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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #201220 > unrolled thread

Micro-report: using Stable without systemd

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

Contents

  Micro-report: using Stable without systemd Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2018-10-14 16:40 +0200
    Re: Micro-report: using Stable without systemd <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-10-14 18:20 +0200
      Re: Pico-report: using Stable without sysvinit Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-10-14 20:30 +0200
        Re: Pico-report: using Stable without sysvinit Default User <hunguponcontent@gmail.com> - 2018-10-14 22:10 +0200
          Re: Pico-report: using Stable without sysvinit Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-10-14 22:30 +0200
            Re: Pico-report: using Stable without sysvinit <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-10-15 10:10 +0200
              Re: Pico-report: using Stable without sysvinit Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2018-10-15 10:50 +0200
                OT (as was to be expected) Trolling [was: Pico-report: using Stable  without sysvinit] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-10-15 11:10 +0200
                Re: Pico-report: using Stable without sysvinit Default User <hunguponcontent@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 16:50 +0200
    Re: Micro-report: using Stable without systemd Tixy <tixy@yxit.co.uk> - 2018-10-14 18:20 +0200
      Re: Micro-report: using Stable without systemd <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-10-14 18:40 +0200
        Re: Micro-report: using Stable without systemd Tixy <tixy@yxit.co.uk> - 2018-10-14 19:50 +0200
    Re: Micro-report: using Stable without systemd john doe <johndoe65534@mail.com> - 2018-10-14 18:30 +0200
      Re: Micro-report: using Stable without systemd Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2018-10-14 19:30 +0200
    Re: Micro-report: using Stable without systemd Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2018-10-14 22:00 +0200
      Re: Micro-report: using Stable without systemd Erik Christiansen <dvalin@internode.on.net> - 2018-10-15 07:20 +0200
    Re: Micro-report: using Stable without systemd Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2018-10-15 15:50 +0200
      Re: Micro-report: using Stable without systemd Kenneth Parker <sea7kenp@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 16:20 +0200
        Re: Micro-report: using Stable without systemd Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2018-10-16 11:20 +0200
          Re: Micro-report: using Stable without systemd <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-10-16 11:40 +0200
            Re: Micro-report: using Stable without systemd Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2018-10-16 17:40 +0200
              Re: Micro-report: using Stable without systemd Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2018-10-16 18:20 +0200
                Re: Micro-report: using Stable without systemd Default User <hunguponcontent@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 18:40 +0200
                  Re: Micro-report: using Stable without systemd <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-10-16 19:10 +0200
                    Re: Micro-report: using Stable without systemd Default User <hunguponcontent@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 20:20 +0200
                    Re: Micro-report: using Stable without systemd Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2018-10-16 22:40 +0200
                    Re: Micro-report: using Stable without systemd Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2018-10-16 23:50 +0200
                      Re: Micro-report: using Stable without systemd <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-10-17 10:30 +0200
                        Re: Micro-report: using Stable without systemd Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2018-10-17 11:20 +0200
                          Re: Micro-report: using Stable without systemd <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-10-17 12:00 +0200
                      Re: Micro-report: using Stable without systemd Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2018-10-17 10:50 +0200
                      Re: Micro-report: using Stable without systemd Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2018-10-17 14:50 +0200
                        Re: Micro-report: using Stable without systemd Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2018-10-17 15:50 +0200
                Re: Micro-report: using Stable without systemd Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2018-10-16 19:10 +0200
                  Re: Micro-report: using Stable without systemd Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2018-10-16 19:30 +0200
                    Re: Micro-report: using Stable without systemd mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 21:20 +0200
                      X11 Forwarding and inet6 support on loopback (Was: Micro-report:  using Stable without systemd) Étienne Mollier <etienne.mollier@mailoo.org> - 2018-10-16 22:40 +0200
                    Re: Micro-report: using Stable without systemd Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2018-10-17 00:20 +0200
                      Re: Micro-report: using Stable without systemd David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-10-17 01:20 +0200
                        Re: Micro-report: using Stable without systemd Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2018-10-17 02:20 +0200
                          Re: Micro-report: using Stable without systemd Felmon Davis <davisf@union.edu> - 2018-10-17 08:40 +0200
                      Re: Micro-report: using Stable without systemd mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 06:00 +0200
                        Re: Micro-report: using Stable without systemd David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-10-17 07:00 +0200
                          Re: Micro-report: using Stable without systemd mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 09:50 +0200
                            Re: Micro-report: using Stable without systemd David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-10-18 00:40 +0200
                      Re: Micro-report: using Stable without systemd Morel Bérenger <berenger.morel@sga-automation.com> - 2018-10-17 10:40 +0200
                        Re: Micro-report: using Stable without systemd Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2018-10-17 11:00 +0200
                          Re: Micro-report: using Stable without systemd Morel Bérenger <berenger.morel@sga-automation.com> - 2018-10-17 12:20 +0200
                            Re: Micro-report: using Stable without systemd Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2018-10-17 19:20 +0200
                              Re: Micro-report: using Stable without systemd Morel Bérenger <berenger.morel@sga-automation.com> - 2018-10-18 12:00 +0200
                      Re: Micro-report: using Stable without systemd Morel Bérenger <berenger.morel@sga-automation.com> - 2018-10-17 11:40 +0200
                  Re: Micro-report: using Stable without systemd Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2018-10-16 22:40 +0200
                Re: Micro-report: using Stable without systemd Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2018-10-16 21:50 +0200
          Re: Micro-report: using Stable without systemd john doe <johndoe65534@mail.com> - 2018-10-16 16:40 +0200
            Re: Micro-report: using Stable without systemd Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2018-10-16 18:10 +0200
              Re: Micro-report: using Stable without systemd Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> - 2018-10-16 20:40 +0200
    Re: Micro-report: using Stable without systemd Morel Bérenger <berenger.morel@sga-automation.com> - 2018-10-16 21:30 +0200
      Re: Micro-report: using Stable without systemd Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> - 2018-10-17 11:00 +0200

