Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #163067 > unrolled thread

eagle-lin64-7.5.0.run, won't

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  eagle-lin64-7.5.0.run, won't Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-01-15 00:40 +0100
    Re: eagle-lin64-7.5.0.run, won't Brandon Vincent <Brandon.Vincent@asu.edu> - 2016-01-15 01:40 +0100
      Re: eagle-lin64-7.5.0.run, won't Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-01-15 03:40 +0100
    Re: eagle-lin64-7.5.0.run, won't Anders Andersson <pipatron@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 06:10 +0100
      Re: eagle-lin64-7.5.0.run, won't Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-01-15 06:30 +0100
    Re: eagle-lin64-7.5.0.run, won't Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2016-01-16 05:40 +0100
      Re: eagle-lin64-7.5.0.run, won't Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-01-16 07:10 +0100
        Re: eagle-lin64-7.5.0.run, won't Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 11:10 +0100
          Re: eagle-lin64-7.5.0.run, won't Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-01-16 12:00 +0100
            Re: eagle-lin64-7.5.0.run, won't Brandon Vincent <Brandon.Vincent@asu.edu> - 2016-01-16 14:10 +0100
              Re: eagle-lin64-7.5.0.run, won't Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-01-16 18:20 +0100
                Re: eagle-lin64-7.5.0.run, won't Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2016-01-17 01:50 +0100
                  Re: eagle-lin64-7.5.0.run, won't Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-01-17 02:30 +0100
                    Re: eagle-lin64-7.5.0.run, won't Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2016-01-17 15:50 +0100
                      Re: eagle-lin64-7.5.0.run, won't Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-01-17 23:30 +0100
                        Re: eagle-lin64-7.5.0.run, won't Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 23:40 +0100
            Re: eagle-lin64-7.5.0.run, won't Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2016-01-16 17:00 +0100
              Re: eagle-lin64-7.5.0.run, won't Brandon Vincent <Brandon.Vincent@asu.edu> - 2016-01-16 17:10 +0100
                Re: eagle-lin64-7.5.0.run, won't Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2016-01-16 17:20 +0100
                  Re: eagle-lin64-7.5.0.run, won't Brandon Vincent <Brandon.Vincent@asu.edu> - 2016-01-16 17:30 +0100
                    Re: eagle-lin64-7.5.0.run, won't Brandon Vincent <Brandon.Vincent@asu.edu> - 2016-01-16 17:50 +0100
                      Re: eagle-lin64-7.5.0.run, won't Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-01-16 18:50 +0100
                      Re: eagle-lin64-7.5.0.run, won't <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2016-01-17 14:10 +0100
                    Re: eagle-lin64-7.5.0.run, won't Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2016-01-16 17:50 +0100
              Re: eagle-lin64-7.5.0.run, won't Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-01-16 18:30 +0100
                Re: eagle-lin64-7.5.0.run, won't Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 23:50 +0100
                  Re: eagle-lin64-7.5.0.run, won't Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-01-17 02:20 +0100
                    Re: eagle-lin64-7.5.0.run, won't Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 03:10 +0100
                  Re: eagle-lin64-7.5.0.run, won't <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2016-01-17 14:10 +0100
                    Re: eagle-lin64-7.5.0.run, won't Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 15:00 +0100
                Re: eagle-lin64-7.5.0.run, won't David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-01-17 04:30 +0100
                  Re: eagle-lin64-7.5.0.run, won't Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-01-17 05:50 +0100
                Re: eagle-lin64-7.5.0.run, won't Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2016-01-17 15:20 +0100
                  Re: eagle-lin64-7.5.0.run, won't Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-01-17 23:30 +0100
                    Re: eagle-lin64-7.5.0.run, won't Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 23:40 +0100
                    Re: eagle-lin64-7.5.0.run, won't Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2016-01-19 11:00 +0100
                      Re: eagle-lin64-7.5.0.run, won't Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 12:40 +0100
                        Re: eagle-lin64-7.5.0.run, won't Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> - 2016-01-19 14:10 +0100
                          Re: eagle-lin64-7.5.0.run, won't Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-01-19 15:50 +0100
                        Re: eagle-lin64-7.5.0.run, won't Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2016-01-19 18:00 +0100
                      Re: eagle-lin64-7.5.0.run, won't Cindy-Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 14:00 +0100
                        Re: eagle-lin64-7.5.0.run, won't Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-01-19 15:50 +0100

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#163157

On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 9:42 AM, Curt <curty@free.fr> wrote:
> Thank you for your time. Just another misapprehension I've been laboring
> under these many years.

