|
|
| Author |
Message |
scholar
|
|
Bye, Grex.
| 
Jun 5 11:44 UTC 2009 |
in 2005, there were ~20,000 entries in /etc/passwd.
right now, there are 3382.
bye, grex.
|
| 19 responses total. |
cross
|
|
response 1 of 19:
|
Jun 5 14:25 UTC 2009 |
yeah, it's pretty sad. :-(
|
denise
|
|
response 2 of 19:
|
Jun 5 18:41 UTC 2009 |
It would be cool if we could come up with ideas to revive things here...
I wish we had more regular meetings to continue discussing issues such
as this.
|
tsty
|
|
response 3 of 19:
|
Jun 6 05:34 UTC 2009 |
i;d like to know what to do with all those rt emails i haver started
getting. to wit:
el enamorado via RT ... Thu Jun 04 17:38:05 2009: Request 1250
|
scholar
|
|
response 4 of 19:
|
Jun 7 02:22 UTC 2009 |
|
scholar
|
|
response 5 of 19:
|
Jun 8 12:33 UTC 2009 |
cross, could this have anything to do with your extremely restrictive default
shell?
is there actually any effective way for users to get a functional shell?
|
tsty
|
|
response 6 of 19:
|
Jun 8 18:29 UTC 2009 |
i thik it;s thorugh the request stuff ... that i;d llkke to know how
to handle ....
as for the smaller numberr of entries ... prolly a big reap in hte
last 6 mos or so.
|
cross
|
|
response 7 of 19:
|
Jun 9 13:09 UTC 2009 |
resp:5 Numbers were way down before I put that in; they've been
that way for the last couple of years.
If you want to complain about the restricted shell, I ask you: Would
you prefer to have Chad and others routinely taking Grex down for
a week at a time?
resp:6 There are some fairly detailed instructions in the staff
conference.
|
scholar
|
|
response 8 of 19:
|
Jun 10 10:02 UTC 2009 |
Of course I wouldn't prefer that, but the choice isn't one or the other. Why
can't we have it so Grex will provide access upon receipt of a token monetary
sum? Why can't we have a group of trusted users who are able to ban any
addresses cdalten might use? Why can't we have a system where people are
actually able to be validated and get access? Why can't there be a shell
that, at the very least, is a lot less restrictive than essentially useless
default?
|
cross
|
|
response 9 of 19:
|
Jun 11 01:18 UTC 2009 |
resp:8 Actually that was talked about and approved at the last board
meeting (token money = access). It just needs to be implemented. That
means me figuring out how to implement it.
The problem with banning addresses is that there are always more. And
for whatever bizarre reason, Chad is very motivated.
We do have a system where people can get validated, but we don't have
enough people doing the actual validation part.
We can relax some the restrictions in resh, but there's a line between
being usefully permissive and becoming a vector for system problems. I
am really not sure where the balance lies, but maybe others have a
better sense of that. What do you suggest we add to it?
|