A wise decision
Never start a project, unless you're sure that you have enough time to do it right
A wise decision
Never start a project, unless you're sure that you have enough time to do it right
PAM is alright, it's a good thing for most enviroments. But for a standalone server or a home desktop it's just one more thing that's all. A am sure there are security risks and bugs for PAM, just like every other peice of software. That's why I said what I said.
I wasn't saying it is hard or anything. Actually I was dissapointed Slackware 9 didn't have it, but then again that's why I use Debian too. Its just an example of what Slackware is about, no frills. Maybe at the expense of a few good features that most every modern linux OS should have, but then again a lot of the bloat and useless features is avoided too. Go figure.
I wasn't saying it is hard or anything. Actually I was dissapointed Slackware 9 didn't have it, but then again that's why I use Debian too. Its just an example of what Slackware is about, no frills. Maybe at the expense of a few good features that most every modern linux OS should have, but then again a lot of the bloat and useless features is avoided too. Go figure.
Nothinman
Elite Member
- Sep 14, 2001
- 30,672
- 0
- 0
PAM is what enables su to only allow users in the 'wheel' (or other specified) group to be allowed to su, PAM is what makes it possible to have all kinds of restrictions and different sourceds for authentication stacked and used at the same time if you really want. I know Solaris uses PAM, but I'm not sure about other unixes.
Several people where I work really want a central authentication system for all of our unix boxes and PAM with it's ldap auth plugin will make that happen for most of them, any boxes without it will begin to be called a PITA because of the extra accounting work that'll need done on them.
I can't think of one thing in Debian that I would call useless bloat, seriously.
Several people where I work really want a central authentication system for all of our unix boxes and PAM with it's ldap auth plugin will make that happen for most of them, any boxes without it will begin to be called a PITA because of the extra accounting work that'll need done on them.
I can't think of one thing in Debian that I would call useless bloat, seriously.
I like pam, I like debian. I know what PAM is for. It's not a reason to dislike Slackware, though. That's all I was saying... Debian can or can't have bloat. It's up to the user. Now there are distros that do have considurable bloat. Take Redhat for instance, now that's what I call a bloated distro. Debian and Slackware are just different aprotches to solving a problem, which is providing a effective distrobution. Debian created a excellent package managment system and tries to be all things to all people by providing as much software as possible. Slackware tries to just provide a good basic OS that people can build off of. The Slackware package managment is kept simple so that users can create and share packages easily. Both are effective. The lack of PAM is a side effect of Slackware trying to be as basic, but effective as possible. Debian's design flaw is that it requires a gigantic effort by a dedicated community to keep it up to date, It's "stable" branch is full of rather dated programs when compared to many other distro's "stable" releases. Not knocking Debian or anything, it is probably the most stable thing out their right now for linux, but you pay a price for it.
As far a Debian being bloated, I never said anything of the sort. SLackware just puts a little bit to much on the anti-bloat effort and ends up sacrificing some functionality that you would expect from a modern distro, like PAM.
I don't know why I picked PAM as a example of what choices the developer of SLackware picks. It's just what was on my mind at the time. I never ment that it was a bad idea of bloat or whatever, It's just like one of those things. I suppose I could of said maybe the same thing about Samba. Why would you want Samba installed on a Desktop computer or a stand alone server that will never have to come in contact with a window computer or shared printer? You don't, its just another thing that can go wrong. PAM is one of those things that requires a stronger choice, either you have it or you don't, since it requires that the majority of the authentication programs specificly recompiled to specificly support it, which is certainly a b***h-a** thing to do. Am I going to to need PAM at home? If I setup a webserver on a leased line, do I need it then? If I have a file and print server for a LAN to replace a old NT box, do I need PAM then? Not realy. But if it was up to me would Slackware support PAM? definately, I figure it would be needed for any situation involving more then 20 computers and users can use any computer. It would certainly make things easier.
I just wanted to reply to the guy that thought that SLackware was useless, it's not and I like it. But there was the other guy raving on about how SLacwkare is god's minimilist/secure gift to Linux, which is equally as insane. Debian obvously makes a better all around solution to that sort of delema. Maybe I should of used quotes to avoid this misunderstanding.
Ironicly the only Distro I know of that can acomplish that getting rid of PAM functionaliy and adding again easily is of course Gentoo,(as long as your using a fast computer) but I suppose there are others that can do it effectively. Does debian keep 2 sets of programs? Ones that support PAM, and one that has that compiled out of it? Can you do that sort of thing with BSD-style ports?