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#201353

On Tue, 16 Oct 2018, Gene Heskett wrote:

> Other things on my mind, like the cataract op on my right eye at 7AM,

good luck with that! I had both eyes done this past Spring.

fjd

-- 
Felmon Davis

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

#201347

On 2018-10-16 22:53, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 October 2018 13:11:45 Greg Wooledge wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 12:43:40PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> > #1 is ssh -Y has been killed from jessie on. No excuse for doing it
>> > and bug filing is ignored.
>> 
>> I don't know what you mean by this.  I just performed the following
>> experiment on my stretch workstation (wooledg), in communications with
>> a stretch server (arc3) elsewhere on our network.
>> 
>> 1) Already logged into wooledg, I opened a new urxvt window.
>> 
>> 2) In this window, I typed: ssh -Y arc3
>> 
>> 3) After authenticating to arc3 with a password, at the shell prompt,
>> I typed: xterm
>> 
>> 4) After a moment, a new xterm window appeared on my display.
> 
> Thats expected. Now enter synaptic-pkexec. It should ask you, if you 
> are
> user 1000, for a passwd and given it, it will run. But after wheezy, 
> its
> not possible. LinuxCNC's graphics needs are modest, and it will run, as
> the user. But its not root.

seems correct you can't use X over ssh as root.
I don't know why but always seemed wrong running X as root.


mick


-- 
Key ID    4BFEBB31

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

#201351

On Wed 17 Oct 2018 at 04:35:36 (+0100), mick crane wrote:
> On 2018-10-16 22:53, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Tuesday 16 October 2018 13:11:45 Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > 
> > > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 12:43:40PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > > #1 is ssh -Y has been killed from jessie on. No excuse for doing it
> > > > and bug filing is ignored.
> > > 
> > > I don't know what you mean by this.  I just performed the following
> > > experiment on my stretch workstation (wooledg), in communications with
> > > a stretch server (arc3) elsewhere on our network.
> > > 
> > > 1) Already logged into wooledg, I opened a new urxvt window.
> > > 
> > > 2) In this window, I typed: ssh -Y arc3
> > > 
> > > 3) After authenticating to arc3 with a password, at the shell prompt,
> > > I typed: xterm
> > > 
> > > 4) After a moment, a new xterm window appeared on my display.
> > 
> > Thats expected. Now enter synaptic-pkexec. It should ask you, if
> > you are
> > user 1000, for a passwd and given it, it will run. But after
> > wheezy, its
> > not possible. LinuxCNC's graphics needs are modest, and it will run, as
> > the user. But its not root.
> 
> seems correct you can't use X over ssh as root.
> I don't know why but always seemed wrong running X as root.

