-----Forwarded Message----- > From: Benjamin Vander Jagt <benjaminvanderjagt@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: shrike-list@xxxxxxxxxx > Subject: More bugs in 9 than 8.1-3? Samba DoS, Mozilla, Prelink problems > Date: 17 Apr 2003 16:37:41 -0400 > > As for Samba, I'm about ready to flip! I just set it up in Psyche > (still with the exact same smb.conf file I had that worked fine before), > and now it's not allowing writes to vfat shares, either. I just checked > my permissions on the /sharedc folder, and they were read/write/execute > for root and read/execute for everyone else. In fstab, I switched > "defaults" for "umask=000" (which somehow sets the mask to 777, where > umask=777 sets the mask to 000), and I also updated Samba with up2date. > No dice. I set the permissions on the mounted folder on the client > system to 777, no cigar. I added all users to all groups in smbusers. > Login was a little different, but still can't write to that one > directory. I have no problem writing to the Ext3 share. Windows > clients can't write to the vfat share, though everyone can write to it > when I start Windows on the server. > > It's definitely on the server end, but the stupid thing is that > smb.conf, smbusers, smbpasswd, and fstab are all the same. Plus, when I > set it up before, I never had to use smbpasswd -a for anyone, since it's > a guest only share. I'm gonna go nuts if I try configuring it anymore. > This is a totally fresh install of Psyche, and when I did a totally > fresh install of Psyche on the twin computer next to it and used the > same smb.conf file (except changing filenames), everything worked fine. > > I'm sure it's my own fault, but instead of f'ing with it anymore, I'm > just gonna resign myself to it. > > I end up with a few choices...stay in Windows (haha), move all my data > to the system that works, or (my preference) convert the vfat *back* to > ext3 *again*. Initially, I set it up as vfat so that I would be able to > access the data every time I go into Windows, and the shares would still > be active. Since I only went into Windows once in the last four months > (actually, a guest went into Windows so that he could play > Civilization...again, haha!), I'm just gonna switch over to Ext3. Ext3 > kicks butt anyway. I'll probably set the directory and create masks to > 777 and set forceuser to root, tho, since most of the users share data > with eachother. Plus, I don't wanna stick a file on the share and then > not be able to share it since nobody else is "root" as far as Samba is > concerned. > > Anyway, I digress. That's Psyche. It seems unlikely that it's a Shrike > problem, unless it actually modified the vfat partition. Shrike > workstations still have the problem with just sitting there, doing > nothing after mounting a share (possibly what's causing systems to not > boot up). When I run smbmount, it mounts the drive, but it stays in the > same process until I press ctrl-c. It still mounts the share every > time, though. In my rc.local file, I usually add the smbmount lines, > and when it hangs up on those, I can't do ctrl-c. > > I'll let you know if I ever figure out what's going wrong. > > > You should never run as root on your system unless doing maintenance > > tasks, there is no good reason to do so :) > > > I would agree, only use root when needed, never any other time. > > I thank you for your input and your help, but I'm getting tired of > everyone (and every program) saying not to run as root. I understand > the virtues of separating levels of execution (which is what makes the > kernel so much stronger than Windows' "Let's give Calculator the ability > to mess with the partition table if it wants to," philosophy.) On all > the workstation systems here, each user knows his root's password, so if > they want to screw stuff up, they can. (Of course that does open up > access for malicious code, but we're simply careful about what programs > we run. Plus, all the data is backed up regularly, and no sensitive > data is available on the network.) > > What really gets on my nerves, running as user, is when I am in the > middle of something and need to get root access. Like, when I'm in > Nautilus and I carefully select a bunch of files that I want to copy. I > go to the destination folder and try to paste them, but the paste > command doesn't show up. Then I realize that the directory is under > someone else's name, so I su and type nautilus from the terminal. I > right click to paste, but it doesn't have the same files on the > clipboard, since now it's someone else's clipboard, so now I have to > re-open the source folder and start over again. > > I can kinda deal with that myself, but having to guide family members > over the phone "Open a terminal, enter 'su', enter the root password, > type nautilus or konqueror..." Wanna burn a CD? Gotta enter that root > password. > > Besides that, considering that everyone here is proficient enough to > install their own software, they now must type a password every time > they want to do anything. > > Why isn't there a "remember password" like a couple other popular > distro's have? No matter, running as root works perfectly for all my > needs (except that sometimes I actually find programs that refuse to > install as root, preaching