I actually linked to the wrong article. I've never been able to find
actual Bash documentation that states this.

It just has always worked.

Brandon Vincent

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#163166

On Saturday 16 January 2016 11:45:58 Brandon Vincent wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 9:42 AM, Curt <curty@free.fr> wrote:
> > Thank you for your time. Just another misapprehension I've been
> > laboring under these many years.
>
> I actually linked to the wrong article. I've never been able to find
> actual Bash documentation that states this.
>
> It just has always worked.
>
> Brandon Vincent

Legal since at least RH5.0 in late 1997.  Thats when I built my first 
linux box.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#163205

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 09:45:58AM -0700, Brandon Vincent wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 9:42 AM, Curt <curty@free.fr> wrote:
> > Thank you for your time. Just another misapprehension I've been laboring
> > under these many years.
> 
> I actually linked to the wrong article. I've never been able to find
> actual Bash documentation that states this.
> 
> It just has always worked.

It's just there in the manual (referring to info bash):

  3.7.2 Command Search and Execution
  ----------------------------------
  
  After a command has been split into words, if it results in a simple
  command and an optional list of arguments, the following actions are
  taken.
  
    1. If the command name contains no slashes, the shell attempts to
       locate it.  If there exists a shell function by that name, that
       function is invoked as described in *note Shell Functions::.
  
    2. If the name does not match a function, the shell searches for it in
       the list of shell builtins.  If a match is found, that builtin is
       invoked.
  
    3. If the name is neither a shell function nor a builtin, and contains
       no slashes, Bash searches each element of '$PATH' for a directory
       containing an executable file by that name.  Bash uses a hash table
       to remember the full pathnames of executable files to avoid
       multiple 'PATH' searches (see the description of 'hash' in *note
       Bourne Shell Builtins::).  A full search of the directories in
       '$PATH' is performed only if the command is not found in the hash
       table.  If the search is unsuccessful, the shell searches for a
       defined shell function named 'command_not_found_handle'.  If that
       function exists, it is invoked with the original command and the
       original command's arguments as its arguments, and the function's
       exit status becomes the exit status of the shell.  If that function
       is not defined, the shell prints an error message and returns an
       exit status of 127.
       [...]

That means that all the "special handling" (i.e. looking up a shell
function, going through $PATH, etc.) only happens when the command
contains no slashes. It's only for those cases where you'd need a
"." in $PATH if you want commands in the current directory executed
right away, a custom which is discouraged, because it's too easily
a vector for exploits[1] (it used to be standard behaviour under DOS,
which was one of the surprises for DOS migrants).

If you call the "local" command ./foo, then it contains slashes, so
special behaviour doesn't apply.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[1] Eve puts an executable shell script under /tmp named `ls',
    containing the line "rm -Rf $HOME/". Alice does:

      cd /tmp
      ls

    and is henceforth homeless.

regards
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlabiJgACgkQBcgs9XrR2kYe1gCdHPlM549sUht/gGW6R87YYE6S
+TMAnAshVl3y6mGei4RHesn1UrQeX1e5
=72Wo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#163158

On 2016-01-16, Brandon Vincent <Brandon.Vincent@asu.edu> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Curt <curty@free.fr> wrote:
>> I don't see what you're referring to in there.
>
> Eagle installs itself into your home directory under a folder called
> "eagle-7.5.0". Inside this folder is the "bin" folder in which the
> Eagle executable is stored. If you are in the ~/eagle-7.5.0 directory,
> typing "bin/eagle" should launch Eagle. Bash will launch an executable
> with only a relative path. It's only when you specify no path, that ./
> becomes necessary (assuming a normal $PATH).