To be fair, I don't think Gene is trying to run X as root (which would
an X *server*), but just a client. Yes, I agree that running X as root
would be horrible, but I have no difficulty in running an X client as
root, either on the same machine or having logged in as root (by key)
to another machine. But I would be very choosy about which clients I'd
be prepared to run.

Cheers,
David.

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

#201355

On 2018-10-17 05:33, David Wright wrote:
> On Wed 17 Oct 2018 at 04:35:36 (+0100), mick crane wrote:
>> On 2018-10-16 22:53, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> > On Tuesday 16 October 2018 13:11:45 Greg Wooledge wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 12:43:40PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> > > > #1 is ssh -Y has been killed from jessie on. No excuse for doing it
>> > > > and bug filing is ignored.
>> > >
>> > > I don't know what you mean by this.  I just performed the following
>> > > experiment on my stretch workstation (wooledg), in communications with
>> > > a stretch server (arc3) elsewhere on our network.
>> > >
>> > > 1) Already logged into wooledg, I opened a new urxvt window.
>> > >
>> > > 2) In this window, I typed: ssh -Y arc3
>> > >
>> > > 3) After authenticating to arc3 with a password, at the shell prompt,
>> > > I typed: xterm
>> > >
>> > > 4) After a moment, a new xterm window appeared on my display.
>> >
>> > Thats expected. Now enter synaptic-pkexec. It should ask you, if
>> > you are
>> > user 1000, for a passwd and given it, it will run. But after
>> > wheezy, its
>> > not possible. LinuxCNC's graphics needs are modest, and it will run, as
>> > the user. But its not root.
>> 
>> seems correct you can't use X over ssh as root.
>> I don't know why but always seemed wrong running X as root.
> 
> To be fair, I don't think Gene is trying to run X as root (which would
> an X *server*), but just a client. Yes, I agree that running X as root
> would be horrible, but I have no difficulty in running an X client as
> root, either on the same machine or having logged in as root (by key)
> to another machine. But I would be very choosy about which clients I'd
> be prepared to run.

meant clients. I'm a bit uncertain how exporting X works.
Had it working with keys as user and left it alone.
Assume ssh on remote sends X requests to machine you are sat at.
Changed a bit sshd_config on remote to check this but guess that might 
be sshd_config on sat at machine and ssh_config on remote ( or both, I 
dunno ).
will have a fiddle but assume it's not meant to work.

mick




> Cheers,
> David.

-- 
Key ID    4BFEBB31

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

#201396

On Wed 17 Oct 2018 at 08:32:30 (+0100), mick crane wrote:
> On 2018-10-17 05:33, David Wright wrote:
> > On Wed 17 Oct 2018 at 04:35:36 (+0100), mick crane wrote:
> > > On 2018-10-16 22:53, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday 16 October 2018 13:11:45 Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 12:43:40PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > > > > #1 is ssh -Y has been killed from jessie on. No excuse for doing it
> > > > > > and bug filing is ignored.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't know what you mean by this.  I just performed the following
> > > > > experiment on my stretch workstation (wooledg), in communications with
> > > > > a stretch server (arc3) elsewhere on our network.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) Already logged into wooledg, I opened a new urxvt window.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2) In this window, I typed: ssh -Y arc3
> > > > >
> > > > > 3) After authenticating to arc3 with a password, at the shell prompt,
> > > > > I typed: xterm
> > > > >
> > > > > 4) After a moment, a new xterm window appeared on my display.
> > > >
> > > > Thats expected. Now enter synaptic-pkexec. It should ask you, if
> > > > you are
> > > > user 1000, for a passwd and given it, it will run. But after
> > > > wheezy, its
> > > > not possible. LinuxCNC's graphics needs are modest, and it will run, as
> > > > the user. But its not root.
> > > 
> > > seems correct you can't use X over ssh as root.
> > > I don't know why but always seemed wrong running X as root.
> > 
> > To be fair, I don't think Gene is trying to run X as root (which would
> > an X *server*), but just a client. Yes, I agree that running X as root
> > would be horrible, but I have no difficulty in running an X client as
> > root, either on the same machine or having logged in as root (by key)
> > to another machine. But I would be very choosy about which clients I'd
> > be prepared to run.
> 
> meant clients. I'm a bit uncertain how exporting X works.
> Had it working with keys as user and left it alone.
> Assume ssh on remote sends X requests to machine you are sat at.
> Changed a bit sshd_config on remote to check this but guess that might
> be sshd_config on sat at machine and ssh_config on remote ( or both, I
> dunno ).
> will have a fiddle but assume it's not meant to work.