I realy like Gentoo alot. IMO the idea of completely sourced-based "meta"distro and Gentoo's execution of it is a possible technological next step over both Debain and SLackware's solution (and rpm-based distros for that matter), it just remains to see how others polish it up. However the idea of compiling it from scratch for purely performance reasons is realy weird. I tried it out, and was impressed at the slickness of it, but that fabled boost wasn't realy present. It's saving grace is that the automation is down so well that it that as long as I plan it out correctly I could start the installation proccesses and go off and have a life, and so the major downfall of watching streaming lines of text for 3 or 4 hours from a hundred packages getting compiled is minimalized.
have a nice day.
As far a Debian being bloated, I never said anything of the sort. SLackware just puts a little bit to much on the anti-bloat effort and ends up sacrificing some functionality that you would expect from a modern distro, like PAM.
I don't know why I picked PAM as a example of what choices the developer of SLackware picks. It's just what was on my mind at the time. I never ment that it was a bad idea of bloat or whatever, It's just like one of those things. I suppose I could of said maybe the same thing about Samba. Why would you want Samba installed on a Desktop computer or a stand alone server that will never have to come in contact with a window computer or shared printer? You don't, its just another thing that can go wrong. PAM is one of those things that requires a stronger choice, either you have it or you don't, since it requires that the majority of the authentication programs specificly recompiled to specificly support it, which is certainly a b***h-a** thing to do. Am I going to to need PAM at home? If I setup a webserver on a leased line, do I need it then? If I have a file and print server for a LAN to replace a old NT box, do I need PAM then? Not realy. But if it was up to me would Slackware support PAM? definately, I figure it would be needed for any situation involving more then 20 computers and users can use any computer. It would certainly make things easier.
I just wanted to reply to the guy that thought that SLackware was useless, it's not and I like it. But there was the other guy raving on about how SLacwkare is god's minimilist/secure gift to Linux, which is equally as insane. Debian obvously makes a better all around solution to that sort of delema. Maybe I should of used quotes to avoid this misunderstanding.
Ironicly the only Distro I know of that can acomplish that getting rid of PAM functionaliy and adding again easily is of course Gentoo,(as long as your using a fast computer) but I suppose there are others that can do it effectively. Does debian keep 2 sets of programs? Ones that support PAM, and one that has that compiled out of it? Can you do that sort of thing with BSD-style ports?
I realy like Gentoo alot. IMO the idea of completely sourced-based "meta"distro and Gentoo's execution of it is a possible technological next step over both Debain and SLackware's solution (and rpm-based distros for that matter), it just remains to see how others polish it up. However the idea of compiling it from scratch for purely performance reasons is realy weird. I tried it out, and was impressed at the slickness of it, but that fabled boost wasn't realy present. It's saving grace is that the automation is down so well that it that as long as I plan it out correctly I could start the installation proccesses and go off and have a life, and so the major downfall of watching streaming lines of text for 3 or 4 hours from a hundred packages getting compiled is minimalized.
have a nice day.
I don't see why this is a design flaw. The debian community seems to be working quite fine right now.
Well, debian's stable release isn't supposed to be the main one. The has been a great deal of talk about changing the terms used for the different branches of debian, because of this.
Debian unstable is only slightly less "stable" than debian stable itself, and it is far more stable than a great deal of other distros.
Nothinman
Elite Member
- Sep 14, 2001
- 30,672
- 0
- 0
Any distro can or can not be bloated, ones like RedHat just make it more of a PITA to trim the bloat because so much is installed by default.
If that's a design flaw then many OSS projects share that flaw, like the Linux kernel, any of the BSDs, apache, etc. Any well sized project requires a decent amount of people to keep it running.
Because those types of computers are extremely rare these days, even I plug my Win2K notebook into my network once in a while =), so installing it by default isn't a completely wrong assumption.
And most things do support it, I can't rememeber the last thing I installed that did authentication and didn't support PAM. Even login on the console uses PAM these days, OK, I lied. I just remember Courier doesn't do that (atleast easily) but instead uses SASL (which itself uses modules, I wonder if a PAM module for SASL exists, heh) and while I think Courier-IMAP is a great IMAP server it's authentication mechanisms are a real PITA, I really wish it supported PAM =)
Depends, there's libapache-mod-auth-pam if you want it.
Right now Samba can't use PAM because of NTLM authentication, but if libpam-ntml (or whatever it's called) becomes mature maybe samba will switch to using an auth module config in the future.
I don't think so, the overhead isn't worth it. I think libpam0g is just required by anything that needs authentication and could support PAM.
If that's a design flaw then many OSS projects share that flaw, like the Linux kernel, any of the BSDs, apache, etc. Any well sized project requires a decent amount of people to keep it running.
Because those types of computers are extremely rare these days, even I plug my Win2K notebook into my network once in a while =), so installing it by default isn't a completely wrong assumption.
