[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 08:02, lists at openmailbox.org wrote:
> 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.

I wouldn't know about OS/VM, but z/OS passed the Unix 95 compliance. See 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_UNIX_Specification#z.2FOS

	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