As Greg wrote above, I'd sit at the machine (A) running the X server
and open an xterm. I'd then obtain root (I use su). Now I'd ssh -X
into root on the other machine (B) by means of keys. IIRC at this
point A would write a /root/.Xauthority file on B if required. Now I'd
type, say, xeyes on B (in the xterm) and expect to see the eyes pop up
on the Xserver screen at A.

Using sudo at any stage might complicate this, and a client could also
decide whether to run or not depending on certain security criteria.
I can't help with that as I'm not familiar with Gene's client, and
also I use sudo only to perform various "potted" tasks like shutdown
(and then only on the same machine as the user).

Cheers,
David.

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

#201357

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

Le Tue, 16 Oct 2018 17:53:37 -0400,
Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> a écrit :

> On Tuesday 16 October 2018 13:11:45 Greg Wooledge wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 12:43:40PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:  
> > > #1 is ssh -Y has been killed from jessie on. No excuse for doing
> > > it and bug filing is ignored.  
> >
> > I don't know what you mean by this.  I just performed the following
> > experiment on my stretch workstation (wooledg), in communications
> > with a stretch server (arc3) elsewhere on our network.
> >
> > 1) Already logged into wooledg, I opened a new urxvt window.
> >
> > 2) In this window, I typed: ssh -Y arc3
> >
> > 3) After authenticating to arc3 with a password, at the shell
> > prompt, I typed: xterm
> >
> > 4) After a moment, a new xterm window appeared on my display.  
> 
> Thats expected. Now enter synaptic-pkexec. It should ask you, if you
> are user 1000, for a passwd and given it, it will run. But after
> wheezy, its not possible. LinuxCNC's graphics needs are modest, and
> it will run, as the user. But its not root. And root is denied
> regardless of how you go about obtaining root permissions.

Also, I wonder if you tried to do that through, for example Xephyr?
Might workaround the issue you have?

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

#201359

On Wednesday 17 October 2018 04:00:37 Morel Bérenger wrote:

> Le Tue, 16 Oct 2018 17:53:37 -0400,
>
> Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> a écrit :
> > On Tuesday 16 October 2018 13:11:45 Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 12:43:40PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > > #1 is ssh -Y has been killed from jessie on. No excuse for doing
> > > > it and bug filing is ignored.
> > >
> > > I don't know what you mean by this.  I just performed the
> > > following experiment on my stretch workstation (wooledg), in
> > > communications with a stretch server (arc3) elsewhere on our
> > > network.
> > >
> > > 1) Already logged into wooledg, I opened a new urxvt window.
> > >
> > > 2) In this window, I typed: ssh -Y arc3
> > >
> > > 3) After authenticating to arc3 with a password, at the shell
> > > prompt, I typed: xterm
> > >
> > > 4) After a moment, a new xterm window appeared on my display.
> >
> > Thats expected. Now enter synaptic-pkexec. It should ask you, if you
> > are user 1000, for a passwd and given it, it will run. But after
> > wheezy, its not possible. LinuxCNC's graphics needs are modest, and
> > it will run, as the user. But its not root. And root is denied
> > regardless of how you go about obtaining root permissions.
>
> Also, I wonder if you tried to do that through, for example Xephyr?
> Might workaround the issue you have?

Well I was just reminded that gksudo works. Now what the heck is Xephyr? 
Google says its x on x, whatever that means. I'll try to remember that 
and play with it if its available for wheezy & later.

Thanks Morel Bérenger.

-- 
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]

#201365

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

Le Wed, 17 Oct 2018 04:40:49 -0400,
Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> a écrit :

> On Wednesday 17 October 2018 04:00:37 Morel Bérenger wrote:
> 
> > Le Tue, 16 Oct 2018 17:53:37 -0400,
> >
> > Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> a écrit :  
> > > On Tuesday 16 October 2018 13:11:45 Greg Wooledge wrote:  
> > > > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 12:43:40PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:  
> > > > > #1 is ssh -Y has been killed from jessie on. No excuse for
> > > > > doing it and bug filing is ignored.  
> > > >
> > > > I don't know what you mean by this.  I just performed the
> > > > following experiment on my stretch workstation (wooledg), in
> > > > communications with a stretch server (arc3) elsewhere on our
> > > > network.
> > > >
> > > > 1) Already logged into wooledg, I opened a new urxvt window.
> > > >
> > > > 2) In this window, I typed: ssh -Y arc3
> > > >
> > > > 3) After authenticating to arc3 with a password, at the shell
> > > > prompt, I typed: xterm
> > > >
> > > > 4) After a moment, a new xterm window appeared on my display.  
> > >
> > > Thats expected. Now enter synaptic-pkexec. It should ask you, if
> > > you are user 1000, for a passwd and given it, it will run. But
> > > after wheezy, its not possible. LinuxCNC's graphics needs are
> > > modest, and it will run, as the user. But its not root. And root
> > > is denied regardless of how you go about obtaining root
> > > permissions.  
> >
> > Also, I wonder if you tried to do that through, for example Xephyr?
> > Might workaround the issue you have?  
> 
> Well I was just reminded that gksudo works. Now what the heck is
> Xephyr? Google says its x on x, whatever that means. I'll try to
> remember that and play with it if its available for wheezy & later.
> 
> Thanks Morel Bérenger.
> 

The ncurses mode of aptitude says Xephyr is a X server that can be
executed inside another X server, more or less like Xnest (or xming,
for people like me that had to work on a windows station but wanted to
keep a nice wm embedded on personal hardware ;)).

I can not really explain how this works, but in short you could
consider a remote system providing the performances stuff (hard disk
space, strong CPU, tons or RAM...) and opening the X session on local
systems.
I think it might fix your problem because basically, su-programs
(probably PAM modules, in fact) do some security related checks to
avoid passwords to be sniffed by a client on another computer: which is
what I would expect a ssh -Y gksudo do.

If my explanation is not clear (and I'm certain of it), it's because I
don't really master that side of systems, sorry for that :)

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

#201386

On Wednesday 17 October 2018 05:38:38 Morel Bérenger wrote:

> Le Wed, 17 Oct 2018 04:40:49 -0400,
>
> Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> a écrit :
> > On Wednesday 17 October 2018 04:00:37 Morel Bérenger wrote:
> > > Le Tue, 16 Oct 2018 17:53:37 -0400,
> > >
> > > Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> a écrit :
> > > > On Tuesday 16 October 2018 13:11:45 Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 12:43:40PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > > > > #1 is ssh -Y has been killed from jessie on. No excuse for
> > > > > > doing it and bug filing is ignored.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't know what you mean by this.  I just performed the
> > > > > following experiment on my stretch workstation (wooledg), in
> > > > > communications with a stretch server (arc3) elsewhere on our
> > > > > network.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) Already logged into wooledg, I opened a new urxvt window.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2) In this window, I typed: ssh -Y arc3
> > > > >
> > > > > 3) After authenticating to arc3 with a password, at the shell
> > > > > prompt, I typed: xterm
> > > > >
> > > > > 4) After a moment, a new xterm window appeared on my display.
> > > >
> > > > Thats expected. Now enter synaptic-pkexec. It should ask you, if
> > > > you are user 1000, for a passwd and given it, it will run. But
> > > > after wheezy, its not possible. LinuxCNC's graphics needs are
> > > > modest, and it will run, as the user. But its not root. And root
> > > > is denied regardless of how you go about obtaining root
> > > > permissions.
> > >
> > > Also, I wonder if you tried to do that through, for example
> > > Xephyr? Might workaround the issue you have?
> >
> > Well I was just reminded that gksudo works. Now what the heck is
> > Xephyr? Google says its x on x, whatever that means. I'll try to
> > remember that and play with it if its available for wheezy & later.
> >
> > Thanks Morel Bérenger.
>
> The ncurses mode of aptitude says Xephyr is a X server that can be
> executed inside another X server, more or less like Xnest (or xming,
> for people like me that had to work on a windows station but wanted to
> keep a nice wm embedded on personal hardware ;)).
>
> I can not really explain how this works, but in short you could
> consider a remote system providing the performances stuff (hard disk
> space, strong CPU, tons or RAM...) and opening the X session on local
> systems.
> I think it might fix your problem because basically, su-programs
> (probably PAM modules, in fact) do some security related checks to
> avoid passwords to be sniffed by a client on another computer: which
> is what I would expect a ssh -Y gksudo do.
>
> If my explanation is not clear (and I'm certain of it), it's because I
> don't really master that side of systems, sorry for that :)

You at least, dug deep enough to see that pam was probably the guilty 
party, same conclusion I reached. Unforch, removing pam also pretty much 
nukes the whole system.

And I'm not seeing well enough to expound at length, cataract operation 
this morning.















-- 
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]

#201412

Le Wed, 17 Oct 2018 13:02:23 -0400,
Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> a écrit :

> On Wednesday 17 October 2018 05:38:38 Morel Bérenger wrote:
> 
> > Le Wed, 17 Oct 2018 04:40:49 -0400,
> >
> > Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> a écrit :  
> > > On Wednesday 17 October 2018 04:00:37 Morel Bérenger wrote:  
> > > > Le Tue, 16 Oct 2018 17:53:37 -0400,
> > > >
> > > > Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> a écrit :  
> > > > > On Tuesday 16 October 2018 13:11:45 Greg Wooledge wrote:  
> > > > > > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 12:43:40PM -0400, Gene Heskett
> > > > > > wrote:  
> > > > > > > #1 is ssh -Y has been killed from jessie on. No excuse for
> > > > > > > doing it and bug filing is ignored.  
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't know what you mean by this.  I just performed the
> > > > > > following experiment on my stretch workstation (wooledg), in
> > > > > > communications with a stretch server (arc3) elsewhere on our
> > > > > > network.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1) Already logged into wooledg, I opened a new urxvt window.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2) In this window, I typed: ssh -Y arc3
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3) After authenticating to arc3 with a password, at the
> > > > > > shell prompt, I typed: xterm
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 4) After a moment, a new xterm window appeared on my
> > > > > > display.  
> > > > >
> > > > > Thats expected. Now enter synaptic-pkexec. It should ask you,
> > > > > if you are user 1000, for a passwd and given it, it will run.
> > > > > But after wheezy, its not possible. LinuxCNC's graphics needs
> > > > > are modest, and it will run, as the user. But its not root.
> > > > > And root is denied regardless of how you go about obtaining
> > > > > root permissions.  
> > > >
> > > > Also, I wonder if you tried to do that through, for example
> > > > Xephyr? Might workaround the issue you have?  
> > >
> > > Well I was just reminded that gksudo works. Now what the heck is
> > > Xephyr? Google says its x on x, whatever that means. I'll try to
> > > remember that and play with it if its available for wheezy &
> > > later.
> > >
> > > Thanks Morel Bérenger.  
> >
> > The ncurses mode of aptitude says Xephyr is a X server that can be
> > executed inside another X server, more or less like Xnest (or xming,
> > for people like me that had to work on a windows station but wanted
> > to keep a nice wm embedded on personal hardware ;)).
> >
> > I can not really explain how this works, but in short you could
> > consider a remote system providing the performances stuff (hard disk
> > space, strong CPU, tons or RAM...) and opening the X session on
> > local systems.
> > I think it might fix your problem because basically, su-programs
> > (probably PAM modules, in fact) do some security related checks to
> > avoid passwords to be sniffed by a client on another computer: which
> > is what I would expect a ssh -Y gksudo do.
> >
> > If my explanation is not clear (and I'm certain of it), it's
> > because I don't really master that side of systems, sorry for
> > that :)  
> 
> You at least, dug deep enough to see that pam was probably the guilty 
> party,

