|
copy paste john galt ironically
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2018 04:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 19:56 |
|
|
el dorito posted:copy paste john galt ironically got you fam
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2018 05:01
|
|
|
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you’re referring to as Linux, is in fact, systemd/Linux, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, systemd plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning systemd system made useful by the systemd corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX. Many computer users run a modified version of the systemd system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of systemd which is widely used today is often called “Linux”, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the systemd system, developed by the systemd Project. There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine’s resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the systemd operating system: the whole system is basically systemd with Linux added, or systemd/Linux. All the so-called “Linux” distributions are really distributions of systemd/Linux.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2018 05:58
|
|
|
Edgy
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2018 07:50
|
|
|
Captain Foo posted:I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you’re referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's ^C
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2018 15:25
|
|
|
GNU's Not Useful
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2018 15:41
|
|
|
Cocoa Crispies posted:GNU's, Not Useful
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2018 15:43
|
|
|
I heard wine is not a emulator.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2018 15:45
|
|
|
RMS = RMS makes software
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2018 21:04
|
|
|
Gazpacho posted:RMS = RMS makes software I guess he’s made more software than esr but that’s really not a very high bar
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2018 21:24
|
|
|
similarly to ESR, many of the things RMS takes credit for were originally made by other people makes you think
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 02:05
|
|
|
wasn’t GCC based on code for some other project too? oh yeah, here it is: quote:Stallman's initial plan was to rewrite an existing compiler from Lawrence Livermore Laboratory from Pastel to C with some help from Len Tower and others. Stallman wrote a new C front end for the Livermore compiler, but then realized that it required megabytes of stack space, an impossibility on a 68000 Unix system with only 64 KB, and concluded he would have to write a new compiler from scratch. None of the Pastel compiler code ended up in GCC, though Stallman did use the C front end he had written. so GCC might be the most original of his work: wrote a C front-end for an existing back-end, then had to replace the back-end because it gobbled memory much better than just slapping his own copyright on the existing back-end and shipping it as part of his project
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 02:11
|
|
|
= esr shoots rifles
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 05:33
|
|
|
what are some "must have"/quality of life non-greybeard tools that may come in handy managing a centos 7 server? im basically responsible for our prod environment so i feel like i should at least start getting things like groups, permissions, folders, etc right and not have it be a streaming pile of piss with chmod -R 777 in every other folder. the big boogieman for me is actually making rear end from head in cases where i have say a scheduling service running on user fartman69 that calls a python script xyz (?who runs python?) that outputs bunch of files into folders of a git repo (?who runs git?) which are used by web service running on user internetnumber219 or things like that, e.g. do i now like make a user groups idiots and chgrp -R / or something? e: to clarify, this is a one-off deployment (hopefully), so im probably not after ansible or chef or whatever is the config management/automated deployment tool of the year
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 12:22
|
|
|
vim
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 14:39
|
|
|
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you’re referring to as Linux is not Unix, is in fact, GNU's Not Unix/GNU's Not Unix/Linux is not Unix, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, GNU's Not Unix plus GNU's Not Unix plus Linux is not Unix. Linux is not Unix is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU's Not Unix Plus GNU's Not Unix system made useful by the GNU's Not Unix Plus GNU's Not Unix corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX. Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU's Not Unix Plus GNU's Not Unix system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU's Not Unix which is widely used today is often called “GNU's Not Unix Plus Linux is not Unix”, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU's Not Unix Plus GNU's Not Unix system, developed by the GNU's Not Unix Plus GNU's Not Unix Project. There really is a GNU's Not Unix Plus Linux is not Unix, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. GNU's Not Unix Plus Linux is not Unix is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine’s resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. GNU's Not Unix Plus Linux is not Unix is normally used in combination with the GNU's Not Unix Plus GNU's Not Unix operating system: the whole system is basically GNU's Not Unix Plus GNU's Not Unix with GNU's Not Unix Plus Linux is not Unix added, or GNU's Not Unix Plus GNU's Not Unix/GNU's Not Unix Plus Linux is not Unix. All the so-called “GNU's Not Unix Plus Linux is not Unix” distributions are really distributions of GNU's Not Unix Plus GNU's Not Unix/GNU's Not Unix Plus Linux is not Unix.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 17:56