And most things do support it, I can't rememeber the last thing I installed that did authentication and didn't support PAM. Even login on the console uses PAM these days, OK, I lied. I just remember Courier doesn't do that (atleast easily) but instead uses SASL (which itself uses modules, I wonder if a PAM module for SASL exists, heh) and while I think Courier-IMAP is a great IMAP server it's authentication mechanisms are a real PITA, I really wish it supported PAM =)
Depends, there's libapache-mod-auth-pam if you want it.
Right now Samba can't use PAM because of NTLM authentication, but if libpam-ntml (or whatever it's called) becomes mature maybe samba will switch to using an auth module config in the future.
I don't think so, the overhead isn't worth it. I think libpam0g is just required by anything that needs authentication and could support PAM.
Noooooooooo!!!!! You must fight on! Chsh1ca where are you in this time of great need!!!
Hmmmm........................ Oh well
Bwahahaha, I, the great generalisimo Spyro, have vicotred over yet another titanic foe. For their are no more warriors left to champion the cause of the Kingdom of Slack. All of Linuxdom come, join me in celebration of this great victory, for today a mighty foe has fallen, reduced to mere ashes, on the great and raging battlefield that is ATOS.
The silly part was that I wasn't even trying to argue with you. I was doing my best to try to agree, but don't worry this sort of thing happens to me all the time. I got some sort of horrible dysfunction built into my brain.
The only point was that Both Debain and Slackware has there good points.
And bad. Debian tries to be everything for everybody which in itself has debatable goal at best. And Slackware may make stupid sacrifices in the goal of maximum functionality with the minimal of effort and bloat. (refering of course to things like Redhat 9.0) Kinda like opisite sides of the same coin.
As far as PAM, PAM rocks beyond all beleif, it's one of those things that I figured in the past 6 months or so, and I was dissapointed that SLackware didn't support it. It's one of those things that should have been thought of years ago.
But oh well. This whole thread was silly fro the beginning anyways.
The only point was that Both Debain and Slackware has there good points.
And bad. Debian tries to be everything for everybody which in itself has debatable goal at best. And Slackware may make stupid sacrifices in the goal of maximum functionality with the minimal of effort and bloat. (refering of course to things like Redhat 9.0) Kinda like opisite sides of the same coin.
As far as PAM, PAM rocks beyond all beleif, it's one of those things that I figured in the past 6 months or so, and I was dissapointed that SLackware didn't support it. It's one of those things that should have been thought of years ago.
But oh well. This whole thread was silly fro the beginning anyways.
Nah drag, its not your brain. Its the Internet and its lack of face to face contact. Not to mention the point that I didn't see why you needed to hoist ye olde white flag......
Yup.
Slack: Has the glorious simplicity of a brick. Doesn't help you, doesn't hinder you. Freedom in every direction, but takes more work to update and maintain, than debian.
Debian: Easy updrages, easy maintenance. Really damages the l33t h4x0r feel of Linux by making generic tasks easier without sacrificing customizability.
Debian doesn't really try to be everything for everybody, most distros are capable of that. What debian does is to make it easier to do everything for everybody.
*no comment*
Hmmm........
man windows 2000 server rocks! i love the GUI interface!!!
ahhah
just curious...is there a webpage w/all these linux terms that i can read and learn? Or is this just regular exploration?
ahhah
just curious...is there a webpage w/all these linux terms that i can read and learn? Or is this just regular exploration?
Ah yes, nothing like having your legs and arms torn off and being told to work on a car! (heh, that was kinda vague, oh well)Originally posted by: Rufio
man windows 2000 server rocks! i love the GUI interface!!!
ahhah
About a billion of them, been here before?
Just used something noob friendly (I assume you're noobish to Linux since you're asking this). I suggest Red Hat 8.1 or Debian, but more towards Redhat. What you need to do is try to find good documentation for what you want to do and go from there.
man windows 2000 server rocks! i love the GUI interface!!!
ahhah
Some linux distros have that too :/
Pick a distro (mandake or redhat). RTFM. Install the distro. Set it up. Use it.
When I finally get an ipaq (to replace my poor burned out m500
) I intend to install NetBSD on it and check it out, but I'll probably end up putting debian on it eventually anyway I felt an overwhelming urge to post in this thread, forgive me
Insolent mortal, thou art forgiven of thine impudence.
Originally posted by: skyking
I guess waiting for a build world on my 486 firewall has made me delirious
There is no way that can be longer than waiting for a 33mhz 486 to fill up all 4 gigabytes of a hard drive with a complete debian setup
Originally posted by: Rufio
man windows 2000 server rocks! i love the GUI interface!!!
ahhah
Funny, I really really hate Win2K's UI, but to each his own
To expand a little on BBWF's answer, try this and this.
You'll learn as you use it.