Thank you for your time. Just another misapprehension I've been laboring
under these many years. 

> Brandon Vincent
>
>


-- 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#163164

On Saturday 16 January 2016 10:57:55 Curt wrote:

> On 2016-01-16, Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> wrote:
> >> So its full path is /home/gene/eagle-7.5.0/bin/eagle, not
> >> /bin/eagle?
> >>
> >> Lisi
> >
> > I was cd'd to /home/gene/eagle-7.5.0 and the command issued was
> > bin/eagle, which is perfectly legal syntax.
>
> Not if bin is not in your path it isn't.

Oh?  Since when?  Neither is /home/gene/log, but I use that regularly in 
several scrips and from the command line since I have a 
user=me "tail -fn100 log/fetchmail.log" running in a console tab right 
now.  I long ago got sick and tired of fighting with permissions on 
stuff in  /var/log that I ought to be able to read, and moved stuff that 
belongs to me to /home/gene/log, including in the logrotate scripts.

If that syntax is now broken, somebody forgot to tell my mostly wheezy 
system.

> Otherwise, the message from bash is:
>
> bash: eagle: command not found
>
> not
>
> bash: /bin/eagle: No such file or directory
>
> > FWIW, I even tried the full path, same error.  And I could cd into
> > bin and eagle was visible in an ls listing, but wasn't found by an
> > ./eagle

FWIW, I do have /home/gene/bin in my $PATH, and there is no difference in 
how the stuff in gene/bin runs. I put it early in the path so I could 
override what may be in more conventional paths on this system with many 
years of cruft accumulated. But now I can type "mailwatcher 2>&1 
>/dev/null &" or "bin/mailwatcher 2>&1 >/dev/null &" and either works.

I had a heck of a time getting it unpacked, similar problems. If eagle 
wants to be a cast iron bitch about who can run their stuff, it IS 
eagles problem now, I  have enough of gEDA running to get the job done.

Thanks Curt.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#163182

On Saturday 16 January 2016 17:28:32 Gene Heskett wrote:
> somebody forgot to tell my mostly wheezy system.
[snip]
> this system with many years of cruft accumulated.

And it doesn't run like an entirely Wheezy system with no cruft.  Now there's 
a surprise!

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#163186

On Saturday 16 January 2016 17:42:25 Lisi Reisz wrote:

> On Saturday 16 January 2016 17:28:32 Gene Heskett wrote:
> > somebody forgot to tell my mostly wheezy system.
>
> [snip]
>
> > this system with many years of cruft accumulated.
>
> And it doesn't run like an entirely Wheezy system with no cruft.  Now
> there's a surprise!
>
> Lisi

1. No, it doesn't, thanks to some of that bash script cruft I've written 
because I'm lazy, so its about 10x as automatic for all the stuff I do 
as a default install would be.  For me, thats a huge labor saver.

2. The prime directive is that it IS capable of running LinuxCNC, and 
that limits my kernel choices, particularly if running real machinery, 
which must have 1 millisecond response times with the I/O card I am 
using.  Without it, I'd be driving the steppers in software, at about 
1/3rd their maximum speed, which requires less than 10 microseconds of 
jitter in the timing.

So lets put that horse back in the barn with a nose bag of quality oats 
for desert.  When the LCNC crew releases a new iso, probably sometime 
after April, the other 3 machines will probably be re-installed from the 
new iso, and once amanda is installed, I can recover all the data they 
need in 15 minutes per machine  In the meantime, I am running what I 
brung to this party on this machine.

FWIW I just reinstalled apt and all its kinfolks, no change, so I 
installed adept, which didn't work, stuck in refresh forever, except it 
wasn't, the file menu was still active, but several attempts to manage 
the repos were ignored, and when I gave it up and click on quit, I got a 
crash report so I filed it.

And apt-check, except for adept, throws that spam in the messages log 
when any of the other package managers runs it. I doesn't appear to be 
effecting things, and I haven't a clue where to look after coming up dry 
except for the apt file in /etc/cron.daily.

