[NTLUG:Discuss] Re: SuSE 9 or 9.1 PATH environment changes after su -- understanding why, instead of bashing

[Bryan J. Smith]

On Thu, 2004-09-16 at 14:56, Ralph Green, Jr wrote:
> I was talking about a variety of things, and that is why I was all
> over the place.  I was describing various inadequacies of Fedora Core,
> ... cut ...

Again, I invite you to re-read your off-list correspondence.  You're
backtracking now.

> This does not describe me.  Some things are different and that is
> fine.  Some things are annoying and I was responding to your request for
> what I found annoying.

You went beyond just stating "annoying," you used the terms "broken." 
In several cases, I explained why something works the way it does.  Just
because Red Hat differs with another distribution does not mean it is
"broken."

If you don't like Red Hat distributions, that is cool.  Many people
don't.  But don't confuse "preference" with "broken."  One is about
viewpoint.  The other is actually technical.

> There has been only one arrogant party in this discussion and his last
> name is Smith.

Again, I invite you to re-read your off-list correspondence.  I fully
admit I made some very arrogant remarks.  But you still fail to
recognize the arrogance you made in the first place.  Your agenda was
clear, and it is frustrating to see someone do exactly what you did.

You might try to entice a person off-list, and then act innocent
on-list, and be very effective in this regard.  I have known several
people like that in my time.  Don't insult my intelligence.  Eventually,
people start realizing I'm having the same problem with the same person.

> Maybe your confusion is related to this.  I never asked why old
> versions did something one way.

That just came up as part of the thread.  Now I showed my own ignorance
on the change in Fedora Core 2, which other distros now do.  I use full
pathnames in scripts because I often can't trust environments from a
security standpoint.  So I hadn't noticed the change.

> Maybe you thought I wanted that information, for some reason.

If you just say "this doesn't work like I'm used to" and proclaim it is
"broken" or "wholly inadequate," yes someone might take the time to
explain it to you.  It is obvious to me that you instantly became
frustrated when I explained why everything worked the way it did.  You
did not expect such detail.

It did it _not_ to "prove you wrong."  I did it to explain a _lot_ of
Linux history, considerations, etc...  I merely wanted you to learn. 
But instead, you are about complaints, stirring animocity and generally
making everything a "I'm right, your wrong" argument.  What good does
that do?

I wasn't saying it was "better" or "you were wrong," but I did say it
was not "broken" just because it didn't act like you thought should. 
When you would not heed that explanation, then your viewpoint can only
be terms as one made from ignorance.  I tried to explain things to you
and you just flat out discarded them -- your reasoning and your
preferences are the only way a distribution should work, and anything
else is "broken."  That only adds arrogance to the problem.

Ignorance is not a bad thing.  Again, I was guilty of not being aware
that Fedora Core 2 changes the path for "su" (and "su -") as well.  We
all know what we know, and are used to what we are used to.  The most I
ever said was that changing the script could possibly break scripts. 
But I admit it, and I move on.  You decided to focus on that, and do
everything you could do to discredit me.

I do _not_ respond to such two-face tactics kindly as a few select
people have found out in my time.  If you are honest and forthcoming,
you will not have a problem with me.  But if you make it about egos and
you are never wrong, you will only do everyone a disservice.  Admit your
faults, poor assumptions and other issues, and we can all move on.

God knows I am wrong on a regular occasion, but I admit it.  I also do
my damnest to research everything I can, so I am aware.  I can't do
everything, but the second the su acted like it did without an alias, I
hit the LSB documentation.  And there still is no baseline standard with
regards to how the default PATH should be set.

> I specifically asked why the current version of Fedora Core needed
> to behave differently from every other distribution I tested.

People have been complaining about Red Hat for a long time.  I don't
mind that, but I do mind when someone says it is "broken."  People have
been saying it since Red Hat Linux 5.0.  In fact, most people totally
ignored the fact that Red Hat kept supporting Red Hat Linux 4.2
alongside Red Hat Linux 5.x releases, because GLibC 2 was a major
change.  But that doesn't prevent people from complaining.

