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

[lists at openmailbox.org]

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 23:13:33 -0000 (UTC)
William Pechter via Info-vax <info-vax at rbnsn.com> 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... 
> 
> 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).
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.  
> 
> 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.

VM isn't UNIX and has no POSIX or UNIX-like features. Although today,
sadly, you can run Linux under VM.

There is a certified UNIX running inside MVS since the at least MVS/ESA
days if not before. I always close my eyes when I come near those manuals.
It's gone through a lot of name changes, unusual for IBM. It was called
UNIX System Services, OpenEdition MVS, and probably 2 or 3 other names I
can't remember.