Cheers Lisi, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#163188

On Sunday 17 January 2016 01:11:04 Gene Heskett wrote:
> FWIW I just reinstalled apt and all its kinfolks, no change, so I
> installed adept, which didn't work, stuck in refresh forever, except it
> wasn't, the file menu was still active, but several attempts to manage
> the repos were ignored, and when I gave it up and click on quit, I got a
> crash report so I filed it.
>
> And apt-check, except for adept, throws that spam in the messages log
> when any of the other package managers runs it. I doesn't appear to be
> effecting things, and I haven't a clue where to look after coming up dry
> except for the apt file in /etc/cron.daily.

I tried really hard to understand what you were trying to do and how you were 
trying to do it, with a view to trying to help.  I failed miserably.  Why are 
you re-installing "apt and all its kinfolks", and what are "all its 
kinfolks"?

I understand that you are running what you are running for a reason.  But you 
keep pretending that it ought to run smoothly like a nice new vanilla system.  
Of course it won't.  And it is the fault of neither Debian nor TDE that you 
have special needs.  Oh, there is no reason why you shouldn't ask for those 
needs to be met, but you cannot call things broken, if either you don't like 
them, or they don't like your very idiosyncratic system.

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#163203

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 10:42:25PM +0000, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Saturday 16 January 2016 17:28:32 Gene Heskett wrote:
> > somebody forgot to tell my mostly wheezy system.
> [snip]
> > this system with many years of cruft accumulated.
> 
> And it doesn't run like an entirely Wheezy system with no cruft.  Now there's 
> a surprise!

If by "cruft" you mean "user customizations"... then I *love* my cruft.
That's why I use free systems, after all. I don't want just a theoretical
Right to Tinker, I actually do -- the horrors ;-)

regards
- -- t
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlabiiQACgkQBcgs9XrR2kbqSACdFyMR1vXX5H7mNG7O09OiI9Xv
8ksAn35QXCAkDi649BdIuxQkMuvaWp/i
=AdTt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#163208

On Sunday 17 January 2016 12:33:40 tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 10:42:25PM +0000, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > On Saturday 16 January 2016 17:28:32 Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > somebody forgot to tell my mostly wheezy system.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > this system with many years of cruft accumulated.
> >
> > And it doesn't run like an entirely Wheezy system with no cruft.  Now
> > there's a surprise!
>
> If by "cruft" you mean "user customizations"... then I *love* my cruft.
> That's why I use free systems, after all. I don't want just a theoretical
> Right to Tinker, I actually do -- the horrors ;-)

Of course!!!  But do you then complain that it does not behave how the vanilla 
installation is supposed to, and the vanilla installation has a bug.  Surely 
its behaving differently is the whole point!! :-)

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#163189

On Sat 16 Jan 2016 at 12:28:32 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Saturday 16 January 2016 10:57:55 Curt wrote:
> 
> > On 2016-01-16, Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> wrote:
> > >> So its full path is /home/gene/eagle-7.5.0/bin/eagle, not
> > >> /bin/eagle?
> > >>
> > >> Lisi
> > >
> > > I was cd'd to /home/gene/eagle-7.5.0 and the command issued was
> > > bin/eagle, which is perfectly legal syntax.
> >
> > Not if bin is not in your path it isn't.
> 
> Oh?  Since when?  Neither is /home/gene/log, but I use that regularly in 
> several scrips and from the command line since I have a 
> user=me "tail -fn100 log/fetchmail.log" running in a console tab right 
> now.

No syntax problems here. And I wouldn't quarrel with
    tail -fn100 log/fetchmail.log
in a script either. However, I don't think it wise to write anything like
    bin/eagle
into a script. That could accidentally run bin/eagle from whichever
directory you (or the script) happen to find yourself in.

