This is part of The Pile, a partial archive of some open source mailing lists and newsgroups.
Subject: Re: Linux (x server) stability From: Marc Bernstein <mb@crl.com> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 09:33:05 -0800 Kent Howard wrote: > Marc Bernstein wrote: > +---------- > | Why would my xserver all of a sudden quit working?. It could be y2k > | because I don't believe I've started it since then. > | > | Here's what I get: > | > | AUDIT: Sun Jan 9 ,,, 2000: 563 Xwrapper: > | client 1 rejected from localhost > | Xlib: connection to ":0.0" refused by server > | Xlib: Client is not authorized to connect to Server > | > | ( I am unix savvy, but not an admin) > | > | my root login home is /root there is a 0 length .rhosts file there > | > | There is no space available on my partition > | > | df ... > | Use: > | 100% Mounted on / > | > | Is suppose the above could be a problem... > +---------- > > > > Yep, that would cause the problem. An .Xauthority file has > to be written into your home directory to authenticate you > to the X server. Since that cannot happen on a full > partition... then you can't connect to the Xserver with the > proper cookie. Marc Bernstein wrote: > BTW, Is it a good idea to create a home directory > for root in a place other than /? I know it's possible > but is it prudent (to parrot and old SNL joke)? I could > create a new home directory for root in a more available > partition. Mark Cohen wrote: > A lot of distributions make a /root/ directory for the > root user, it should be only readable by user root:group > root though. I have about five separate requests here, including a follow-up to the original thread Although most of my questions are answerable in brief, I know I'm asking a lot. Maybe I should send one, wait a week, send the other, etc. Oh well... 1) I hear what people are saying about using startx as root. However, I am dependent (through ignorance) on such things as using the little app that starts my ppp connection through my modem. I suppose I can su from a non root user and fire up this and other such apps. I don't know if I have to set the DISPLAY var, but whatever. I would need to know where the app is, I suppose. Am I correct? 2) Can I configure a user with root privileges whose Gnome will provide automagically all the extra tools that gnome provides to root. Is KDE much better than gnome about this? 3) Can someone point me to where I learn how to have one user fire up KDE and another GNOME. 4) Also, could someone point me to where I learn how to set up linux to serve DSL to other computers at home (maybe windows), 5) What about having linux serve a modem connection to multiple computers? Thanks, Marc === Subject: Re: Linux (x server) stability From: "Gerald V. Fontenay" <gvf@abada.org> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 13:51:36 -0800 (PST) Joe Brenner said: > If I understand your question, you don't need to route your > DSL connection *through* linux. You get a DSL line from a > provider (I'm using Flashcom, though that's not a > recommendation: I suspect that they all suck in one way or > another). This phone line comes in, and goes to a bridge > router (in my case, a Flowpoint 2200). I've got several > ethernet connections on my bridge router, so I could plug > four computers into it directly. If I wanted more than > that, I'd plug a 10BaseT box into this (I've got an old > Wisecom here that'll let you split one line into seven, much > like a powerstrip adds power connections). You do need to > have ethernet adapters in all of the machines you want to > connect... if you're using a PC, you've probably got to > install a card (which will most likely use the "tulip" > drivers in linux). Some machines (e.g. the new Macs) > come with ethernet jacks built-in. Since it _seems that your bridge-router-thingie masquerades, is it set up so that one of your machines is actually on your isp's net with your single ip address ? ( i assumed from the question that we were talking about a single ip xdsl service ) 'cause this might be important, if you want to run, oh, say, mail, dns, www, etc.. Sounds convenient if that's the case. === Subject: Re: Linux (x server) stability From: Deirdre Saoirse <deirdre@deirdre.net> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 14:04:51 -0800 (PST) On Mon, 10 Jan 2000, Mark Cohen wrote: > > For security reasons, you're better off sshing to localhost (ssh > > root@localhost), which will transparently allow you to run X-based > > apps without opening up your system's security. > ssh is a good idea, as long as you do x-host forwarding. I personally turn > that off though. I don't. > Its better to just xhost set your display to localhost (man xhost) I run a system with other users. I don't want THEM to be able to connect to my X session. xhost allowing localhost connections is less secure than using ssh to forward the display. > ssh is good but due to its encryption its a little slow. I only use > ssh/scp for remote connections. > > Also, ftp.cs.hut.fi is a bit far away, you can also get ssh/ssh2 from > metalab.unc.edu in /pub/packages/security/ssh I always get ssh from the source. Call me paranoid. > Deirdre said: > kppp is usually installed suid root. > > The root user should only be used sparingly. Even granting a user root > privs isn't a good idea (ie putting a user in the root group) (Can't you indent normally? Geez) It was my understanding that to connect to the device one needed to have root privileges. I have a pppusers group and only people in that group can use pppd or kppp. > You should consider using sudo. This allows you to configure root like > permissions for users. ie allowing specific users to run kppp by putting > them in the sudo config. Then the user just does a sudo kppp and enters > their password. Right, but it doesn't handle the display issue. === Subject: Re: DSL/Bellsouth From: Hal Burgiss <hburgiss@bellsouth.net> Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 13:11:02 -0500 On Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 12:24:28PM -0500, J. Scott Kasten wrote: > On Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 11:34:51AM -0500, Hal Burgiss wrote: > > Just a general observation that probably applies to DSL > > implementations from all the baby bells and telcos...it is inherently > > more complicated setup when you start adding the necessary hardware > > layer at the telco CO. It is just one more thing that can go wrong, > > and the technology there is still very new. I find DSL not quite as > > reliable as dialup. While they advertised 'always on', doesn't mean > > 'always up'. BS does give a free dialup account so when DSL is down, > > you are not out in woods. > > > > Hugh? DSL should be inherently much more reliable than modem dial-up. > I've never heard of consistend outages that couldn't be traced to > the line or other faulty equipment. Once replaced, it should work > rock solid. I'd be contacting someone and complaining. "Should", yes, but "is"? Once replaced, sure it works great. But it is one more link in the chain that can break. And it *does* happen. Check some of the DSL newsgroups (like comp.dcom.xdsl), they are chock full of people complaining loud and hard. My own service has been pretty reliable. But I see reports in BS support NG in other markets. If Miami is not down at least 3 times per week (sometimes for days at a time), it is a rare week indeed. There are plenty screaming over this, but BS is a monopoly and the screams just bounce. If it is more reliable than dialup, then why give a free dialup account with it? ===