Well, i `ll do my best, feel free to dig though my XCP`s, they are on
On 05/11/11 00:29, Randy Katz wrote:
> Riki, if you hack my TV I will call XCP my "appliance"!
> On 5/10/2011 3:05 PM, riki wrote:
>> On 05/10/2011 10:46 PM, A Cold Penguin wrote:
>>>> Sorry I wasn't completely clear.
>>>> The reason why the use of /etc/passwd vs /etc/shadow is
>>>> non-consequential is that XCP is a single user machine where all
>>>> access is via UID 0.
>>>> As such UNIX file permissions are effectively useless. For all intents
>>>> and purposes 700 = 777 if you are always root and everything is owned
>>>> by root yes?
>>>> Does this further clarify why changing to /etc/shadow would be of no
>>> No, if anything, it makes even less sense. If all the daemons are
>>> running as root, then the excuse that was put forward, that using
>>> shadow would stop the necessary daemons from being able to perform
>>> their synchronisation properly, is moot.
>>> In the situation I am talking about here, root is often not used as a
>>> super-user. Although it would be understood that in the requirement
>>> of XCP this might be bypassed, the easy-access by keeping the
>>> password in a world-readable file would not be acceptable.
>> Is it possible to stop looking at the XCP as the unix-like
>> distribution based on centos linux and start to look at it as a
>> appliance. Are you guys evaluationg your microwave oven, fridge, NAS,
>> set-top box and your smart TV?
>> Xen-users mailing list
> Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users mailing list