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#163191

On Saturday 16 January 2016 22:22:34 David Wright wrote:

> On Sat 16 Jan 2016 at 12:28:32 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Saturday 16 January 2016 10:57:55 Curt wrote:
> > > On 2016-01-16, Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> wrote:
> > > >> So its full path is /home/gene/eagle-7.5.0/bin/eagle, not
> > > >> /bin/eagle?
> > > >>
> > > >> Lisi
> > > >
> > > > I was cd'd to /home/gene/eagle-7.5.0 and the command issued was
> > > > bin/eagle, which is perfectly legal syntax.
> > >
> > > Not if bin is not in your path it isn't.
> >
> > Oh?  Since when?  Neither is /home/gene/log, but I use that
> > regularly in several scrips and from the command line since I have a
> > user=me "tail -fn100 log/fetchmail.log" running in a console tab
> > right now.
>
> No syntax problems here. And I wouldn't quarrel with
>     tail -fn100 log/fetchmail.log
> in a script either. However, I don't think it wise to write anything
> like bin/eagle
> into a script. That could accidentally run bin/eagle from whichever
> directory you (or the script) happen to find yourself in.
>
> Cheers,
> David.

Can we put this to rest?  If eagle wants to play persnickity, there ARE 
other fish in the pond that can do the job, I just have to learn how to 
use them.

And I am making progress, I finally convinced gEDA/pcb to spot drill the 
15 holes for the 6 parts and 3 outside world connections.  Now its up to 
me to get rid of about 8.5" between the machines home Z position, rotate 
the generated pattern 90 degrees to "stand it on end" and then step & 
repeat to make 6 of them per pass on my mill. I already invented that 
wheel tonight, but didn't discover the code was defective until I had 
wasted 2.5" off the end of a sheet of 2oz copper clad, double-sided 
fiberglass material. NBD, I have more, as long as each iteration is 
better than the last. A nice sharp carbide blade on my table saw gets 
rid of the mistakes. ;-)

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#163213

On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 12:28:32PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Saturday 16 January 2016 10:57:55 Curt wrote:
> 
> > On 2016-01-16, Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> wrote:
> > >> So its full path is /home/gene/eagle-7.5.0/bin/eagle, not
> > >> /bin/eagle?
> > >>
> > >> Lisi
> > >
> > > I was cd'd to /home/gene/eagle-7.5.0 and the command issued was
> > > bin/eagle, which is perfectly legal syntax.
> >
> > Not if bin is not in your path it isn't.
> 
> Oh?  Since when?  Neither is /home/gene/log, but I use that regularly in 
> several scrips and from the command line since I have a 
> user=me "tail -fn100 log/fetchmail.log" running in a console tab right 

I think you'll find the 'tail' command is in your path, in this
instance. 

> now.  I long ago got sick and tired of fighting with permissions on 
> stuff in  /var/log that I ought to be able to read.

That's debatable, e.g. if I was sys admin of a multiuser system I
wouldn't any Tom Dick or Harry perusing the logs.

If you want to to query the logs get root to add you to the 'admin'
group. 

-- 
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the 
oppressing." --- Malcolm X

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#163227

On Sunday 17 January 2016 09:14:33 Chris Bannister wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 12:28:32PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Saturday 16 January 2016 10:57:55 Curt wrote:
> > > On 2016-01-16, Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> wrote:
> > > >> So its full path is /home/gene/eagle-7.5.0/bin/eagle, not
> > > >> /bin/eagle?
> > > >>
> > > >> Lisi
> > > >
> > > > I was cd'd to /home/gene/eagle-7.5.0 and the command issued was
> > > > bin/eagle, which is perfectly legal syntax.
> > >
> > > Not if bin is not in your path it isn't.
> >
> > Oh?  Since when?  Neither is /home/gene/log, but I use that
> > regularly in several scrips and from the command line since I have a
> > user=me "tail -fn100 log/fetchmail.log" running in a console tab
> > right
>
> I think you'll find the 'tail' command is in your path, in this
> instance.

tail is the program, not the argument.  The argument of course is the 
list of options between tail and the filename its supposed to look at.
>
> > now.  I long ago got sick and tired of fighting with permissions on
> > stuff in  /var/log that I ought to be able to read.
>
> That's debatable, e.g. if I was sys admin of a multiuser system I
> wouldn't any Tom Dick or Harry perusing the logs.
>
> If you want to to query the logs get root to add you to the 'admin'
> group.

