > provides?   (OK -- I know that YOU have never ever EVER had a
> > > problem with
> > > ssh.  Nor anyone you've ever known.  And every ssh client you have
> > > ever seen works seamlessly with every ssh server that's ever been
> > > written .. but trust me, out there ... once ... back in 1986 .. there
> > > WAS a guy who had ssh problems.
> > >
> > > So when a guy writes to ask about how to enable root login from
> > > telnet, can't someone just say "I hope you know that's not as secure
> > > as ssh -- but here's how you enable that ...... ?
> > >
> > > Please just remember that some of us here have been slogging through
> > > this stuff for the last 20 years, trying to get an application to run,
> >
> > > a documented operating system function to actually function -- and
> > > occasionally get enough things working that a client actually PAYS
> > > us.   We're not always here to hear about the way we coulda, shoulda,
> > > woulda restructured the whole process around stuff that some of you
> > > guys only invented last week, ok?
> > >
> > > "Why Do You Want To Do That?"
> > >
> > > Would be a more fair question if someone needed that answer in order
> > > to better understand the request -- but far too often it's not that --
> >
> > > it's the beginning of someone telling me how THEY think I should be
> > > doing my job.
> > >
> > > So please, folks, the next time we want to do something differently
> > > that you think you'd do it if you were in our shoes ... cut us some
> > > slack and just help us out, OK?  We'd do the same for you.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > redhat-list mailing list
> > unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request at redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
> >
> >
> >
> > Confidentiality Notice:
> > The information contained in this electronic message is intended for the
> > exclusive use of the individual or entity named above and may contain
> > privileged or confidential information.  If the reader of this message
> > is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible to
> > deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
> > dissemination, distribution or copying of this information is
> > prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please
> > notify the sender immediately by telephone and destroy the copies you
> > received.
> >
> >
> > --
> > redhat-list mailing list
> > unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request at redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
> >
> > --
> > redhat-list mailing list
> > unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request at redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
> >
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>__
>redhat-list mailing list
>Unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request at redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
>https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
>
>End of redhat-list Digest, Vol 30, Issue 26
>*******************************************
>
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.6/427 - Release Date: 8/24/2006


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.6/427 - Release Date: 8/24/2006