1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
|
<!--startcut ======================================================= -->
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<html>
<head>
<title>The Answer Guy Issue 25</title>
</head>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#000000" LINK="#0000FF" VLINK="#A000A0"
ALINK="#FF0000">
<!--endcut ========================================================= -->
<H4>"Linux Gazette...<I>making Linux just a little more fun!</I>"
</H4>
<P> <hr> <P>
<!-- =============================================================== -->
<center>
<H1><A NAME="answer">
<img src="../gx/ans.gif" alt="" border=0 align=middle>
The Answer Guy
<img src="../gx/ans.gif" alt="" border=0 align=middle>
</A></H1> <BR>
<H4>By James T. Dennis,
<a href="mailto:answerguy@ssc.com">answerguy@ssc.com</a><BR>
Starshine Technical Services, <A HREF="http://www.starshine.org/">
http://www.starshine.org/</A> </H4>
</center>
<p><hr><p>
<H3>Contents:</H3>
<ul>
<li><a HREF="./lg_answer25.html#lilo">Removing LILO, Reinstalling MS-DOS</a>
<li><a HREF="./lg_answer25.html#root">Running as root on Standalone Systems -- DON'T</a>
<li><a HREF="./lg_answer25.html#netscape">More on Netscape Mail Crashes</a>
</ul>
<p><hr><p>
<!--================================================================-->
<a name="lilo"></a>
<h3><img align=bottom alt=" " src="../gx/ques.gif">
Removing LILO, Reinstalling MS-DOS
</h3>
<P> <B>
From: Stephen Britton, <A
HREF="mailto:sbritton@westnet.com">sbritton@westnet.com</A>
</B> <P><B>
My parents just told me that I have to
give our extra machine (a 486 running Red Hat 4.1)
to my younger brother, who only knows Windows.
I have formated the drive with MS-DOS, but I
can't seem to figure out how to remove LILO. I
recall reading somewhere that it can be done by
c:\fdisk /mbr But that doesn't seem to be working.
Please help, he is returning to College next week!!
</B> <P>
<img align=bottom alt=" " src="../gx/ans2.gif">
That should do it. However -- which version
of MS-DOS are we talking about. This option
was introduced in MS-DOS 5.0. Although it
wasn't documented at the time it is widely
used to recover from a variety of boot
viruses.
<P>
If that that doesn't work -- boot from a Linux
floppy -- zero out the whole partition table
and MBR (dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/hda -- for
a primary IDE, or of=/dev/sda for the primary
SCSI and count=1 (or 2 or so)).
<P>
Then you can boot from a DOS installation floppy
and it will insist that you run fdisk and will
treat the drive as though it was brand new and
previously unformatted/partitioned.
<P>
(Technically you only have to zero out or
put anyting other that 0x55AA as the last two
bytes of the MBR -- that's the signature that
tells FDISK that this drive has been previously
partitioned. However, it's just easier to zero
out the whole mess.)
<P>
Naturally this will make all of the data on the
drive inaccessible -- but I suspect you already
knew that was going to happen anyway.
<P>
Alternatively -- if fdisk /mbr doesn't work --
you should find out *why*. If this is an early
version of DOS -- you should probably try to
get a copy of 5.0 or later (or consider Caldera's
OpenDOS). I suppose you could also consider
installing Win '95, considering the likelihood
that your brother will need access to TCP/IP
utilities like web browsers and some e-mail
package.
<P>
On the one hand I hate to push some further down
the throat of the snake -- on the other hand we
should always do our best to act in the best
interests of our customers -- even when they're
our pesky brothers.
<P>
<img align=bottom alt=" " src="../gx/ques.gif">
<B>
P.S. I tried talking him into taking Linux, but he's
locked into the Windows mindset.
</B> <P>
<img align=bottom alt=" " src="../gx/ans2.gif">
Trying to convince someone of something is
usually a losing proposition. Try to understand
his real requirements -- and offer the best
advice you can.
<P>
It may be that Windows is the best environment
for him. It may also be that there are over-riding
constraints that force him to choose a Windows
compatible platform.
<P>
I think that many organizations are now "chained" to the
Microsoft aggenda by their current investment in their
existing data files (all their spreadsheets, documents,
and many of their small, departmental mailing lists, and
databases are locked into various versions of the proprietary
.DOC, .XLS, and other data formats).
