[Info-vax] CLI editing, was: Re: VMS - Virtual Terminals - A security risk way back yonder OR was that an Old Wives Tale ?

[Johnny Billquist]

On 2016-02-15 00:13, William Pechter wrote:
> In article <n9qmvv$578$1 at Iltempo.Update.UU.SE>,
> Johnny Billquist  <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
>> On 2016-02-14 20:01, Steven Schweda wrote:
>>>> [...] on most systems I know of nowadays, no shell
>>>> is linked static. And most I've checked install all shells
>>>> in /bin.
>>>
>>>      Did you check the ones in /sbin on HP-UX?
>>
>> I haven't seen HP-UX live in about 15 years... And back when I did, I
>> don't even know if they had dynamic libraries at all.
>>
>> But Linux, NetBSD, FreeBSD, OS X all have the shells in /bin, as far as
>> I can tell, and all have them linked dynamically.
>>
>> /sbin would be a very strange place to put any shells, or commonly used
>> binaries. It's mostly a place where you would place system binaries that
>> would be needed for standalone use, which are not commonly used by
>> normal users. But Unix-like systems have such varied and confusing
>> directory structures...
>>
>> 	Johnny
>>
>> --
>> Johnny Billquist                  || "I'm on a bus
>>                                    ||  on a psychedelic trip
>> email: bqt at softjar.se             ||  Reading murder books
>> pdp is alive!                     ||  tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
>
> /sbin was where the statically linked maintenance tools were...

Nowadays people don't seem to care about statically linked. I'm not very 
happy with that, but that's life... But since /usr sometimes is a 
separate filesystem, /sbin is where you need to keep all tools that are 
required before you even have any other fs mounted, unless it's stuff 
you put in /bin

> IIRC there was a statically linked shell on a number of the Unix Systems
> in the 80s and 90's.   I remember a screwed up upgrade of libc on Solaris
> 4.1 (caused by someone adding -- poorly -- the DNS Resolver+ code
> to allow nameserver lookup without using Yellow Pages on Solaris 1.1 (SunOS4).

As far as I can remember, dynamic linking only came into existance with 
SunOS 4, which is 1988. Before then it wasn't even on the map. And other 
Unix systems got it later from SunOS.

I totally agree that it can be a serious problem with dynamically linked 
binaries, but do not seem to prevent people in general from wanting to 
move in that direction. NetBSD went fully dynamic about 10 years ago, 
and they were definitely not first. :-(

> ls didn't work.  Had to poke around and use internals from the shell
> like echo * to see what directory I was in by reference to fix it.

Yeah. It's a mess.

> As far as what is a "Unix" -- the legal definition is that it had to be
> approved by the Open Group's verification... since that was $$$ none of the
> pc based BSD's could afford to get certified as Unix.

Still the same. And the same for Linux, which is believed to be able to 
pass the verification test suite better than most, but noone wants to 
pay for it.

> It's interesting to note they're a lot more "Unix" than IBM's VM which
> made the certification back when VMS was doing the "OpenVMS" thing
> and adding a Unix like shell and capabilities.  IBM actually had theirs
> certified IIRC.

Yes. z/OS is certified as a "Unix". :-)

	Johnny

-- 
Johnny Billquist                  || "I'm on a bus
                                   ||  on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se             ||  Reading murder books
pdp is alive!                     ||  tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol