Get your act together prick
Notice the ?-sign?
It's the common, civilized and generally accepted way of saying
"I'm asking a question" or "something along these lines"
And it's NOT the common, civilized and generally accepted way of saying
"Call me names because I am trying."

At least I'm TRYING to help the guy instead of just posting off-topic
ranting nonsense.
Besides: The system looks for something that does not exist.
Why not go with that? Copy the file to that location, symlink it, whatever.
Make something respond on that location.
All you need to do is have a "succesfull" login as root, so you can change
the passwd file again.
Probably not a good idea to do for everyday, but maybe it will save you a
lot of problems and time.
I've never tried, 'caus' I was warned about situations like these in advance
(friend of mine did it once, longlonglong time ago)

--
"The road to Paradise is through Intercourse."
"With women, Huge, with women."

The system looks for something that does not exist.
Why not go with that? Copy the file to that location, symlink it, whatever.
Make something respond on that location.
All you need to do is have a "succesfull" login as root, so you can change
the passwd file again.
Probably not a good idea to do for everyday, but maybe it will save you a
lot of problems and time.

Alternative I just thought of:
create a shellscript on that location, directly calling back to the standard
shell?

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 09:36:24 +0200, "Ronald van Zantvoort"
<Van.Zantvoort@doh-notarissen.nl> wrote:

>Get your act together prick
>Notice the ?-sign?
>It's the common, civilized and generally accepted way of saying
>"I'm asking a question" or "something along these lines"
>And it's NOT the common, civilized and generally accepted way of saying
>"Call me names because I am trying."

I am surprised at the number of people in this newsgroup who act like
children. Everyone of the personal attacks presented in this thread
had no provocation from the person they were made toward. I would
expect to find childish behavior in a Windows newsgroup and a much
higher level of professionalism from a Sun newsgroup. But that doesn't
appears not to be the case.

>At least I'm TRYING to help the guy instead of just posting off-topic
>ranting nonsense.
>Besides: The system looks for something that does not exist.
>Why not go with that? Copy the file to that location, symlink it, whatever.
>Make something respond on that location.
>All you need to do is have a "succesfull" login as root, so you can change
>the passwd file again.
>Probably not a good idea to do for everyday, but maybe it will save you a
>lot of problems and time.
>I've never tried, 'caus' I was warned about situations like these in advance
>(friend of mine did it once, longlonglong time ago)

That's the problem Ron...the advice being offered had merit a long,
long, long time ago. The people offering it are "seasoned" system
administrators who haven't adjusted as things have changed around
them. I don't advocate changing roots shell. But neither do I find it
a dangerous thing to do. If your dynamically linked shell is broken
it's highly likely that your entire system is broken and you'll be
using OS media to repair it. As was evidenced in a recent post a few
months ago. None of these "don't ever change roots shell" regulars
offered any advice on how the poster could fix his problem, let alone
fix it without using OS media.

Josh

I've been given that suggestion today from a co-worker but haven't tried it
yet. It was also suggested that I might be able to ftp to the box as root
and put a copy of /etc/passwd but was also told that if the box has any kind
of real security, then that won't work. (he said it was a backdoor admins
used a long time ago)

I'll try both and let you all know how it goes.

