[NTLUG:Discuss] Re: SuSE 9 or 9.1 PATH environment changes after su -- understanding why, instead of bashing
Ralph Green, Jr
severian at mail.joimail.com
Thu Sep 16 13:56:47 CDT 2004
Bryan,
On Wed, 2004-09-15 at 01:07, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-09-15 at 01:16, Ralph Green, Jr wrote:
> > This is completely untrue. Stick with the facts, please.
>
> You should re-read your correspondence. You went all over the place,
> using labels like "broken" and "half-hearted attempt" in addition to
I was talking about a variety of things, and that is why I was all
over the place. I was describing various inadequacies of Fedora Core,
because you asked me to. I said one particular feature of FC2, that had
worked in FC1, was broken, as it is. I said ext2 was a half-hearted
attempt at a journaling file system. This is an opinion, not a fact,
but it is an informed opinion and I think it is fair. I described
several annoying aspects of RedHat and Fedora Core. I was specific and
backed every thing I said with details. I did not say RedHat was
broken. I never said SUSE had an alias of su- for su. I repeat my
modest request. Don't lie about what I said.
> "annoying." If you don't like something, that's cool. Everyone finds
> something different o be "annoying," and I'll respect that. But the
> other comments, just flat out based on ignorance.
>
This does not describe me. Some things are different and that is
fine. Some things are annoying and I was responding to your request for
what I found annoying.
> Sorry, I return arrogant statements with the same arrogant attitude. I
> kept if off-list. You decided to take one small detail and make a big
There has been only one arrogant party in this discussion and his last
name is Smith.
> stink on-list. As I stated was "legacy," and others also followed-up
> with their similar reasonings, there is a reason why older Linux
> distributions act a certain way. Not to be "annoying," but because it
> is just "how it has been done before."
>
Maybe your confusion is related to this. I never asked why old
versions did something one way. Maybe you thought I wanted that
information, for some reason. I specifically asked why the current
version of Fedora Core needed to behave differently from every other
distribution I tested.
> But even with the changes, it seems your comments on Red Hat are limited
> to earlier releases. Newer Red Hat releases change the PATH for su.
You just don't pay attention to what I said. I suppose you are just
shocked that anyone would complain about RedHat or Fedora. I note poor
aspects of just about any distribution. You asked be about RedHat, so
all my comments to you were about RedHat and Fedora Core. All the tests
I made were on my Fedora Core 2 system. I said that after doing an su
to root, the ifconfig program is not in my path and it is not. I stick
with specific, observable facts. You should try that.
> Furthermore, there seems to be little consistency between distros.
> Which means no difference than before, I use absolute paths if I want to
> be sure for security.
>
I always use complete paths when I am writing scripts. When I am just
popping up a terminal window to run ifconfig, it is annoying if the
system requires me to type a full path. I would rather use systems that
don't annoy the user as much.
> Attempt to understand things. Just don't label them "broken" because
I called something broken because it was broken. Nothing more. In
this case, it was the ability to pass a kernel parameter to the
installer for Fedora Core 2 and thus be able to install the OS to a
decent filesystem. It worked in FC1, but not FC2. I suppose I could try
to understand exactly why it was broken, but what point would this
serve? When I need a new system and require a decent filesystem, I'll
just install SuSE, rather than figure out how FC2 is broken.
More information about the Discuss
mailing list