On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 17:35:42 -0400, Prin <mr@pr.ina> wrote:

>In article <mdafjvs63s1el1f8j7v0hqdklub1389s6o@4ax.com>,
>jtmckee@rmac.net says...
>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 07:58:10 -0500, Dave Uhring <daveuhring@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 18:50:24 +1000, Anthony Mandic wrote:
>> >
>> >> You're very observant, Dave. I'm sure Josh does have a solution but,
>> >> for the life of me, I've never seen him post one. Have you? Perhaps
>> >> that other clown, what's his name ... Roger something or other, might
>> >> have one.
>> >
>> >Not observant at all. I just remember why I killfiled that fool.
>>
>> What a bunch of children you two are.
>
>Shut up, Josh, you jackoff.

With a well reasoned response like that what can I say?

Josh

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 05:02:51 +0000, Beardy <beardy@beardy.net> wrote:

>Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>
>>Prin <mr@pr.ina> writes in comp.sys.sun.admin:
>>|> Unless you have Solaris 9, you're out of luck. Solaris 9 has a great
>>|> new "oops" feature that allows root to still login if the shell in
>>|> /etc/passwd is invalid.
>>|
>>|Really? What's that?
>>
>>If it fails to exec the shell specified in /etc/passwd, it exec's sh
>>instead. (If you screw that one up, you're back to booting from cdrom,
>>but this should eventually kill the many "I can't login since I changed
>>root's shell to /sbin/csh" posts.)
>>
>Not on my two latest (easily) accessible Sol9 implementations (Generic_114400-02, and on81-feature-patch:06/23/2003 (latest Sol9) Beta).
>
>If I change root's shell to /sbin/banana, I get the predictable "No shell" response on an attempted login, as per this truss of inetd:

It works in single user mode. Please people, if you're going to
comment on things at least know what you're talking about.

Josh

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 14:02:15 +1000, Anthony Mandic <u9@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Prin wrote:
>>
>> In article <mdafjvs63s1el1f8j7v0hqdklub1389s6o@4ax.com>,
>> jtmckee@rmac.net says...
>...
>> > What a bunch of children you two are.
>>
>> Shut up, Josh, you jackoff.
>
> That's telling him. I expect we'll see his brother come along
> soon and set him straight again.

Yes Alan...he really put me in my place. Every child that reads this
thread will see how I was put in my place. The adults will see how
childish his, and your, response was.

Josh

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 14:03:47 +1000, Anthony Mandic <ua@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Dave Uhring wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 12:31:16 +0000, I R A Darth Aggie wrote:
>>
>> > Oh, great, now he'll come and berate us for our inflexibility...you
>> > just had to mention that name, didn't you?
>>
>> Hmmm, I thought it was perfectly on topic since nobody else knows how to
>> get out of that problem without a CD-ROM, net boot or moving the root
>> drive to another SPARC system. The expert should lend his superior
>> knowledge. Unfortunately I won't see it since the kill file works.
>
> I agree, its on topic. I'd even wager $50 he can't offer a solution.

I did...reboot from OS media. Let me know when I can pick up my
$50.00.

Josh

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 14:02:15 +1000, Anthony Mandic <u9@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Prin wrote:
>>
>> In article <mdafjvs63s1el1f8j7v0hqdklub1389s6o@4ax.com>,
>> jtmckee@rmac.net says...
>...
>> > What a bunch of children you two are.
>>
>> Shut up, Josh, you jackoff.
>
> That's telling him. I expect we'll see his brother come along
> soon and set him straight again.

Yes Anthony...he really put me in my place. Every child that reads
this thread will see how I was put in my place. The adults will see
how childish his, and your, response was.

Josh

Josh McKee wrote:

>On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 05:02:51 +0000, Beardy <beardy@beardy.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Prin <mr@pr.ina> writes in comp.sys.sun.admin:
>>>|> Unless you have Solaris 9, you're out of luck. Solaris 9 has a great
>>>|> new "oops" feature that allows root to still login if the shell in
>>>|> /etc/passwd is invalid.
>>>|
>>>|Really? What's that?
>>>
>>>If it fails to exec the shell specified in /etc/passwd, it exec's sh
>>>instead. (If you screw that one up, you're back to booting from cdrom,
>>>but this should eventually kill the many "I can't login since I changed
>>>root's shell to /sbin/csh" posts.)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Not on my two latest (easily) accessible Sol9 implementations (Generic_114400-02, and on81-feature-patch:06/23/2003 (latest Sol9) Beta).
>>
>>If I change root's shell to /sbin/banana, I get the predictable "No shell" response on an attempted login, as per this truss of inetd:
>>
>>
>
>It works in single user mode. Please people, if you're going to
>comment on things at least know what you're talking about.
>
>Josh
>
>
>

Very sad Josh... Most Solaris people don't sound quite as painfully
sanctimonious as you.