I have not dug, not even a minute. It's just that I've always played a
lot with my debians, and I started really using it when Lenny was
testing.
Playing with apt-pining, agetty alternatives and alike tends to teach
some stuff, especially when one starts to have some years of background
to compare.
You know, the month I started really using something different from
windows, I stopped spitting on that system, because I understood that
(most of) the crashes were not windows' fault but coders doing their
job the wrong way.
It's so easy to hit the 1st thing one can see.

> same conclusion I reached. Unforch, removing pam also pretty
> much nukes the whole system.

Building a PAM-less distro based on Debian would be quite the
challenge, for sure.
I intend to try, some day, just for fun (PAM might also be part of the
reason Xorg have to be started by root, on sysV, and since systemd
comes into the game, this might have allowed them this improvement. It
seems the *BSD guys are taking a very different approach, I must learn
how they do that, because loading as root a shared library just to
read 2 files (or ask a server) seems bad for both performance and
security to me).

But I do not think it's the smartest solution to fix an actual,
real-life problem.
PAM is basically a set of dynamic libraries, and in theory (never
played with it, the whole model as I know it seems disgusting to me) you
can configure it to use a "module" or another one to identify a user or
an application.
Maybe this would be easier than hacking the whole distro to remove PAM.

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

#201362

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

Le Tue, 16 Oct 2018 17:53:37 -0400,
Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> a écrit :

> For me, its a right PITA because I am forced to goto that machines
> keyboard/monitor location when there is something I need to install.

I wonder why you don't use a tool like rex in combination with apt/dpkg
to update/install softwares on your systems?
I mean, this would allow you to do the task on all the systems you need
to do it, at once, instead of moving on every single computer by foot
or by network?

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

#201333

On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 12:43:40PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> You forget I'm a red hat ex-pat.
snip
>I understand that a stretch version is being worked on,
snip

I haven't forgotten anything: I didn't know, I don't need to know, and
none of what you wrote in this mail seems to have any relevance
whatsoever to what I thought we were discussing.

-- 

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.

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

#201330

On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 16:54:48 +0100
Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 11:18:10AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> >The packagers, who probably have a better overall view of just what
> >this thing called systemd is, should be speaking up to confirm or
> >dispel this rumor  
> 
> Why waste time giving credence to nonsense? Those who are prepared to
> believe that systemd is some NSA trojan via a complicit Red Hat are
> perfectly able to widen their paranoia to include any systemd packager
> or advocate in Debian.

I would have thought that the nonsense would be to assert that there is
any operating system in use today which is not completely transparent to
the US government, and maybe others. I'm quite confident that gcc and
every other capable publicly-available C compiler is compromised in the
way demonstrated more than thirty years ago.

In the same way, I assume my Internet router leaks like a sieve, along
with all other network equipment more complex than a hub. We know that
there is an additional CPU built into Intel processors, and I certainly
wouldn't assume that the same isn't true of AMD. And why store computer
logs in a way not readable by the computer's owner using simple
software? There's only one plausible reason.

It doesn't bother me: I'm of no interest to the people who run things,
and if I were to take up nefarious activities in the future, I wouldn't
rely on high technology for my communications and record-keeping. My
only real concern is that the CIA et al seem to be remarkably poor at
keeping their eavesdropping tools to themselves.