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:what was the richard copypasta found it - No, Richard, it's 'Linux', not 'GNU/Linux'. The most important contributions that the FSF made to Linux were the creation of the GPL and the GCC compiler. Those are fine and inspired products. GCC is a monumental achievement and has earned you, RMS, and the Free Software Foundation countless kudos and much appreciation. Following are some reasons for you to mull over, including some already answered in your FAQ. One guy, Linus Torvalds, used GCC to make his operating system (yes, Linux is an OS -- more on this later). He named it 'Linux' with a little help from his friends. Why doesn't he call it GNU/Linux? Because he wrote it, with more help from his friends, not you. You named your stuff, I named my stuff -- including the software I wrote using GCC -- and Linus named his stuff. The proper name is Linux because Linus Torvalds says so. Linus has spoken. Accept his authority. To do otherwise is to become a nag. You don't want to be known as a nag, do you? (An operating system) != (a distribution). Linux is an operating system. By my definition, an operating system is that software which provides and limits access to hardware resources on a computer. That definition applies whereever you see Linux in use. However, Linux is usually distributed with a collection of utilities and applications to make it easily configurable as a desktop system, a server, a development box, or a graphics workstation, or whatever the user needs. In such a configuration, we have a Linux (based) distribution. Therein lies your strongest argument for the unwieldy title 'GNU/Linux' (when said bundled software is largely from the FSF). Go bug the distribution makers on that one. Take your beef to Red Hat, Mandrake, and Slackware. At least there you have an argument. Linux alone is an operating system that can be used in various applications without any GNU software whatsoever. Embedded applications come to mind as an obvious example. Next, even if we limit the GNU/Linux title to the GNU-based Linux distributions, we run into another obvious problem. XFree86 may well be more important to a particular Linux installation than the sum of all the GNU contributions. More properly, shouldn't the distribution be called XFree86/Linux? Or, at a minimum, XFree86/GNU/Linux? Of course, it would be rather arbitrary to draw the line there when many other fine contributions go unlisted. Yes, I know you've heard this one before. Get used to it. You'll keep hearing it until you can cleanly counter it. You seem to like the lines-of-code metric. There are many lines of GNU code in a typical Linux distribution. You seem to suggest that (more LOC) == (more important). However, I submit to you that raw LOC numbers do not directly correlate with importance. I would suggest that clock cycles spent on code is a better metric. For example, if my system spends 90% of its time executing XFree86 code, XFree86 is probably the single most important collection of code on my system. Even if I loaded ten times as many lines of useless bloatware on my system and I never excuted that bloatware, it certainly isn't more important code than XFree86. Obviously, this metric isn't perfect either, but LOC really, really sucks. Please refrain from using it ever again in supporting any argument. Last, I'd like to point out that we Linux and GNU users shouldn't be fighting among ourselves over naming other people's software. But what the heck, I'm in a bad mood now. I think I'm feeling sufficiently obnoxious to make the point that GCC is so very famous and, yes, so very useful only because Linux was developed. In a show of proper respect and gratitude, shouldn't you and everyone refer to GCC as 'the Linux compiler'? Or at least, 'Linux GCC'? Seriously, where would your masterpiece be without Linux? Languishing with the HURD? If there is a moral buried in this rant, maybe it is this: Be grateful for your abilities and your incredible success and your considerable fame. Continue to use that success and fame for good, not evil. Also, be especially grateful for Linux' huge contribution to that success. You, RMS, the Free Software Foundation, and GNU software have reached their current high profiles largely on the back of Linux. You have changed the world. Now, go forth and don't be a nag. Thanks for listening.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 18:00
|
|
|
you can use a group to share the directory between users but you also have to share the files and that may require modifying the python script to set the group on each new file More generally I guess load up the coreurils manual and read the summary for every command?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 18:15
|
|
|
Gazpacho posted:you can use a group to share the directory between users but you also have to share the files and that may require modifying the python script to set the group on each new file it just seems annoying to crawl through the system and figure out what user do 50 things run under and then try to somehow manage permissions for all that
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 18:17
|
|
|
now add selinux now realize that any actual attacker will not even care about any of this because they'll just use a local privilege escalation exploit to turn code execution into root user-level security on linux is mostly pantomime. the stuff that's actually effective is namespacing and syscall restriction.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 18:21
|
|
|
Sapozhnik posted:now add selinux eh its on local network only so liability for attackers is elsewhere. i just dont want something accidentally delete or the like, and pulling everything under a single user feels, idk, clunky?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 18:23
|
|
|
Gazpacho posted:you can use a group to share the directory between users but you also have to share the files and that may require modifying the python script to set the group on each new file just set your effective gid before running the script newgrp in shell, or setegid(3) from a real programming language
