UNIX Administratosphere

In a Windows environment, people have gotten used to just picking up any device (whether it is a CDROM, PCMCIA card, printer, or modem) and expecting it to work. While the concept of “plug and play” is not yet here, the fact is that when installed everything should work with Windows.

And it isn’t just Windows - other large commercial vendors have access that you and I do not. Apple comes to mind - MacOS X has much better support than Linux or FreeBSD, for example.

Open source operating systems rely on hardware manufacturers to make the details of their hardware available for free or low cost - and then for someone to come and craft the software drivers needed. Usually, the latter is not a big problem; the former is.

The problem can be deeper than that as well, since the label on the product is not the same as the label on the internal devices: so it is not possible to simply look for a brand and use it. Worse, manufacturers can change hardware vendors on the same model, so that discerning which model is which can occasionally be difficult - the revision becomes the determining factor as to which hardware was used.

First thing is to determine which devices are supported. Start with the release documents for the operating system and look for supported hardware. Another place to look is the man pages (or other documentation) for the drivers. Keep the list of specific hardware handy, on another screen or printed out.

Then, look for the device (or devices) at your chosen store. Write down what you find, even if it isn’t listed (and even if it is). Then look up the device on the Internet using your desired search engine. Pay attention to mailing list threads and watch what sort of trouble people had (or didn’t have). The mailing list threads should also help you identify the hardware sources used in otherwise unidentified products, and also will keep you up to date on people’s experiences.

Once you have a product chosen, given few problems on mailing lists and a well-supported and identified hardware chip set, then buy it. However, for best results, make sure there is a good return policy in case it doesn’t work - otherwise, you are taking a chance (albeit a very small one if you’ve done your homework).

I’ve gone through this with several wireless cards under FreeBSD. The first was the Netgear MA401 (researched as given here) - worked flawlessly until it was smushed. The second I received as a bonus with my laptop purchase was a Zonet 1502 (definitely a mistake, but it came with the laptop). I’m sure the Zonet works fine under Windows (and probably OpenBSD: they reverse engineered the driver). Currently, I’ve added a TP-Link TL-WN610G (again researched as described here) - also working flawlessly.

This isn’t just good practice for wireless cards, though - networking cards, mice, video - all benefit from this research. Even laptops: when I bought my laptop, I researched the two brands that were available (for sale used at my favorite local used computer store) and found that one had lots of difficulties and the other did not. Guess which one I bought?

FreeBSD is a nice environment, and I tend to gravitate to it (though I love Linux and Solaris as well). It does tend to work better in smaller environments than either Linux or Solaris.

There was recently a discussion of FreeBSD on the EeePC; it appears that while some items do not work (to be expected) it runs nicely and works nicely (including wireless). There was recently posted a simple introductory article which also refers to a comprehensive article on FreeBSD on the EeePC.

There was also an article (with followup) about running FreeBSD on the fitPC; in contrast to the EeePC, this sounds like it is not as good. However, the fitPC has less memory and a slower processor; it is unclear as to whether the processor is “fast enough” (I still use Pentium IIIs for my use!) or if it really is slow. It is, however, very surprising that the default Ubuntu install would be a graphical installation that swaps badly and comes without SSH.

The fitPC forums have a nice Linux on fitPC section, which also includes the BSDs as well. The biggest problem with FreeBSD seems to be its lack of a USB CDROM driver in the base kernel; however, apparently OpenBSD loads fine. Since the system has only 256M of memory, it perhaps should not be swamped with heavy desktop applications.

Setting up OPIE (One-time Passwords In Everything) in OpenSUSE was easy: there is a opie RPM in the standard repository, and it installs cleanly and easily.  Then it is just a matter of initializing the database and modifying the PAM configuration to match.  Then each user is added to the database (/etc/opiekeys) one at a time.  I’ll describe the exact process on OpenSUSE at a later time.

Insufferingly, it appears that Fedora (and Red Hat) do not offer any form of one-time passwords anywhere - and certainly not OPIE.  RPMs for opie are exclusively for OpenSUSE and for the Polish PLD distribution (both of which seem to have everything).  How extremely frustrating!  This sounds like a good time to switch my home system from Fedora 5 to OpenSUSE 10.3.

OpenSUSE has supported LVM, XFS, KDE, and many other technologies when Red Hat staunchly refused to.  Even now, OpenSUSE support for all of these is much more integrated and time-tested than Red Hat’s.

Lest I sound like I hate Red Hat - I don’t - and that’s what makes it so frustrating.  Grrr….

The search for one-time passwords for HP-UX and for OpenVMS was even more fruitless.  HP-UX apparently has a third party skey package available; OpenVMS has nothing - though it could be added through programming the ACME interface (which provides similar capabilities to PAM - though perhaps not as flexible).

It looks like the BSDs aren’t a lot better: FreeBSD has OPIE built into the core (with a full section on OPIE in the FreeBSD Handbook on it); NetBSD and OpenBSD do not appear to have it (!).

Looks like my settling in to FreeBSD and OpenSUSE has paid off.  I don’t even need to suggest Debian - Debian has everything - and OPIE is no exception.  And of course, Ubuntu follows suit as well.

I have the distinct pleasure of having tried a number of systems under VMware Server, including OpenSUSE 10.3, Kubuntu 7.10, OpenBSD, and Solaris Express Developer Edition.  All work quite nicely.

There is one caveat - this environment uses a dual-monitor setup for Windows, and if the emulator autodetects the desktop size it expands to something approximating the two monitors put together.  The emulated environment works just fine (usually) with this screen, but it can’t be used in full-screen mode (since that goes to one screen only).

In that line of video mishaps, Solaris detected the video but only wants to allow 1024×768 (I’ve 1280×1024 here).  Whatever.

I also did not try OpenBSD as a desktop environment - I’ve actually yet to really put it through its paces that way (although I did set up OpenBSD 3.0/Mac68k with WindowMaker a while back….).

Which one do I like the most?  Currently I find myself looking toward OpenSUSE 10.3 more and more - and loving to use it.  The new KDE menu is a pleasure to use, and I love the immense selection of RPMs (and I do like RPM as it is).

The fact that they split up the KDE RPMs seems ghastly to me - too many things to choose.  For example, KDE Office is available in all its little bits - as is KDE Toys, KDE Games, and whatever else.  Nicer just to choose to install KDE Toys or not… I’m not sure whether I like having KDE 3 as a base with all of the KDE 4 applications available - but it seems to work alright.

I’d like to install BeleniX next, but they’ve not updated their system yet - the last hard disk install was buggy. I’m waiting eagerly….

This is just amazing: did everybody coordinate this? Within the last three weeks or so, we’ve seen these releases come out:

• Ubunutu 7.10 Gutsy Gibbon (and Kubuntu, Edubuntu, Xubuntu, et al)
• OpenBSD 4.2
• Fedora 8
• Red Hat Enterprise 5.1
• OpenVMS 8.3-1H1
• FreeBSD 7 Beta 2
• FreeBSD 6.3 Beta 1
• OpenSUSE 10.3
• Macintosh OS X 10.5
• NetBSD 4.0 RC3
• AIX 6.1

Several of these were released on the same day, November 1.

What next? Am I really supposed to choose just one? Sigh. And I just installed OpenBSD 4.1 and Fedora 7, too - not to mention installing FreeBSD 6.2 not too long ago.

From all the talk, I’ll have to try Kubuntu again. So many systems, so little time.

I have been using OpenSUSE 10.3 (with KDE). I just love it - and I love the new menu format, too.

Update: Sigh. I should have known. Microsoft Windows Vista celebrated its 1st Anniversary on Nov. 8.

Previously I mentioned the Marvell Libertas 8335 wireless chipset. In researching further the Marvell chipsets, it turns out that some of the Marvell drivers (though not the 8335) even have problems with Windows Vista.

The Ubuntu Linux community seems to have some nice documentation on using the Marvell 8335 chipset (the Linux driver is called mrv8k), including specific instructions for the TRENDnet TEW-421PC. The blog My Favorite Ubuntu has some nice instructions specifically about using the PM150NXT08 Wireless Adapter by NEXXT with Ubuntu Edgy.

The One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) project stirred up some serious controversy when the project went with the Marvell Libertas chipset, resulting in a very unhappy letter from Theo deRaadt. The Jem Report has an article that explains most all sides fairly well. In short, using the Marvell chipset required signing of an NDA, which means that the information thus learned cannot be used by the open source community to build or enhance drivers for this chipset.

It turns out also that the drivers for (some?) Marvell products require the use of proprietary firmware; thus, even with an open source driver the system still requires proprietary products to operate.

However, in spite of the fact that Marvell is the bane of the open source platform, it turns out that it seems to be the darling of the commercial builders. When Netgear chose the Marvell platform, Marvell released a press release about the fact and generally seemed to strut shamelessly. The press release was widely reported; here is the report as seen in the EETimes.

The Linley Group (who?) went so far as to state (in 2006) that Marvell’s chipsets were the best 802.11g chipsets in the market. This, of course, comes from Marvell (as reported by the Wireless Broadband Exchange Magazine here). If you want to see more awards and press releases ad nauseum from Marvell, check out their web site.

My current recommendation about the Marvell chipsets and those products designed around them: avoid them and go with the (perhaps older) better supported chipsets from other companies.

After trying to run a variety of systems, it becomes clear that certain kernels are much smaller than others. In the past, I’ve tried several different versions of small memory Linux and BSD.

It becomes clear that the BSD kernel is the smallest of the three major flavors, and can run where nothing else can. PicoBSD can run in places that floppy-based Linux distributions couldn’t, and there are other instances as well. In trying to get Linux or UNIX running on the Compaq Armada E500 (with 128M), it became obvious to me that BSD is smaller than the Linux kernel or the Solaris kernel. Solaris appears to be the largest - running Solaris in 512M of memory (with KDE) is almost (but not quite) usable. Trying to install Fedora Core 5 failed as 128M of memory wasn’t enough to install it. Solaris 8 did run in 128M, but it is two versions out of date, and not really usable in that nothing current is available for it.

FreeBSD 6 works in 128M without trouble, despite being the most current version - where as Fedora and Solaris cannot run in that amount of memory. I should say, too, that this is, in all cases, with an X session running - whether WindowMaker (low memory) or KDE or GNOME (more memory).

So, if things are tight, best to go with BSD - whether with FreeBSD, NetBSD, or OpenBSD. And do yourself a favor and run WindowMaker….

When you use Synergy, it connects one computer (and desktop) to another. Your mouse will flow seamlessly from one desktop to the next. A number of desktops can be combined, although programs remain confined to their desktops.

Synergy is different from multiscreen desktops - a standard multiscreen desktop stretches a single operating system environment across multiple screens or displays. In most normal cases, this is what would be preferred for normal users. However, if you are using multiple systems for different purposes, you can concatenate separate displays together.

When you move your mouse from one desktop (Mac OS X, for instance) to another, it is like moving from one computer to the next. In some ways, it is like a multi-screen software KVM (Keyboard-Video-Mouse) switch. The server runs on the system with the keyboard and mouse, and the clients run on other systems. Each system has its own monitor, and can be placed (virtually) anywhere through proper configuration of the server. For example, the screens could be placed one on top of the other, or side by side. If one display is disconnected, then it will be skipped. For example, if there are three screens in a row, and the middle one loses connection to the server, then it will be skipped over as the mouse moves from one system to the other.

Recently, I had the server running on Mac OS X, a client on Fedora Core 5, and a client under Solaris 8. The mouse could then be moved to the left side of the Mac OS X display, and it would appear on the right on the Fedora Core 5 display. Continuing to move the mouse, it would eventually wind up on the Solaris 8 display. The only drawbacks are the network delay and differing mouse speeds. I’ve grown addicted to it - try it today!