<P>
Microsoft clearly intends to maintain this state. I
guess that is has been the core of their strategy for the
last five years (since about the release of Win 3.0 or 3.1).
<P>
(It is also not unique to them -- most major commercial
hardware and software vendors have tried to "lock" their
customer into upgrade paths. Companies like DEC, IBM,
and HP have each had their VMS, MVS, MPE OS' with this
aggenda. Consequently their efforts at Unix have often
been "skunkworks" -- and have been highly politicized for
over a quarter of a century).
<P>
I ask people to consider this tidbit in their long range
planning. Truly optimizing for the present requires
looking to the future as well.
<P>
-- Jim
<p><hr><p>
<!--================================================================-->
<a name="root"></a>
<h3><img align=bottom alt=" " src="../gx/ques.gif">
Running as root on Standalone Systems -- DON'T
</h3>
<P> <B>
From: <A
HREF="mailto:griffin@ameritech.net">griffin@ameritech.net</A>
</B> <P><B>
What advantages are there, if any, to running your single-user
system as a normal user and not root?
</B> <P>
<img align=bottom alt=" " src="../gx/ans2.gif">
If you're absolutely perfect, you never make a typing mistake or
issue a wrong command, or a right command from a wrong directory
with the wrong arguments, *and* you only run perfect software,
with no bugs in it at all, *and* you are totally disconnected
from the world (you don't get any e-mail, never use netnews, or
IRC etc) -- then you *might* be sort of safe running as root on
your system.
<P>
If you simply don't care about your data and you like the idea
of rebuilding your system configuration from scratch then throw
all caution to the wind and go for it.
<P>
However, for the vast majority of us, it's the most minimal bow
to prudence to log in as an unprivileged user for the vast
majority of work you do at your system.
<P>
The advantages are:
<ul>
<li> Your normal user account can't accidentally
damage vital system files with any normal
command. The most common cause of data loss
and downtime is operator failure. When I
worked on the tech support lines at Norton
Computing (the largest publisher of DOS and
Mac data recovery tools) the accidental
deletion calls were more common than all other
causes combined. Even on Unix and other
multi-user system the system administrators
(or "operators") are the primary cause of
downtime and data loss. It simply makes
sense to minimize these risks.
<li> Programs you are running (buggy, or even
trojan horses and viruses) can't readily
damage system files. Software bugs are
the second most common cause of data loss.
Trojan horses and viruses are a rarity
in the Unix world -- precisely because
the prevailing custom is to run software
with minimal privileges. When it comes to
software that legitimately needs privileged
access (like the Red Hat rpm system when
it's used to update or install new packages),
many sysadmins run new software on a "sacrificial"
system or in a "chroot jail."
<li> Even programs that are reasonably O.K. may
vulnerable to deliberate attacks. If someone
uses 'write' to ANSI-bomb you (re-writing the
keybindings in your terminal/console driver for
malicious purposes) or exploits some 'feature' of
IRC or your mail reader to execute code on your
behalf, you'd like to limit the damage they can do.
</ul>
The disadvantages mostly relate to convenience. A typical
microcomputer user from a DOS, Windows, OS/2, MacOS, AmigaDOS,
CP/M or similar background is used to being able to edit any
file and change any setting directly and quickly.
<P>
By maintaining the discipline of only doing administrative tasks
from a 'root' login -- and all of your other work from one or
more 'user' accounts you are forced to pause and consider the
implications of what you're doing.
<P>
It's also nice that you can partition your work into distinct
domains -- you can always play games from your 'player' account
-- and none of those games can damage you're thesis project, or
financial records, or whatever.
<P>
Personally I think this could use some improvement. I'd like to
see a system whereby by each user is implicitly the manager of a
group of "roles." For single-user home systems this would be
basically the same as using your root account to create new
psuedo users for yourself. On multi-user systems it would
delegate the task of creating new roles and rolegroups to the
user --- so that each user's "base account" in effect becomes an
administrator of this own roles.
<P>
The problem I see with that is that there's no support in Unix
for it. I think it would take alot of work to build a set of
tools to support it (and many of these tools would have to be
SUID 'root' in traditional Unix systems -- or would require some
totally different lower level support such as a variant of a
"capabilities" system. In any event these tools would be very
security sensitive -- and early versions would probably be the
cause of numerous exploits.
<P>
However, none of that matters to the home user with root access
to his own box.
