🚀 go-pugleaf

Arabella Bishop wrote:
> Bolek Mynarski pisze:
>
>> BASH is not a standard on any of the UNIX systems (Linux is UNIX-like). 
> I agree with you, but still think that bash is more comfortable shell
> than KSH. Every time I use ksh, my first command is "ksh -o vi", which
> enables history use, and provide some interface improvements, which
> are native for bash :/
Set up your profile in $HOME/.profile

EDITOR=vi
HISTFILE=$HOME/.sh_history
HSITSIZE=1000
export EDITOR HISTFILE HISTSIZE
set -o vi

After that, you don't have to do what you do every time you log in. 
Besides, once you do it, you can enjoy Korn SHELL command completions
the same/similar way as in BASH.
>
>>>  - ogólnie mało uwagi poświecono "udogodnieniom";
>> I am not sure what you mean by that.  HP is a 'Cadillac' of all UNIX
>> systems out there.
> I'm not sure about that... have you ever seen Solaris or AIX?
'Cadillac' is a figure of speech.   You have a class of cars that range
from 'bare bones' (no radio, no air condition, etc). to cars that are
very luxurious.  Cadillacs are American cars that are VERY comfortable
and have everything you can dream of from the comfort perspective (let's
not talk about a car mileage here, he he).  So from that perspective,
HP-UX is a VERY comfortable system to work with.

Yes.  I've seen them and used them both (Solaris and AIX).  There are
only a few things I like about each of them:

Solaris: role based assigned privileges (I wish HP had it) and their
newest ZFS (I haven't used it yet but I have read a lot about it and it
really looks revolutionary).

AIX: IBM's LPAR technology really shines here.  Years of Mainframe
technology experiences ported to AIX really shows.  I liked it a lot.

We have evaluated both, AIX and SOLARIS this past year as a 'possible'
replacement for our 1000+ HPUX UNIX farm (on top of that, we have about
600+ Sun systems).  However, system management tools of these two
platforms are not as 'mature' in my opinion as HP's.  Unless, of course,
you enjoy 'in-house' written scripts (that's in essence what IBM team
showed us while demoing their systems) .  For the enterprise management
and monitoring, HP OpenView rules our house along with Glance Plus and
Measureware.  The other two platforms did not have anything close that
could compare.
>
>> I am having problems understanding your paragraph above.
>
> I'm not undermine security level of HP-UX 'trusted' mode, but talk
> about problems with downgrade from "trusted" mode to "shadowed".
>
> I'm not an extra class specialist in UNIX systems, thats why I'm not
> feel it's one's duty to compare UNIX systems, but only describe
> problems and advantages of HP-UX I've seen on my route.
Please, remember that in most cases problems arise due to lack of
understanding of underlying technology (do not take it the wrong way,
please).  In the paragraph above related to 'downgrading' from 'trusted'
to untrusted, you are right under only one condition:  if your password
maximum length is set to be greater than 8 characters.  HP-UX uses
different hash algorithms and 'crypt' libraries depending on whether
your run in trusted or untrusted mode.  I know what you are talking
about because I ran to that issue myself.  However, again, if you
downgrade and your password was set to more than 8 characters, all you
have to do is to stop typing on your eighth character and you would be
able to log in.  Changing your password, however, is a different story.

On the other hand, it is very rare to convert HP-UX to untrusted mode. 
There is simply no benefit in doing so and simply put, system is much
less secure.

Again, each admin has his/her own toolbox of favorite tools and it is
very difficult to argue ones likes or dislikes :-)