Ron



"Ronald van Zantvoort" <Van.Zantvoort@doh-notarissen.nl> wrote in message
news:3f3a4886$0$76269$e4fe514c@dreader9.news.xs4al l.nl...
> Wouldn't it work if you created a symlink /sbin/tcsh to /bin/tcsh?
>
> "Phoenix" <me@here.com> schreef in bericht
> news:bhd985$2oe$1@eskinews.eskimo.com...
> > I'm going to borrow a CDROM drive from a friend and take that method
out.
> >
> > In a nutshell, I found that I liked tcsh best and went into /etc/passwd
> and
> > changed /sbin/sh to /sbin/tcsh not realizing that I needed to instead
> change
> > it to /bin/tcsh
> >
> > Just a thought from the land of I can cd a directory and untar a file
but
> > not much more, (the new guy) I show 43 messages in this news group and
> none
> > of them covered this topic. I don't have hours to spend on google
> searching
> > for an answer and I see no post here telling me were to get the answers
> > without bugging you kind folks. So, I post the question, got some
answers
> > that were good. I learned from my mistakes and I will repay the kindness
> the
> > next time I am asked the same question about writing code or something
> > simple with NT that I have been asked thousands of times before (mostly
by
> > the same set of people who just don't catch on) I'll answer the question
> > with no complaints.
> >
> > Following this thread, it occurs to me that while most of you are very
> > helpful, and for that I am grateful, some of you need to check your
ego's
> at
> > the door. ;-)
> >
> > Thanks all for the advice and help!
> >
> > Ron
> >
> > "Josh McKee" <jtmckee@rmac.net> wrote in message
> > news:uciijvc8l0fsf1saoq3028grn98v4m0i8q@4ax.com...
> > > On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 20:48:30 +0000, Beardy <beardy@beardy.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >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.
> > >
> > > Did I claim that it was?
> > >
> > > >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(
> > >
> > > I don't claim to be all knowing. But things that I comment on I think
> > > I have a pretty good handle on. When it comes to changing roots shell
> > > I have done a lot of testing before reaching the conclusion that I
> > > have. I solicited input from those that disagreed with my position and
> > > even went so far as to offer a $250.00 challenge to prove me wrong.
> > > Not only did the $250.00 prize go unclaimed but not a single effort
> > > was even made to collect it. If changing roots shell were really the
> > > problem several people have made it out to be I would have thought
> > > that those so against it would have jumped at the chance to rub my
> > > face in it by taking $250.00 of my money. And not only did this
> > > challenge go unmet but when the situation that they described
> > > *required* having a root shell arose what advice was the poster
> > > offered? He was told to boot off of OS media...which essentially
> > > renders moot what roots shell is configured to be. Did any of these
> > > people offer advice that didn't involved booting from OS media? No,
> > > they did not...they didn't offer any advice.
> > >
> > > Plain and simple when push comes to shove with several posters here
> > > all they can do is get together like a bunch of school girls and pat
> > > each other on the back about how well they were able to insult me.
> > >
> > > >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...
> > >
> > > If you search Google you'll see that I agree with this concept
> > > completely. You will see where I have taken heat for defending people
> > > who didn't first do research before posting here. My argument: Exactly
> > > what you just said: this is a place to share information.
> > >
> > > Josh
> > >
> > > >Is there a comp.sys.sun.evangelism newsgroup.....?
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Ronald van Zantvoort wrote:

> /quote
> , fuckwit?
> /quote
>
> Don't call that a provocation? If you be nice, I be nice. Very simple rule.

I see you've learnt about Josh fast.
>
> > That's the problem Ron...the advice being offered had merit a long,
> > long, long time ago. The people offering it are "seasoned" system
> > administrators who haven't adjusted as things have changed around
> > them.
>
> I'm 21 and FAR from seasoned, thank you very much :-D. It's the first thing
> that popped into my mind, but I don't know if that's going to work, that's
> why I put up the "?".

Well, the link suggestion you made won't work since it
requires root access. The ftp suggestion might work but
it depends, as you noted.

> > If your dynamically linked shell is broken
> > it's highly likely that your entire system is broken and you'll be
> > using OS media to repair it.
>
> It would have been my first attempts to fix (after banging my head against
> the wall a couple of times), after which you say I'd still have to use the
> media. So be it. I do not know. That's why I put up the "?".

If that quote was from Josh, its interesting. If you do a
search you'll find that he states categorically that that
can never happen.

-am © 2003

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 09:50:16 +0200, "Ronald van Zantvoort"
<Van.Zantvoort@doh-notarissen.nl> wrote:

>> I am surprised at the number of people in this newsgroup who act like
>> children. Everyone of the personal attacks presented in this thread
>> had no provocation from the person they were made toward.
>
>/quote
>, fuckwit?
>/quote
>
>Don't call that a provocation? If you be nice, I be nice. Very simple rule.

I think that you've got me confused with "Huge" as I did not make that
statement.

>> That's the problem Ron...the advice being offered had merit a long,
>> long, long time ago. The people offering it are "seasoned" system
>> administrators who haven't adjusted as things have changed around
>> them.
>
>I'm 21 and FAR from seasoned, thank you very much :-D.

I'm guessing that you learned not to change roots shell from a
seasoned system administrator though. Is that a correct assumption?

>It's the first thing that popped into my mind, but I don't know if that's going
>to work, that's why I put up the "?".

You never know until you try. I'm confident that it won't work due to
the file permissions but you never know what "crazy" idea may just
work.

>> If your dynamically linked shell is broken
>> it's highly likely that your entire system is broken and you'll be
>> using OS media to repair it.
>
>It would have been my first attempts to fix (after banging my head against
>the wall a couple of times), after which you say I'd still have to use the
>media.

There's two different issues regarding changing roots shell:

1. Mistakenly changing roots shell to a non-existing shell.
2. Correctly changing roots shell to a dynamically linked shell.

You, along with many others, experienced the first issue. You changed
the shell to something that doesn't exist and now you can't log in as
root to fix it. This is a common mistake made by inexperience system
administrators. But one that, once experienced, is unlikely to be made
again).

However the first issue isn't the primary reason that people give for
not changing roots shell. After all...what would be the issue if you
were careful when doing it? The answer is simple: most of the shells
that people use are dynamically linked. The argument is that if the
library files become corrupted then you won't have a working shell for
root and thus cannot fix the problem. Especially when the library
files are found in "/usr/lib" which may be on a separate partition.
The thought is that if one needs to boot into single user mode the
/usr partition (and hence the /usr/lib partition) will not be
available and thus roots shell will be broken (essentially achieving
the same problem as you're experiencing).

So how does one fix a system when roots shell is broken? As you've
found out you're essentially going to be using some form of OS media
to fix it. Thus making what roots shell is irrelevant because you'll
be using the one from the OS media.

The counter argument given is that production systems should not be
taken down in order to boot from OS media to solve this problem. Which
I can agree with.

All of these reasons for not changing roots shell appear quite valid
until you look deeper into the situation. Consider:

1. Today, the majority of Solaris is dynamically linked. The same
library files that the altered root shell depend on are also
dependencies for the majority of the operating system. If these
library files are not available for the root shell then they're not
available to the rest of the OS. Without those libraries there's a
very high probability that your system is already down.

2. Single user mode requires the /usr partition. If the /usr partition
is unavailable in full user mode it most likely is unavailable from
single user mode.

3. Most of the tools that you would use to fix a system are
dynamically linked to the same libraries as the dynamically linked
shells. If your dynamically linked shell doesn't work then it's highly
probable that the tools you would use to fix the problem won't work
either.

The only argument that has some merit is that the "/sbin/sh" shell is
only one file where most dynamically linked shells are linked against
seven or so files. Common sense says that the likelihood of one file
becoming corrupt is less than seven. However one has to remember that
many of those seven files are used by most other operating system
commands. Thus if they're corrupt then most likely the system is down.

I will admit that there are situations where a statically linked root
shell could recover a system when a dynamically linked one could not
and the system remained online. But that involves corrupting one of
the libraries that the shell relies on but not the operating system
(such as /usr/lib/libcurses.so.1). But I have to wonder what the
likelihood of that occurring is. Perhaps a bad patch. Or perhaps
copying a Solaris 7 version of the library onto a Solaris 8 operating
system (yes, one of the regulars here did this). But that speaks to
other issues: not testing what you're doing before doing it. You
should know if a patch is going to break something before it is
applied to a critical system. You should test to ensure that a Solaris
7 library file would work with Solaris 8.

What is scary is that the people making these argument appear to be
completely out of touch with how broken the OS will be should the
situations they've described occur. From my perspective it doesn't
look like any of them have actually tested their scenarios. I even
offered $250.00 for them to fix a system broken as they've described.
Not only did the money go unclaimed not one of them even tried (I bet
a few of them tried behind the scenes and found out just how right I
was...hence the animosity they exhibit now...they know that they're
wrong but are to proud to admit it). If the situation were as bad as
they make it out to be then it should have been trivial for them to
collect the $250.00 and give me a black eye by taking $250.00 of my
money.

But let's assume for the moment that they didn't agree with my
challenge. How about a real world situation? Recently (in May I
believe) someone posted a problem to this news group where the /usr
partition apparently had become corrupt. This would be the exact
situation that the anti-change roots shell said would require a
statically linked root shell in order to fix the problem. So what was
the advice given? That's right: Use OS media to solve the problem
(which means that what root shell is on the HD is irrelevant). Not one
person suggested a resolution to the problem that did not involve
using OS media. While the person should have been able to log on as
root there was little he would have been able to do to correct his
problem.

What's surprising is the resentment many of these people have
exhibited towards me. I've given sound reasoning to support what I've
said. They've only been able to say "don't do it". It's puzzling why
they're so upset about this difference. I can only assume that they
don't like their knowledge challenged.

With all of that said don't take any of this to mean that I advocate
changing roots shell. That's not my position at all. Do what's right
for your situation but do it based on an understanding of what the
issues are...not some seasoned administrator saying "don't do it".

Josh

>So be it. I do not know. That's why I put up the "?".
>I merely stated what was in my opinion a remote possibility after a
>occurance which I was first told to prevent under about the same statement
>you make (rather don't do it, but if you have to, be veryveryvery careful)

> >> I am surprised at the number of people in this newsgroup who act like
> >> children. Everyone of the personal attacks presented in this thread
> >> had no provocation from the person they were made toward.
> >
> >/quote
> >, fuckwit?
> >/quote
> >
> >Don't call that a provocation? If you be nice, I be nice. Very simple
rule.
>
> I think that you've got me confused with "Huge" as I did not make that
> statement.
>

Never said you did, merely commented on your remark.

> >I'm 21 and FAR from seasoned, thank you very much :-D.
>
> I'm guessing that you learned not to change roots shell from a
> seasoned system administrator though. Is that a correct assumption?