<P>
-- Jim
<p><hr><p>
<!--================================================================-->
<a name="netscape"></a>
<h3><img align=bottom alt=" " src="../gx/ques.gif">
More on Netscape Mail Crashes
</h3>
<P> <B>
From: Chris, <A
HREF="mailto:colohan@cs.cmu.edu">colohan@cs.cmu.edu</A>
</B> <P><B>
In http://www.linuxgazette.com/issue24/lg_answer24.html, you suggest
removing the ~/.netscape tree to stop Netscape Mail from crashing.
I have had the same problem several times, and it does not appear to be
anything in that directory -- it is the mail files themselves. It
appears as though Netscape will occasionally put a wee bit of corruption
in your ~/nsmail/[Inbox, Trash, etc.] files, which prevents it from
reading them. And it crashes when it encounters any corruption in these
files. It also seems to crash if your trash gets too large. (Anything
over 1MB seems hopeless).
</B> <P><B>
So one solution is to back up your mail elsewhere, and erase your mail
directory. Then Netscape will create new, valid, empty mail folders,
and stop crashing for a while. Another solution is to open the files
yourself (they are just text files), and erase any messages that look
suspect.
</B> <P>
<img align=bottom alt=" " src="../gx/ans2.gif">
These sound like excellent troubleshooting suggestions,
recovery procedures and workarounds.
<P>
I believe I also mentioned that my e-mail is far too important
to me to entrust to Netscape (or any "new" product). For
years I used 'elm' and before that it was 'mush' (mail user's
shell). The switch from 'elm' to MH (using emacs' mh-e and Gnus
interfaces) was nerve-wracking. (I deal with over a hundred
messages a day -- and it's at the core of my business that I
"keep up" on administration and security issues for my customers).
<P>
My biggest customer (another consultant in a different specialty)
has also made this switch, after over a decade of using emacs'
RMAIL. As you can imagine there have to be some pretty extensive
advantages to a package to warrant changing from one client to
another. (Merely having a "prettier" interface and a few bells
and whistles isn't nearly enough).
<P>
Consequently I will probably stay in a poor position to answer
questions about NS's mail and news readers.
<P>
As for the fact that NS crashes when encountering corruptions
in folders and messages -- that's just poor quality control and
poor coding. As usual the issues of "time-to-market" and
"pretty interface" dominate the development of commercial products.
<P>
The nature of the computer software industry practically guarantees
that the most widely used commercial products will have bugs of
this sort. This is the result of a set of corporate priorities
that don't match typical customer priorities -- and is a byproduct
of the selection process by most software is purchased.
<P>
I could go on about this for many pages. Since I worked in the
software industry for a long time -- I had a lot of time to
observe the process first hand. (Since I was doing tech support
I also had an abundance of free neural cycles to think about the
issues, as well). Here's a few observations that will help explain
my conclusion:
<ul>
<li> Software companies sell features. They only make money
on product sales and upgrades -- and the margins are
much better in upgrades than in initial sales (since
many, possibly most, upgrades are direct revenue --
and no "cut" goes to the channel distributors and
retailers).
<li>Most software marketing is directed to channel
distributors, retailers, and fortune 1000 corporate
purchasing agents. Most of it is not directed to
end users and home customers. These intermediaries
largely determine the pricing and availability of
most commercial software, and the advertising that
goes to the end-user. The priorities of these
intermediaries are: high sales, low product return
rates (RMA's). The purchasing agents at Merisel
and Egghead don't do detailed requirements analysis
on behalf of their customers.
<li> Product returns are most tightly correlated with
how long the customer has had the product before
becoming dissatisfied with it. This is why "ease
of use" and "ease of installation" are so important
in commercial software. If the vendors can keep
the majority failures from occuring for 60 to 90
days -- very few customers will return the product
even if the publisher's policies allow it.
<li> There is much more focus on corporate sales than
on retail for most shrinkwrapped software. This
is due to high rates of piracy among home users
and the obvious observation that every "customer"
contact costs money (sales and tech support time).
So one successful sale at TransAmerica costs much
less than 10,000 individual sales to home users
and SOHO markets.
<li> Most corporate software users have little say and
relatively little interest in what software they
use. They are told what do so -- and usually don't
question that. Corporate purchasing agents get
plenty of political pressure from managers and
executives but usually neither the purchasing
agent nor the manager spends much time "in the
trenches" with the software that's being used.