--
Why are all comedians fat? Bcoz they do too much in jesting.

Beardy <beardy@beardy.net> writes in comp.sys.sun.admin:
|Alan Coopersmith wrote:
|
|>Prin <mr@pr.ina> writes in comp.sys.sun.admin:
|>|> Unless you have Solaris 9, you're out of luck. Solaris 9 has a great
|>|> new "oops" feature that allows root to still login if the shell in
|>|> /etc/passwd is invalid.
|>|
|>|Really? What's that?
|>
|>If it fails to exec the shell specified in /etc/passwd, it exec's sh
|>instead. (If you screw that one up, you're back to booting from cdrom,
|>but this should eventually kill the many "I can't login since I changed
|>root's shell to /sbin/csh" posts.)
|>
|Not on my two latest (easily) accessible Sol9 implementations
|(Generic_114400-02, and on81-feature-patch:06/23/2003 (latest Sol9)
|Beta).
|
|If I change root's shell to /sbin/banana, I get the predictable "No
|shell" response on an attempted login, as per this truss of inetd:

Sorry, I should have mentioned it only does this for su and single-user
mode login, not remote logins.

--
__________________________________________________ ______________________
Alan Coopersmith alanc@alum.calberkeley.org
http://www.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU/~alanc/ aka: Alan.Coopersmith@Sun.COM
Working for, but definitely not speaking for, Sun Microsystems, Inc.

Josh McKee wrote:

>On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 16:01:35 +0000, Beardy <beardy@beardy.net> wrote:
>
>>Very sad Josh... Most Solaris people don't sound quite as painfully
>>sanctimonious as you.
>>
>>
>
>Several regulars to this newsgroup have accused me of not knowing what
>I'm talking about and then they demonstrate that they are the ones who
>don't know what they're talking about. So perhaps I am a little
>sanctimonious towards them. While my comment was written in response
>to your post it was intended towards other people.
>
>Anthony Mandic, IRA Darth Aggie, Dave Uhring, and one other need to
>grow up and get over this difference. The posts they've made only
>demonstrate how childish they are. How constructive have their
>comments about me been?
>
>Josh
>
>

Josh, knowing everything about everything relating to Solaris is not
possible. We have lost Rob Pike to Google after many years (now
r@google.com), so the number of people who *do* know truckloads about
UNIX is dimishing :O(

Don't be sanctimonious - be sarcastic ;^} The subtle difference is
significant (and more fun).

As for AM, IRADA, DU, and the "one other", childishness is to be prized
/ nurtured in context. and if their comments about you (I have not read
any) are not constructive, then it is their loss, and your gain.

A technical newsgroup like this is about sharing
information/experiences, not berating anyone for their lack. We should
all embrace this concept...

Is there a comp.sys.sun.evangelism newsgroup.....?

--
Why are all comedians fat? Bcoz they do too much in jesting.

Alan Coopersmith wrote:

>Beardy <beardy@beardy.net> writes in comp.sys.sun.admin:
>|Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>|
>|>Prin <mr@pr.ina> writes in comp.sys.sun.admin:
>|>|> Unless you have Solaris 9, you're out of luck. Solaris 9 has a great
>|>|> new "oops" feature that allows root to still login if the shell in
>|>|> /etc/passwd is invalid.
>|>|
>|>|Really? What's that?
>|>
>|>If it fails to exec the shell specified in /etc/passwd, it exec's sh
>|>instead. (If you screw that one up, you're back to booting from cdrom,
>|>but this should eventually kill the many "I can't login since I changed
>|>root's shell to /sbin/csh" posts.)
>|>
>|Not on my two latest (easily) accessible Sol9 implementations
>|(Generic_114400-02, and on81-feature-patch:06/23/2003 (latest Sol9)
>|Beta).
>|
>|If I change root's shell to /sbin/banana, I get the predictable "No
>|shell" response on an attempted login, as per this truss of inetd:
>
>Sorry, I should have mentioned it only does this for su and single-user
>mode login, not remote logins.
>
>
>
Alan, no apologies please. Thanks for the bit about su supporting the
"oops" aspect. As you stated earlier, it should protect inexperienced
sysadmins ;^} (but sack them anyways...)

--
Why are all comedians fat? Bcoz they do too much in jesting.

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 13:52:34 +1000, Anthony Mandic wrote:

> You'll find that Josh is as obstinate as he is recalcitrant.
> No doubt he's probably advising the OP to boot from CD. Unfortunately,
> he isn't cluey enough to read the OP's remarks where he stated
> he has no CDROM.

IIRC, and I certainly am not going to search for the article, McKee
offered $100 to anyone who could prove that changing root's shell can be
disastrous. I think he owes a C-note to Phoenix, the OP.