I was asked this question recently. Everyone likely has an answer: Red Hat Linux, Debian GNU/Linux, Solaris… My answer surprised the questioner: UNIX and UNIX-workalikes. This includes FreeBSD… and Red Hat… and Solaris… and HP-UX… and AIX… and so forth. When I first became interested in UNIX, not one of the aforementioned products existed. First UNIX system I got my hands on briefly was Eunice (look it up and the next (a few years later) was Microport System V (for the IBM AT).

Perhaps you might think Solaris is better than Linux - or NetBSD is better than OpenBSD. I suggest it doesn’t matter. Each UNIX (or UNIX-like) environment has its pluses and minuses. Individual choices are personal and enterprise choices are practical - in either case, which is truly better doesn’t matter.

If your enterprise is using Oracle, for example, the choice of which UNIX system you use is dramatically reduced: which system will Oracle support? You won’t be using Oracle on FreeBSD unless you forgo the Oracle maintenance contract. Choices like this continually appear in the enterprise. Perhaps the new version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux has everything you want - but Oracle doesn’t yet support that version.

Alternately, which system you use for your own desktop is a personal choice. Which one is “better” is which one feels better to you. UNIX is, at its heart, unified - that is, it is a single environment - but it provides a wide choice of user interfaces, user programs, and even technical items such as filesystems and virtual memory management schemes. Use whichever one seems better.

What do I use on my personal desktop? Mac OS X. However, in line with the ideas posited above, I’ve just expanded my “desktop” with Synergy, linking my “other” desktop (first Fedora Core 5, now BeleniX with OpenSolaris core) to my Mac OS X desktop. More about Synergy later.

So next time someone tells you what their favorite operating environment is - why not find out what it is they’re so excited about? You might find something exciting yourself.

The wheel group is, perhaps, not widely used today, or is seen as “archaic” and irrelevant. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The wheel group is a group which limits the number of people who are able to su to root. This usually consists of a group named “wheel” and a set of users that are permitted to use the utility ’su’ in order to change to root.

Many systems, especially either commercial systems or Linux systems, come without wheel groups configured and implemented. At least one Linux distribution, comes with wheel groups preconfigured but not active. However, all or nearly all BSD based systems will come with the wheel group installed and set up.

However, at its simplest, a wheel group implementation requires no special set up. The basic set up, as it was in the beginning, was to do the following:

1. Create a “wheel” group in /etc/groups
2. Change the permissions of the “su” command so that only those in the “wheel” group may run it.

That’s all there is to it. Many su implementations, however, added internal support for the wheel group, perhaps with logs kept and a more informative refusal message explaining why su would not run (for those not in the wheel group).

Perhaps one reason that the wheel group is not widely used may have something to do with the GNU project. The GNU implementation of su has this in its info page:

Why GNU `su' does not support the `wheel' group
===============================================

   (This section is by Richard Stallman.)

   Sometimes a few of the users try to hold total power over all the
rest.  For example, in 1984, a few users at the MIT AI lab decided to
seize power by changing the operator password on the Twenex system and
keeping it secret from everyone else.  (I was able to thwart this coup
and give power back to the users by patching the kernel, but I wouldn't
know how to do that in Unix.)

   However, occasionally the rulers do tell someone.  Under the usual
`su' mechanism, once someone learns the root password who sympathizes
with the ordinary users, he or she can tell the rest.  The "wheel
group" feature would make this impossible, and thus cement the power of
the rulers.

   I'm on the side of the masses, not that of the rulers.  If you are
used to supporting the bosses and sysadmins in whatever they do, you
might find this idea strange at first.

Is it any wonder that GNU/Linux systems don’t enable the wheel group by default? FreeBSD, however, does use the wheel group by default - as does OpenBSD and NetBSD.