I hadn't thought of that.  My bad. OTOH, although no one has come thru 
the router except to view my web page, do I really want to do that in 
the event they do get thru?  That could make their raising a little hell 
just that much easier.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#163230

On Sunday 17 January 2016 22:19:34 Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Sunday 17 January 2016 09:14:33 Chris Bannister wrote:
> > I think you'll find the 'tail' command is in your path, in this
> > instance.
>
> tail is the program, not the argument.  The argument of course is the
> list of options between tail and the filename its supposed to look at.

If tail weren't the program it surely wouldn't be in your path??  It is 
executables that have to be in your path in order for them to be executed.

So in order for tail to be executed, you must either give the whole path to 
reach it, or it must be in your $PATH.

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#163277

On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 05:19:34PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> 
> I hadn't thought of that.  My bad. OTOH, although no one has come thru 
> the router except to view my web page, do I really want to do that in 
> the event they do get thru?  That could make their raising a little hell 
> just that much easier.

Only root can add a user to the admin group.

-- 
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the 
oppressing." --- Malcolm X

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#163278

On Tuesday 19 January 2016 09:59:23 Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 05:19:34PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > I hadn't thought of that.  My bad. OTOH, although no one has come thru
> > the router except to view my web page, do I really want to do that in
> > the event they do get thru?  That could make their raising a little hell
> > just that much easier.
>
> Only root can add a user to the admin group.

Can sudo not?  Gene has sudo.

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#163283

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 11:38:11AM +0000, Lisi Reisz wrote:
>On Tuesday 19 January 2016 09:59:23 Chris Bannister wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 05:19:34PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> > I hadn't thought of that.  My bad. OTOH, although no one has come thru
>> > the router except to view my web page, do I really want to do that in
>> > the event they do get thru?  That could make their raising a little hell
>> > just that much easier.
>>
>> Only root can add a user to the admin group.
>
>Can sudo not?  Gene has sudo.

sudo asks root to perform a task. There should be no difference between 
"sudo make me a sandwich" and "su ; make me a sandwich ; logoff" (except 
for certain things like sudo's environment sanitsation). Both should 
result in root making a sandwich for the user.

>
>Lisi
>

-- 
For more information, please reread.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#163286

On Tuesday 19 January 2016 08:00:12 Darac Marjal wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 11:38:11AM +0000, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> >On Tuesday 19 January 2016 09:59:23 Chris Bannister wrote:
> >> On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 05:19:34PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> >> > I hadn't thought of that.  My bad. OTOH, although no one has come
> >> > thru the router except to view my web page, do I really want to
> >> > do that in the event they do get thru?  That could make their
> >> > raising a little hell just that much easier.
> >>
> >> Only root can add a user to the admin group.
> >
> >Can sudo not?  Gene has sudo.
>
> sudo asks root to perform a task. There should be no difference
> between "sudo make me a sandwich" and "su ; make me a sandwich ;
> logoff" (except for certain things like sudo's environment
> sanitsation). Both should result in root making a sandwich for the
> user.
>
Where can I get one of those accessories?, it would come in handy lots of 
times. ;-)

> >Lisi


Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#163295

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 11:38:11AM +0000, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 January 2016 09:59:23 Chris Bannister wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 05:19:34PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > I hadn't thought of that.  My bad. OTOH, although no one has come thru
> > > the router except to view my web page, do I really want to do that in
> > > the event they do get thru?  That could make their raising a little hell
> > > just that much easier.
> >
> > Only root can add a user to the admin group.
> 
> Can sudo not?  Gene has sudo.

sure, that's effectively being root. My point is that anyone 'coming in'
via the router would have to get root privileges to change any settings,
and if they can do that then reading the logs is the least of your
worries. :)

-- 
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the 
oppressing." --- Malcolm X

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web