about the dangers of running as root). > > Running as root isn't for everyone, but it's not "not for anyone". > Eventually, programs may become more user-friendly (so to speak) so that > they can switch to root control by simply entering a password. > > Linux is organized much better for security, and I appreciate it, such > as making programs "ask" the kernel to do things instead of "telling" > the processor what to do. I like, and in fact, completely agree with > file ownership and permissions, but I would also like to see global > ownership work just as well for systems that need reliability and not > necessarily security (since running as root opens up the possibilities > for viruses, though still very very unlikely that any viruses can > effectively propagate.) > > Overall, I'm pleased with how well most stuff works using /root instead > of /home/user. Most games these days simply give a warning one time > that running as root will save settings in the /root directory instead > of the /home/user directory. > > > put it in /root/.bashrc maybe? > > YAY!! COOL! Thank you, thank you, thank you...you don't know how many > scripts I tried piggybacking into! (Now to get xscreensaver to write to > root's .xscreensaver file instead of nobody's.) Only one hickup...it > adds localhost every time I open a terminal. I can live with that. :-p > > Perhaps if I can find the .xsession equivalent, I can have it run xhost > +localhost right before opening the window manager. > > I have never been able to figure out the GNOME search-for-files > command. I give it files in locations I know are there, like > ".xscreensaver" in "/root", and it doesn't find it. Does it absolutely > refuse to find hidden files? That can't be the case. When I search for > ".xscreensaver" in "/", I get one match...the .xscreensaver file in > /slackware/root. > > > Stick with 9, just don't bother prelinking :) Works great here... > > Sorry, won't work...at least not on the server / my computer. :-( I'm > not gonna bother prelinking, tho, that's for sure. Has anyone done so > with success? If so, did it make a measurable difference? I don't much > like the idea of "if it doesn't work, just don't do it". I read that a > few other people are having the same problems after prelinking. > > I don't think I can stick with 9 here. Actually, I've got Slackware > running on the server as well (I have Win98, Slackware 9, RedHat 8.0, > and RedHat 9 installed on the server.) Slackware is doing fine as a > server. (..and doing surprisingly well at other stuff, too. I'm > impressed with how mature it is as an OS! I thought it was gonna be > like the hundreds of other 1 CD distro's whose mottos are "Small size, > few features", but instead it has been able to compile everything I've > thrown at it, comes equipped with everything except a video player, and > detects all the hardware in the house perfectly. Even Gnome starts > stuff lightning fast, though strangely, everything seems to *run* > slower.) If you're wondering where my allegiance and preference stand, > I'm in RedHat 8.0 here right now, and three quarters of the computers > here run Shrike. Only two computers here even have non-RedHat distro's > on them. > > Besides, I wanna play Transgaming WineX compatible games. ;-D > Apparently they haven't introduced the --with-nptl option. (This brings > up a few questions. Anyone know, is it because Wine is now Lesser GPL? > Is Wine's LGPL why Shrike doesn't have it? Or was --with-nptl not > available soon enough?) > > On an even further tangential topic, we use Linux as a gaming, > multimedia, internet bowsing, instant messaging, word processing, > bookkeeping, and music authoring system here, because it works better. > Funny thing, MCSE's like telling me that Linux is only able to work as a > server. (I will never get over the glee I felt when I saw the > expression on an MCSE's face...he came over, and we watched a DVD. > After the DVD, the MPlayer screen came up. I closed it, and there was a > big flying penguin on the desktop. Of course, he still thinks that > Linux can't be used as a multimedia OS.) > > > Are you sure the user you are trying to use over Samba can write to > the > > mounted drive? Usually when mounting a vfat partition only the id > > mounting it (usually root) can write to it. It might work on the > other > > systems because of differences in /etc/fstab. > > Sorry, it doesn't mount on any systems, Windows nor Linux, even when I > force-user as root. > > Mozilla > > For those who had the same problems I had in Mozilla, did you by any > chance install Kopete or the native AIM? There is a stronger > correlation between Kopete and the bugs, but AIM is in such a position > that it would be more likely to cause Mozilla troubles. I can > understand Kopete's binaries being incompatible and therefore crashing > (which it doesn't...it runs perfectly), but I couldn't understand it > breaking Mozilla which it seems to do. > > Prelinking > > I tried again, and it screwed stuff up again. I ran it in Psyche again, > and everything slowed down again. However, that's when I do --all > --conserve-memory. When I do -av, I have no problems, but likewise > there is precisely no change in memory consumption, startup times, > program start times, etc., in either Psyche or Shrike.