So, there's nothing stopping you from using the CL3 (Red Hat Linux 9 or
Fedora Core 1 -- whatever FedoraLegacy.ORG decides to support) for
another 2+ years.  CL4 (Fedora Core 2+) is cutting edge.  CL 2 (Red Hat
Linux 7.3) is still being supported as well.

> You just don't pay attention to what I said.  I suppose you are just
> shocked that anyone would complain about RedHat or Fedora.

Nope.  See it all the time.  It's one thing to state preference.  It's
another to state it is broken.  GCC 2.95.4 was broken, but people kept
complaining about Red Hat's use of GCC 2.96.  Some even fabricated
e-mails and other things, when it was a GCC 3 issue that forced ANSI C++
compliance.  It wasn't just a Red Hat issue.

> I note poor aspects of just about any distribution.

You keep asserting "poor aspects."  It's not about bad/good.  It's about
mindset, approach and differences in implementation.

About the only distribution I show great distain for is Mandrake, and
that's because of the sheer number of installations that I've had to
fix for others.

> You asked be about RedHat, so all my comments to you were about
> RedHat and Fedora Core.  All the tests I made were on my Fedora Core
> 2 system.

Obviously not, because I saw a few details that were Fedora Core 1 or
earlier.

> I said that after doing an su to root, the ifconfig program is not in
> my path and it is not.

Actually, with Fedora Core 2, it depends on the configuration of the LSB
referenced file.

> I stick with specific, observable facts.  You should try that.

I wrote you very detailed responses on why you saw those observations. 
At no time did I assert anything either way.  But you must of either not
read them, or just thought I was a "Red Hat apologist" because you have
not deterred from your rather "strong" statements.

> I always use complete paths when I am writing scripts.  When I am just
> popping up a terminal window to run ifconfig, it is annoying if the
> system requires me to type a full path.  I would rather use systems that
> don't annoy the user as much.

Use "su -" to _guarantee_ the PATH change on _all_ platforms.
That's all I said.  Your insistence on calling any platform, old or
current, as "broken" is rather arrogant.

> I called something broken because it was broken.  Nothing more.  In
> this case, it was the ability to pass a kernel parameter to the
> installer for Fedora Core 2 and thus be able to install the OS to a
> decent filesystem.  It worked in FC1, but not FC2. I suppose I could try
> to understand exactly why it was broken, but what point would this
> serve?  When I need a new system and require a decent filesystem, I'll
> just install SuSE, rather than figure out how FC2 is broken.

We've been over this.  You did not listen.  That's your choice.
But quit asserting it is "broken."

I have told you how SuSE directly told me that ReiserFS was not
recommended for my application.  I have told you how various
distributions and select filesystems are missing key features for
support.  In fact, SGI did _not_ officially support XFS on anything but
a modified Red Hat install for the longest time -- including one SGI
developer stating that how some distributors ship XFS rather
"incomplete" was really more of a "disservice."

Red Hat chooses not to support anything but Ext3.  There are good
reasons for this.  NFS was a major one.  There are other applications as
well.  It is Red Hat's focus and that's why it is what they ship and
only support.  It is not "broken," it is a focus.  But it is looking
more and more like Red Hat will be supporting XFS very shortly as well.

I seriously doubt Red Hat will ever officially support ReiserFS.  Not
sure about JFS, but as I detailed, it was ported from OS/2 and not AIX
(for Project Monterey reasons, long story), it was missing just about
all the major UNIX interfaces required on Day 1.


-- 
Compatibility and update matrix of Red Hat(R) distributions:
http://www.vaporwarelabs.com/files/temp/RH-Distribution-FAQ-3.html
http://www.vaporwarelabs.com/files/temp/RH-Distribution-FAQ-4.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan J. Smith, E.I.                         b.j.smith at ieee.org