<li> Managers are far more worried about being "wrong"
than being "right." An excellent product from an
unknown source is considered a much higher risk
than a mediocre product that gets good press and
comes from a large, well-known source.
<li> The computer industry press can't sell much copy
by talking about "old" products. They also can't
depend on any significant amount of advertising
unless they maintain close, positive, relatiionships
with their major advertisers. Most of their
advertisers are hardware and software companies.
<li> Because the writers in most of these magazines
are working with new (usually pre-release or "beta")
software or versions they have no opportunity to
discover the bugs that take two or three months to
show up in typical use. In addition most of these
writers either don't use the products they review
extensively, or tend to rely on earlier versions
for their production and critical work. Almost
no one is a full-time professional journalist in
the computer industry -- and those that are in
this position are in a rather poor position to
do in depth evaluation of anything other than
word processors.
<li> Despite these limitations -- which almost gaurantee
that we should take software reviews with a large
block of salt -- these reviews in major magazines
become the focal point of most discussion on the
topic. By the time a given customer has purchased,
installed, configured, and learned a given product
it's usually too costly (emotionally and in time)
to "start all over."
<li> The fact that a large number of commercial packages
store some or all of "their" data (not "yours" -- but
"theirs") in proprietary formats also increases the
risks and costs associated with switching.
<li> Finally there is a strong possibility that the next
product a given customer tries to switch to will be
as bad or worse.
</ul>
When you go through all of this -- even if you don't agree
with half of the observations -- it's easy to see why so
many people live in quiet desperation, hating their most
important software.
<P>
Sadly it takes *really* bad software to fail as a result of its
bugs. dBase IV comes to mind. It doesn't take much for really
high quality software to fail as a result of poor marketing
(or the superior marketing and industry dominance of competitors).
DESQview comes to mind.
<P>
By contrast almost all free software is chosen by end-users
based on recommendations from other end-users. It is produced
by people whose only rewards are: access to their own tool
to solve their own problems, the satisfaction of having lots
of users, and some chance for fame and sincere admiration.
They gain nothing by claiming more than they deliver (except
more e-mail with more support questions).
<P>
Luckily we, Linux and free software users, are blessed with
alternatives. These systemic problems are what I think we are
really "free" of.
<P>
-- Jim
<!--================================================================-->
<P> <hr> <P>
<center><H4>Previous "Answer Guy" Columns</H4></center>
<P>
<A HREF="../issue13/answer.html">Answer Guy #1, January 1997</A><BR>
<A HREF="../issue14/answer.html">Answer Guy #2, February 1997</A><br>
<A HREF="../issue15/answer.html">Answer Guy #3, March 1997</A><br>
<A HREF="../issue16/answer.html">Answer Guy #4, April 1997</A><br>
<A HREF="../issue17/answer.html">Answer Guy #5, May 1997</A><br>
<A HREF="../issue18/lg_answer18.html">Answer Guy #6, June 1997</A><br>
<A HREF="../issue19/lg_answer19.html">Answer Guy #7, July 1997</A><br>
<A HREF="../issue20/lg_answer20.html">Answer Guy #8, August 1997</A><br>
<A HREF="../issue21/lg_answer21.html">Answer Guy #9, September 1997</A><br>
<A HREF="../issue22/lg_answer22.html">Answer Guy #10, October 1997</A><br>
<A HREF="../issue23/lg_answer23.html">Answer Guy #11, December 1997</A><br>
<A HREF="../issue24/lg_answer24.html">Answer Guy #12, January 1998</A>
<center><H5>Copyright © 1998, James T. Dennis <BR>
Published in Issue 25 of the Linux Gazette February 1998</H5></center>
<P> <hr> <P>
<!--================================================================-->
<A HREF="./lg_toc25.html"><IMG SRC="../gx/indexnew.gif" ALT="[ TABLE OF
CONTENTS ]"></A> <A HREF="../index.html"><IMG SRC="../gx/homenew.gif"
ALT="[ FRONT PAGE ]"></A>
<A HREF="lg_bytes25.html"><IMG SRC="../gx/back2.gif" ALT=" Back "></A>
<A HREF="./doyle.html"><IMG SRC="../gx/fwd.gif" ALT=" Next "></A>
<!--startcut ======================================================= -->
</body>
</html>
<!--endcut ========================================================= -->
|
