bin@primate.wisc.edu (Brain in Neutral) (01/26/89)
Now that Ultrix 3.0 is out, I've been anxiously waiting to hear what people who've installed it have to say about it: installation difficulty, gotcha's once installed, what breaks, etc. (I don't want to be the guinea pig!) Where are the stories? Is everybody else waiting for someone else to try it first before they jump in? Another question: Do Ultrix 1.2/2.2 binaries run under 3.0? Paul DuBois dubois@primate.wisc.edu rhesus!dubois bin@primate.wisc.edu rhesus!bin
emv@a.cc.umich.edu (Ed Vielmetti) (01/27/89)
In article <126@indri.primate.wisc.edu> bin@primate.wisc.edu (Brain in Neutral) writes: >Now that Ultrix 3.0 is out, I've been anxiously waiting to hear >what people who've installed it have to say about it: installation >difficulty, gotcha's once installed, what breaks, etc. (I don't >want to be the guinea pig!) this is hearsay so far, don't have a system to experiment on. - uids greater than 32000 are mapped to root, with full root privileges. fun time. - sendmail.cf breaks 10 ways from Sunday, though I suspect that's as much of a 4.2 --> 4.3 upgrade problem. - no ndbm(3) routines, you're stuck with just dbm. --Ed
dd@beta.lanl.gov (Dan Davison) (01/27/89)
In article <126@indri.primate.wisc.edu>, bin@primate.wisc.edu (Brain in Neutral) writes: > Now that Ultrix 3.0 is out, I've been anxiously waiting to hear > what people who've installed it have to say about it: installation > difficulty, gotcha's once installed, what breaks, etc. Here at LANL the major news machine has been inaccessible thru serial ports since the upgrade. The rumor is that there is some problem with autobaud detection at 2400 baud. Whatever the truth is, Ultrix 3.0 & serial ports look like a bad combination. And I was thinking about getting an Ultrix box!! dan davison/theoretical biology/t-10 ms k710/los alamos national laboratory los alamos, nm 875545/dd@lanl.gov (arpa)/dd@lanl.uucp(new)/..cmcl2!lanl!dd "Freedom is a heavy load, a great and strange burden for the spirit to undertake. It is not easy. It is not a gift given, but a choice made, and the choice may be a hard one." ...Le Guin, _The Farthest Shore_
barnett@vdsvax.steinmetz.ge.com (Bruce Barnett) (01/27/89)
In article <126@indri.primate.wisc.edu>, bin@primate (Brain in Neutral) writes: >Now that Ultrix 3.0 is out, ... >Where are the stories? There are several new features in the Ultrix 3.0 Sendmail. We are having a fun time because I can't find out what they are because we have no sendmail manual with the 3.0 manuals. My current project it to enhance cfc and ease so that they will understand the new constructs in the grammar. Right now, cfc has a hard time converting the sendmail.cf that comes with Ultrix into an ease program that will compile correctly into sendmail again. As an example, I don't think older sendmail.cf files will work with Ultrix 3.0 sendmail. In particular, all TCP mailers in the Ultrix supplied sendmail.cf have the -R mailer flag. This flag is unimplemented in 4.3 sendmail, and means the mailer uses a reserved TCP port. Perhaps DEC has implemented it? Send me mail for more details. -- Bruce G. Barnett barnett@ge-crd.ARPA, barnett@steinmetz.ge.com uunet!steinmetz!barnett
mmorse@note.nsf.gov (Michael Morse) (01/27/89)
> Now that Ultrix 3.0 is out, I've been anxiously waiting to hear > what people who've installed it have to say about it: installation > difficulty, gotcha's once installed, what breaks, etc. (I don't > want to be the guinea pig!) > Where are the stories? Is everybody else waiting for someone else > to try it first before they jump in? You might want to subscribe to info-ultrix. Write to: felix!info-ultrix-request@decuac.dec.com --Mike
avolio@decuac.dec.com (Frederick M. Avolio) (01/28/89)
Well, I'm a 'digit' but what the hey... here are my observations... 1. I *do not* find that uid >32000 are mapped to root. There *might* be a bug, but I just createa an account with uid 33000 and did not find this problem. 2. Sendmail.cf.... definetly you need to check out /usr/src/usr.lib/sendmail for various sendmail.cf files. The distributed one is firly good but DEFINETLY needs editing! But it is VERY WELL documented in comments. 3. rdist, syslog, and cron from 4.3BSD are *not* in this release. Fred
bill@bilver.UUCP (bill vermillion) (02/04/89)
In article <2606@decuac.DEC.COM> avolio@decuac.dec.com (Frederick M. Avolio) writes: >Well, I'm a 'digit' but what the hey... here are my observations... > >1. I *do not* find that uid >32000 are mapped to root. There *might* be >a bug, but I just createa an account with uid 33000 and did not find this >problem. Maybe this doesn't belong here - but I have a Xenix 3 based on SYS III/bsd on a Tandy box. I can configure the system and set the maximum number for the uid in the configuration files. MAXUID is 60000 on this system. MAXPID is 30000. It is in the param.h files in this system. -- Bill Vermillion - UUCP: {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd}!peora!rtmvax!bilver!bill : bill@bilver.UUCP
jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (John F. Haugh II) (02/05/89)
In article <391@bilver.UUCP> bill@bilver.UUCP (bill vermillion) writes: >Maybe this doesn't belong here - but I have a Xenix 3 based on SYS III/bsd on >a Tandy box. I can configure the system and set the maximum number for the >uid in the configuration files. MAXUID is 60000 on this system. MAXPID is >30000. It is in the param.h files in this system. param.h on a binary-only system is pretty much a no-op. MAXPID is used in a C source file which you don't have. Same for MAXUID. It is useful only for the definitions it provides you with. You can't change too many of the values and expect the system's behavior to change as well. -- John F. Haugh II +--Quote of the Week:------------------ VoiceNet: (214) 250-3311 Data: -6272 | "Get it through your head: InterNet: jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US | CARS ARE THE ENEMY." UucpNet : <backbone>!killer!rpp386!jfh +------ -- Bob Fishell ----------
rob@violet.berkeley.edu (Rob Robertson) (02/11/89)
In article <126@indri.primate.wisc.edu> bin@primate.wisc.edu (Brain in Neutral) writes: >Now that Ultrix 3.0 is out, I've been anxiously waiting to hear >what people who've installed it have to say about it: installation >difficulty, gotcha's once installed, what breaks, etc. (I don't >want to be the guinea pig!) STILL no hashed passwords. So if your running something like an 8820 with lots and lots of users and have a binary distribution, expect to dedicate a processor to doing "ls -l"'s. Oh yeah: ultrix 3.0 % strings /usr/ucb/lock | head eley) 3/30/83 >>> hasta la vista <<< Key: Again: @(#)lock.c 4.3 (Berkeley) 6/10/83 @(#)printf.c (ULTRIX) 11/23/87 @(#)signal.c ultrix 3.0 % I know of a few sites that have sold their 8820's, bought a used 8650's (made some money) and put up 4.3tahoe and noticed about the same performance. rob william robertson rob@violet.berkeley.edu
steved@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Steve Dempsey) (02/11/89)
In article <20218@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> rob@violet.berkeley.edu (Rob Robertson) writes: >In article <126@indri.primate.wisc.edu> bin@primate.wisc.edu (Brain in Neutral) writes: >>Now that Ultrix 3.0 is out, I've been anxiously waiting to hear [tales] ... > >STILL no hashed passwords. So if your running something like an 8820 >with lots and lots of users and have a binary distribution, expect to >dedicate a processor to doing "ls -l"'s. What about Yellow Pages? Its maps are hashed. Even on a single machine, YP is a big win when your maps are large. > >Oh yeah: > ultrix 3.0 % strings /usr/ucb/lock | head > eley) 3/30/83 ^^ >>>> hasta la vista <<< > Key: > Again: Ouch! Someone at DEC *must* be asleep. This is very old news indeed. Reminds me of a locally hacked `su' and /bin/login with a hard-coded back door, easily found with `strings'. Did I really do that (years ago)? Naaaaaah. > rob@violet.berkeley.edu Steve Dempsey, Center for Computer Assisted Engineering Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523 +1 303 491 0630 INET: steved@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu, dempsey@handel.CS.ColoState.Edu UUCP: boulder!ccncsu!longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu!steved, ...!ncar!handel!dempsey
rad@mbunix.mitre.org (Dick Dramstad) (02/14/89)
We SPR'd the "hasta la vista" feature of lock a long time ago; good thing we have source to fix it since DEC let it slip out again with the (I guess you could call it) security hole "feature." >I know of a few sites that have sold their 8820's, bought a used 8650's >(made some money) and put up 4.3tahoe and noticed about the same >performance. This isn't too surprising; the speed of each of the two processors in the 8820 is the same as the speed of the single processor in the 8650 (i.e., about 6 VAX MIPS). Without SMP, it's going to be tough to get much extra ooomph out of the 2nd processor on the 8820 anyway in many (but not all, of course) situations. Dick Dramstad