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 18:23
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:just set your effective gid before running the script what's this in simple english?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 18:25
|
|
|
when you create a new file, its user/group owner are set to your current user and group newgrp / setegid(3) is how you choose what your current group is (since your user is usually a member of multiple groups)
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 18:26
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:eh its on local network only so liability for attackers is elsewhere. i just dont want something accidentally delete or the like, and pulling everything under a single user feels, idk, clunky? then yes, use groups. maybe posix acls if you need something more flexible (setfacl). multiple non-administrator flesh-and-blood users interactively logging in to a linux system is a rather unusual use case these days.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 18:27
|
|
|
fun trivia: 'newgrp' is what the password field is for in the groups database. you can actually set a password on a group and force the user to enter the password before setting that gid i have never, ever seen this done in the wild
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 18:28
|
|
|
Sapozhnik posted:multiple non-administrator flesh-and-blood users interactively logging in to a linux system is a rather unusual use case these days. it's really not
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 18:29
|
|
|
Sapozhnik posted:then yes, use groups. maybe posix acls if you need something more flexible (setfacl). its never been usual. that's why posix permissions are a nightmare
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 18:29
|
|
|
ah, alright. so, linux users can have multiple groups, and i can tell a process/command to act as as a specific group, do i get that right? if so, that's good enough for, to tick off mental checkboxes or whatever ill just make various app folder in /etc/ or /srv/ or whatever, and build group-based permissions for them is it possible to define, for instance, /etc/foo/ have chmod for 744 for group bar but 777 for group baz (bad example, i know, just curious if that's a thing at all)
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 18:31
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:it just seems annoying to crawl through the system and figure out what user do 50 things run under and then try to somehow manage permissions for all that
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 18:32
|
|
|
Gazpacho posted:messes don't clean themselves, but if this is all part of one system you can just put all the processes on the same user account, or as many as possible, and thereby limit the need for groups im setting a new server from a clean slate so it should be nicer - i wouldnt even try to bother with this on the old one, there i just resigned and have a root cronjob for python script that shits out everything in one operation
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 18:36
|
|
|
have you tried capability-based security? iAPX 432 is the future and i will never shut up about this
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 18:38
|
|
|
Sapozhnik posted:user-level security on linux is mostly pantomime. the stuff that's actually effective is namespacing and syscall restriction.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 18:46
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:is it possible to define, for instance, /etc/foo/ have chmod for 744 for group bar but 777 for group baz (bad example, i know, just curious if that's a thing at all) that is possible via ACLs, but people don't use ACLs very often the problem with ACLs is that there are three mutually incompatible systems: Linux/POSIX ACLs, Windows ACLs, and NFSv4 ACLs. on your local filesystem, you define permissions in terms of linux/posix, but when you export that filesystem over a network, those perms now have to be converted on the fly to one of the other two systems. and that process sucks. so people avoid ACLs despite how useful they are 
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 19:02
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:that is possible via ACLs, but people don't use ACLs very often sounds like i can use those then, this is a glorified web server that isn't exporting filesystem anywhere in my understanding of what you are saying. worst case scenario i imagine is having a separate script that wraps around update from git to set these things right for new files
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 19:08
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:ah, alright. so, linux users can have multiple groups, and i can tell a process/command to act as as a specific group, do i get that right? if so, that's good enough for, to tick off mental checkboxes or whatever Each file/folder can have one group, and permissions are what that user/group/everyone can do to it. Each user can have multiple groups, however, and thats how you control access.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 19:10
|
|
|
Sapozhnik posted:now add selinux the term is security theatre and its an art
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 22:50
|
|
|
Sapozhnik posted:user-level security on linux is mostly pantomime. the stuff that's actually effective is namespacing and syscall restriction. freebsd jails and solarish zones are a way better container model than namespaces+cgroups+apparmor/selinux that you have to wrangle separately. ffs, with 'jails' the name says it all: incarcerate your processes
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 23:03
|
|
|
SamDabbers posted:solarish zones code:
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 23:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 19:56 |
|
as a user of GNU/Windows the distinction from GNU/Linux is important to me 
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 23:28
|
|