If you wanna start with a GUI, you could always setup RedHat 9, it has GUI's for most common tasks, such as setting up Apache, BIND, etc.
You rang? I was busy for the weekend.
I was busy for the weekend. What maintenance do you really have to do on your boxes? I have a series of generic perl scripts run by cron to do the automatic maintenance stuff (clean up /tmp on a regular basis), compress and email my logs (I prefer my scripts to logrotate) to me, and so on and so forth. The fact of the matter is, the last time I touched our mail server was a simple upgrade of its webmail software. When I started on it, I recompiled Apache from source, disabled everything I wasn't using, and then chrooted it with PHP (again, from source, disabling the things I wasn't needing), and Postgres. All of the software on the box is as secure as I believe I can make it. When I last had to update apache (mod_ssl vuln), it was a simple ./install-apache.pl script I've premade to handle all my apache installations. Any serious admin likely has scripts to maintain their boxes for them. A 15 minute script pays for itself after day 1.
Never used Debian extensively as I have Slack, but there's a reason for that. For all its capabilities, I am extremely RARELY adding/removing/updating software on my servers. When I am, it's scheduled downtime anyways, it's not like it needs to be uberquick, and besides, apt would be lost on me because I want the control over the finished binary, not just picking where its installed to.
That's your opinion, being someone else, I found debian somewhat lacking in the minimalism department, and also in the desktop department. It's basically the average distribution stuck between RedHat and Slackware. It's the middle of the road distro that has both good and bad points from both sides.
First thing, okeeeey... there are slacktool, swaret, whatever you need to do it, you can get more tools to make it simpler than debian, that's why...
Second, i was trying to portray linux as a system NOT SO HARD TO LEARN no matter what! you ruined that totally... of course you can use whatever options you like but often you do not have to as your kernel optimizations will have taken care of that bit for you , compiling everything according to your arch is as simple as i wrote... then you can use different compilers, auto-sh scripts, the options are endless... and they are all there..
Point three... run swaret -- upgrade... fixed..
I absolutely love freebsd and slackware install system, i abhore NetBSD and Debian installs, i kinda like OpenBSD, it's in the middle somewhere... maybe this is a preference thing?
I will never, ever understand how anyone can use the FreeBSD installer and say it is confusing... you will have to tell me exactly WHAT is confusing about it... to me it is what an installer should be like...
Originally posted by: chsh1ca
You rang?
What maintenance do you really have to do on your boxes? I have a series of generic perl scripts run by cron to do the automatic maintenance stuff (clean up /tmp on a regular basis), compress and email my logs (I prefer my scripts to logrotate) to me, and so on and so forth. The fact of the matter is, the last time I touched our mail server was a simple upgrade of its webmail software. When I started on it, I recompiled Apache from source, disabled everything I wasn't using, and then chrooted it with PHP (again, from source, disabling the things I wasn't needing), and Postgres. All of the software on the box is as secure as I believe I can make it. When I last had to update apache (mod_ssl vuln), it was a simple ./install-apache.pl script I've premade to handle all my apache installations. Any serious admin likely has scripts to maintain their boxes for them. A 15 minute script pays for itself after day 1.
Never used Debian extensively as I have Slack, but there's a reason for that. For all its capabilities, I am extremely RARELY adding/removing/updating software on my servers. When I am, it's scheduled downtime anyways, it's not like it needs to be uberquick, and besides, apt would be lost on me because I want the control over the finished binary, not just picking where its installed to.
That's your opinion, being someone else, I found debian somewhat lacking in the minimalism department, and also in the desktop department. It's basically the average distribution stuck between RedHat and Slackware. It's the middle of the road distro that has both good and bad points from both sides.
That was the point i was trying to make... With slack, you can choose EVERYTHING... maybe that is why the Slack install (and FreeBSD install which is very similar) is so confusing to some... i dunno...
Me too, but not too busyYou rang?
I meant software maintenace, i.e. lots and lots of upgrades. Most servers probably wouldn't have to worry about that though, but you still can't top an "apt-get upgrade".
Well is installing/removing/updating stuff isn't really a major issue then you might as well use slackware
Lacking in minimalism.....
You must be kidding me right, with a base install of about 56 MB, I hesitate to ask what you mean by "lacking in minimalism". And what do you mean by debian's lacking in the dektop area??? I have five and nine year olds who use kde on my system. Besides the wallpaper, all window managers are pretty much the same no matter what OS you're using. And if you're talking about redhat's great multitude of wizards.... lol Because redhat still has rpm hell unless you use apt4rpm and even then somethings still won't install right. And the after-install configuration of debian packages takes care of the things that red hatters would have to use wizards for. And for eerything else there's webmin
I still haven't seen one real bad point about debian. Debian is minimal, versatile, and functional.TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter