From owner-freebsd-stable Sat Sep 20 17:37:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA04602 for stable-outgoing; Sat, 20 Sep 1997 17:37:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.san.rr.com (san.rr.com [204.210.0.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA04596 for ; Sat, 20 Sep 1997 17:37:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dt5h1n61.san.rr.com (dt5h1n61.san.rr.com [204.210.31.97]) by mail.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA16518; Sat, 20 Sep 1997 17:36:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199709210036.RAA16518@mail.san.rr.com> From: "Studded" To: "Nate Williams" Cc: "freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG" Date: Sat, 20 Sep 97 17:35:51 -0700 Reply-To: "Studded" Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 1.92 For OS/2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: >8 char usernames going into 2.2.5? Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Sat, 20 Sep 1997 11:41:44 -0600 (MDT), Nate Williams wrote: >> I'm a firm believer in backwards compatibility, and I >> understand the importance of supporting things that have "always >> worked." However the rc* changes that are being made in the 2.2 branch >> seem like a pretty big change to me, much bigger than what we're >> talking about with the length of usernames. > >Bullocks. I'd appreciate it if you stuck to the facts, and leave the hostility in your little corner of the world. >1) You don't have to use the rc changes, and the system will work > *FINE*, w/out any modification (and with them). There are several nasty surprises if you don't update the files in /etc (especially the rc* files) depending on your setup. For instance you can't make the world if you don't update group, and rc.firewall has changed a lot. There are some other changes to ipfw that make it incompatible with 2.2.2 kernels. Things will probably work for most people if you don't make the changes, but to assume that everything will work "fine" for everybody even if they don't make the changes is both foolish and dangerous. >2) Programs that once worked will still continue to work (see above), > but with the username changes, programs that worked fine under a > previous release will now corrupt your system files /var/run/*tmp. Maybe this is one of those programmer things, but I'm obviously missing something here. If the change is made, won't the corresponding changes in *tmp be made too? I keep hearing that all that is needed is to make the changes in the two source files, then make the world. After that is done, it seems that all of the system binaries, files, etc. would understand the new format, yes? I have seen a few reports that telnet and ftp have trouble with 16 chars, although 15 works, so maybe it's not so simple? >Programs that use the size of usernames (read, almost all useful >programs) will need to be re-compiled/re-installed. It's a 'big deal', >although it's a simple change. At least some of which would have to be recompiled anyway. And the apps that my servers are set up for couldn't give a rat's .. well, you know about the possible size of the login names on the system, so please don't overgeneralize. >If it's such a big deal to you, do it yourself, but don't screw me over >just because you're too lazy to take the time to do it. Once again, the hostility is not necessary. Also, I resent you assuming that I'm lazy, given that *I* don't need 16 char usernames. The boxes I administer have 4-5 users each, and aren't publicly accessible. The reason I am pushing for this is that I've identified a trend both on the -questions list and amongst the people that I've convinced to try FreeBSD. This is an often requested feature, and given that 2.2.5 is going to be "it" for the next year or so, it seems shortsighted not to make the change now. I don't think it's going too far out on a limb to say that the number of people running custom apps that would fall over if the number of possible chars in a username could be 16 instead of 8 is very small compared to the number of people that will be trying FreeBSD for the first time in the next year. Not to mention the large number of people with systems in place that also want the change. If I am missing something obvious, can someone explain it to me? My basic question is this: I have a system that *depends* on usernames only having 8 chars. Along comes 2.2.5 that allows (gasp!) 16. How does that hurt me if I continue to use just the 8 I've been using all along? And/or, why don't we ask the few people who depend on only 8 being available to make the change in the source files and make the world, rather than handicapping the many who want the 16 char usernames available? Doug Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. -Shakespeare, "Henry V"