-- 
Joe

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

#201306

On 10/16/2018 11:01 AM, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 09:58:30AM -0400, Kenneth Parker wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018, 9:42 AM Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> wrote:
>>> It's currently at risk by a lack of maintainers for the sysvinit
>>> package.
>>
>> Does this mean that Devuan is also at risk?
> 
> I can merely speculate. I know very little about Devuan, but the
> impression I have got in the last day (entirely via mails from other
> people to debian mailing lists, I have not investigated myself) is that
> they are short on people-power. (so is Debian, of course!)
> 
> If sysvinit was removed from Debian, than this would increase the amount
> of work for Devuan quite significantly, because lots of individual
> Debian packages that currently implement sysvinit support would slowly
> start not to, and Devuan would have to patch support back in, over time.
> 
> This would be more work, IMHO, than if interested parties collaborated
> to support the sysvinit package and keep it in Debian.
> 

Hopefully, both parties (Debian/Devian) will come back to there senses
and will find a way to accomodate supporting Systemd and an alternative
init daemon.

-- 
John Doe

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

#201312

On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 04:18:52PM +0200, john doe wrote:
>Hopefully, both parties (Debian/Devian) will come back to there senses
>and will find a way to accomodate supporting Systemd and an alternative
>init daemon.

In the case of Debian, I don't think anyone is short of their senses.
Those who want sysvinit to stay are clear that they want help and will
work with others. There are just not *that* many volunteers who actually
care about it.

-- 

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.

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

#201326

On Tue 16/Oct/2018 17:52:15 +0200 Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 04:18:52PM +0200, john doe wrote:
>> Hopefully, both parties (Debian/Devian) will come back to there senses
>> and will find a way to accomodate supporting Systemd and an alternative
>> init daemon.
> 
> In the case of Debian, I don't think anyone is short of their senses.
> Those who want sysvinit to stay are clear that they want help and will
> work with others. There are just not *that* many volunteers who actually
> care about it.

I don't think Devuan will ever want to accommodate systemd.  Since they will
support sysvinit anyway, it looks like Debian will take their cooperation to
keep it alive.

SysV sounds stable enough to not require a lot of maintenance.  I hope systemd
won't steer toward incompatible dependencies, though.  I mean packages that
would depend on more than shim emulations.

Best
Ale
-- 

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

#201329

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

Le Sun, 14 Oct 2018 10:23:15 -0400,
Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> a écrit :

> I have encountered no problems that can be attributed to my choice of
> init system.

Doing the same. Works fine, except the fact network interfaces that are
using DHCPCD but are unplugged slow down the boot process *a lot*.
I could only solve that point by no longer
using /etc/network/interfaces and initialising stuff by hand in a
home-made service script (using runit on top of sysV here, so that's
pretty easy to do).

However, I would like to point out that the best way to have really no
traces of systemd in a system after a fresh install is to use
(c)debootstrap in minimal flavour, chroot in the resulting system,
install sysVinit, then the init metapackage (optional, obviously, but
may avoid problems from upgrades), all the stuff a working Debian needs
(netbase, kernel, etc...).

This is the only way to avoid having users and groups lying around for
nothing, or other stuff (files in /var, maybe  units (never really
checked)... ).
This is what I'm doing through a PXE installation that auto-installs
systems.

Concerning the fact systemd-udev's developers do not intend to support
non-systemd inits, I guess the best would be to port the Devuan's eudev
package to Debian.
That would probably not be that hard, and might become something I'll
need to do for work someday.

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

#201360

On Tue 16/Oct/2018 16:54:57 +0200 Morel Bérenger wrote:
> Le Sun, 14 Oct 2018 10:23:15 -0400,
> Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> a écrit :
> 
>> I have encountered no problems that can be attributed to my choice of
>> init system.
> 
> Doing the same. Works fine, except the fact network interfaces that are
> using DHCPCD but are unplugged slow down the boot process *a lot*.
> I could only solve that point by no longer
> using /etc/network/interfaces and initialising stuff by hand in a
> home-made service script (using runit on top of sysV here, so that's
> pretty easy to do).


Same here, although the reason for rolling my own script was to simplify
setting up a server-router-firewall boot.  I wouldn't call that a problem,
though.  Flexibility is a feature.


> Concerning the fact systemd-udev's developers do not intend to support
> non-systemd inits, I guess the best would be to port the Devuan's eudev
> package to Debian.
> That would probably not be that hard, and might become something I'll
> need to do for work someday.

Interesting.

Best
Ale
-- 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

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

csiph-web