As I posted before:
>>(rather don't do it, but if you have to, be veryveryvery careful)
This was, I think, my very first lesson on Unix (after learning what ls
does)

> You never know until you try. I'm confident that it won't work due to
> the file permissions but you never know what "crazy" idea may just
> work.
By now, I know at least that is true (though I haven't tried)

> 1. Mistakenly changing roots shell to a non-existing shell.
> You, along with many others, experienced the first issue.
No I didn't, I'm not the original poster. My name is Ronald van Zantvoort,
the poster's name is Ron (Phoenix)

>But one that, once experienced, is unlikely to be made
I bet :-D

> As you've
> found out you're essentially going to be using some form of OS media
> to fix it.
As I read near the end of the topic, he found another way, but you noticed
that already.

The other regulars don't seem to agree much with you, and until I test this
myself my opinion will be neutral (since I am not able to oversee the entire
situation), but at least I thank you for giving me more insight in the
discussion and the arguments.

Ronald van Zantvoort

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 13:35:39 +0200, "Ronald van Zantvoort"
<Van.Zantvoort@doh-notarissen.nl> wrote:

>> >> I am surprised at the number of people in this newsgroup who act like
>> >> children. Everyone of the personal attacks presented in this thread
>> >> had no provocation from the person they were made toward.
>> >
>> >/quote
>> >, fuckwit?
>> >/quote
>> >
>> >Don't call that a provocation? If you be nice, I be nice. Very simple
>rule.
>>
>> I think that you've got me confused with "Huge" as I did not make that
>> statement.
>>
>
>Never said you did, merely commented on your remark.

I guess that I'm still not following it. What remark are you referring
to?

>> 1. Mistakenly changing roots shell to a non-existing shell.
>> You, along with many others, experienced the first issue.
>No I didn't, I'm not the original poster. My name is Ronald van Zantvoort,
>the poster's name is Ron (Phoenix)

My mistake.

>> As you've
>> found out you're essentially going to be using some form of OS media
>> to fix it.
>As I read near the end of the topic, he found another way, but you noticed
>that already.

I did...but I'm not sure how it worked. The default permissions would
not allow what he did so how he did it is beyond me. I'd like to know
more detail...was it just a fluke with his system (i.e. were the file
permissions set incorrectly, was he somehow root already, something
else?).

>The other regulars don't seem to agree much with you, and until I test this
>myself my opinion will be neutral (since I am not able to oversee the entire
>situation), but at least I thank you for giving me more insight in the
>discussion and the arguments.

That's the key difference between them and I. I have presented facts
to support my position. Most of those that disagree with me have
provided nothing but conjecture but no facts. When asked they merely
resort to childish name calling (even when they're not asked...they
just started bashing me out of the blue in this thread...no
provocation from me was necessary). I welcome you to test my position
out. I am confident (even offered $250.00 to someone who could prove
it wrong) that it will withstand scrutiny. If anything you'll learn
what will be required to recover a system should it experience a
problem.

Josh

Alright alright. Once more... ;-)

Your remark after I responded to Huge calling me a fuckwit:
> >> >> I am surprised at the number of people in this newsgroup who act
like
> >> >> children. Everyone of the personal attacks presented in this thread
> >> >> had no provocation from the person they were made toward.

My comment on that:
> >/quote
> >, fuckwit?
> >/quote
>>
> >Don't call that a provocation? If you be nice, I be nice. Very simple
> >rule.

I bet everybody wants to know what he did and how. Anyway, it's gonna cost
you $250,- if he is right (and did it without OS media).
But I agree... The story doesn't make much sense yet.

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 16:09:18 +0200, "Ronald van Zantvoort"
<Van.Zantvoort@doh-notarissen.nl> wrote:

>Alright alright. Once more... ;-)
>
>Your remark after I responded to Huge calling me a fuckwit:
>> >> >> I am surprised at the number of people in this newsgroup who act
>like
>> >> >> children. Everyone of the personal attacks presented in this thread
>> >> >> had no provocation from the person they were made toward.
>
>My comment on that:
>> >/quote
>> >, fuckwit?
>> >/quote
>>>
>> >Don't call that a provocation? If you be nice, I be nice. Very simple
>> >rule.

I guess I don't understand why you would make the above comment to me.
Anyway...it's not a big deal. I just wanted to be sure that you knew
that it wasn't me that had made the negative comments towards you. And
that seems to be the case.

>I bet everybody wants to know what he did and how. Anyway, it's gonna cost
>you $250,- if he is right (and did it without OS media).

The challenge is no longer open...it's been closed for quite some
time. Also, it wasn't related to recovering from an invalid root
shell. It was centered around corrupted library files. If you're
interested in the details you can find them here:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:...bi.com&rnum=60

Josh

>But I agree... The story doesn't make much sense yet.