🚀 go-pugleaf

vanHorn napisał(a):
> Czego mogę się spodziewać na plus, a czego na minus.

Plus:
  - brak przerażająco wyglądających ścieżek sprzętowych
  - proste i przejrzyste rozwiązania Volume Manager'a
  - fajne narzędzie do replikacji/backupu Ignite-UX (przy pełnym padzie 
systemu wkładamy kasetkę i idziemy na kawę, po 2-ch godzinach mamy 
działający system) - można postawić serwer Ignite - bardzo ciekawe 
możliwości.
Minus:
  - standardowo jest dość skąpy interface (powłokę bash trzeba 
instalować i czasem z tym są problemy);
  - ogólnie mało uwagi poświecono "udogodnieniom";
  - przechodzenie pomiędzy różnymi trybami bezpieczeństwa 
(passwd/shadow/baza userów) jest bezproblemowa jeśli chodzi o wchdzenie 
na wyższe poziomy - przy powrocie do shadow - mogą się pojawić problemy 
(producent zaleca zrobienie fullbackup-u przed wykonaniem takiej czynności).

-- 
Arabella Bishop
"Treść pisanych przeze mnie postów wyraża tylko i wyłącznie moje zdanie 
- niekoniecznie jest zgodna z prawem bądź rzeczywistością"
								ARus

Arabella Bishop pisze:
> vanHorn napisał(a):
>> Czego mogę się spodziewać na plus, a czego na minus.
> 
> Plus:
>  - brak przerażająco wyglądających ścieżek sprzętowych
w 11.31 dodano obsluge sciezek hardwareowych DSF
czyli krzakow :)
na szczescie zachowano zgodnosc wsteczna

pzdr
stanisław

Arabella Bishop wrote:
> vanHorn napisał(a):
>> Czego mogę się spodziewać na plus, a czego na minus.
>
> Plus:
>  - brak przerażająco wyglądających ścieżek sprzętowych
>  - proste i przejrzyste rozwiązania Volume Manager'a
>  - fajne narzędzie do replikacji/backupu Ignite-UX (przy pełnym padzie
> systemu wkładamy kasetkę i idziemy na kawę, po 2-ch godzinach mamy
> działający system) - można postawić serwer Ignite - bardzo ciekawe
> możliwości.
> Minus:
>  - standardowo jest dość skąpy interface (powłokę bash trzeba
> instalować i czasem z tym są problemy);
BASH is not a standard on any of the UNIX systems (Linux is UNIX-like). 
POSIX/KoRN and BOURNE are standard shells.  I would discourage anybody
to deploy BASH in HP-UX environment unless you are also a Linux shop at
which point, you want to have a 'standard' shell across your
enterprise.  If that's the case, HP provides its own compiled BASH on
InternetExpress CD so I am not sure about your concerns here
(unfortunately,  it's easier to install BASH on HP-UX than get a good
KoRN implementation on Linux (forget about pdksh).
>  - ogólnie mało uwagi poświecono "udogodnieniom";
I am not sure what you mean by that.  HP is a 'Cadillac' of all UNIX
systems out there.  It's one of the best systems from management
perspective.  Its management tools are simply unmatched by other UNIX or
Linux systems.
>  - przechodzenie pomiędzy różnymi trybami bezpieczeństwa
> (passwd/shadow/baza userów) jest bezproblemowa jeśli chodzi o
> wchdzenie na wyższe poziomy - przy powrocie do shadow - mogą się
> pojawić problemy (producent zaleca zrobienie fullbackup-u przed
> wykonaniem takiej czynności).
I am having problems understanding your paragraph above.  HP-UX after
being converted to 'trusted' mode along with implementation of
/etc/default/security is one of the most secure systems you can have
from account management perspective.  Sure it does not match 'role'
based authentication implemented by Solaris 10, but hey, there are other
things that Solaris does not have.  Do you know about its /tcb 'trusted'
database implementation?  In my opinion, it's much more flexible and
robust than 'shadow' implementation in Linux or older Solaris
implementation.

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 :/

>>  - 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?

> 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.

-- 
Arabella Bishop
"Treść pisanych przeze mnie postów wyraża tylko i wyłącznie moje zdanie 
- niekoniecznie jest zgodna z prawem bądź rzeczywistością"
								ARus

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 :-)

to them, that it overcame her,
and she almost fainted. When they began to talk of the things of
religion, it was more than she could bear; they were obliged to cease on
that account. It was a very frequent thing with her to be overcome with
the flow of affection to them whom she thought godly, in conversation
with them, and sometimes only at the sight of them.

She had many extraordinary discoveries of the glory of God and Christ;
sometimes, in some particular attributes, and sometimes in many. She
gave an account, that once, as those four words passed through her mind,
wisdom, justice, goodness, and truth, her soul was filled with a sense
of the glory of each of these divine attributes, but especially the
last. Truth, said she, sunk the deepest! And, therefore, as these words
passed, this was repeated, truth, truth! Her mind was so swallowed up
with a sense of the glory of God's truth and other perfections, that she
said, it seemed as though her life was going, and that she saw it was
easy with God to take away her life by discoveries of Himself. Soon
after this she went to a private religious meeting, and her mind was
full of a sense and view of the glory of God all the time. When the
exercise was