

#: 20719 S1/General Interest
    19-Jan-95  14:55:30
Sb: #20633-os9max
Fm: David A. Kirk 70233,3465
To: ALAN BAIN 100023,1147

I am about to spend the money (how much American?) but am hesitant due to it
being overseas (VISA transaction ok?). Do you, or anybody else know anybody
that has purchased it?

#: 20715 S1/General Interest
    17-Jan-95  15:43:32
Sb: Ultra C help
Fm: DAn Crackel 73353,345
To: all

Does Ultra C have the function itoa() to convert an integer to a string?

#: 20709 S6/Applications
    14-Jan-95  17:32:14
Sb: #20703-Wanted: file-manager
Fm: Steve Wegert 76703,4255
To: Axel Binsack 100326,1305 (X)

While both are commercial products, K-Windows is platform specific to the MM/1.
THere has been talk of porting it to other platforms but I'm not sure where
this stands.

GWindows is better suited for cross platform support. Gespac offers it for
sale. Their address is listed in the FAQ file in library 1. Look for
OS9FAQ.TXT.


*- Steve -*


#: 20710 S12/OS9/68000 (OSK)
    15-Jan-95  12:07:33
Sb: #20708-module permissions
Fm: Bob van der Poel 76510,2203
To: Kim Kempf 71161,3221

Yes, dir -e shows VED as being owned by user 0.0. Also, it shows public execute
permisssion. And the module attributes show it being owned by user 0.0...and it
has public exec. permission. That is why this is so strange...if there is a
problem with attributes you get an error 214. However, I am getting an error
164! Hey guys...this is really bugging me...any suggestions are welcome!

#: 20712 S12/OS9/68000 (OSK)
    15-Jan-95  14:12:33
Sb: #20708-#module permissions
Fm: Bob van der Poel 76510,2203
To: Kim Kempf 71161,3221

Oh, this is interesting. I just checked the output of dir -e again...only to
discover that the owner of VED is 31.0. Now, I have no idea of how this was
changed from the normal 0.0...espcially since I am the only one who can compile
it <g>. So, I changed the ownership to 0.0 and now user 5.5 can execute the
program...just like things should be.

However, I still don't understand this:

 - file owner 31.0, public exec permission
 - module owner 0.0, public exec permission

 - attempts by user 5.5 to execute program generate error 164.

I thought that if the public exec bit was set, then anyone could exec the
program, no matter what the program's ownership? Could someone explain this?


There is 1 Reply.

#: 20717 S12/OS9/68000 (OSK)
    18-Jan-95  00:06:33
Sb: #20712-#module permissions
Fm: Kevin Darling 76703,4227
To: Bob van der Poel 76510,2203 (X)

Bob,

But does your program do anything that only a superuser can do?  Like use
F$Permit, or try to set the user id, etc?

kev

There is 1 Reply.

#: 20720 S12/OS9/68000 (OSK)
    20-Jan-95  16:22:14
Sb: #20717-module permissions
Fm: Bob van der Poel 76510,2203
To: Kevin Darling 76703,4227 (X)

>But does your program do anything that only a superuser can do?  Like use
>F$Permit, or try to set the user id, etc?

No, not at all. Well, not right away. In any event, since the program has the
GHOST bit set, it should still load into memory before it craps out. I've done
some more sleuthing...on my mm/1 I can duplicate the problem with other
programs which, for sure, don't do anything funny. Don't know if there is
anything magic about user 31.0, but try setting a program to that user and then
log in as user 5.5. You should get the 164 error. However, on my MVME running
os9 3.0 I don't get the error. Looks like MW fixed something???

Bob

#: 20716 S12/OS9/68000 (OSK)
    17-Jan-95  20:11:59
Sb: #20708-module permissions
Fm: Bob van der Poel 76510,2203
To: Kim Kempf 71161,3221

I discovered why my copy of ved had its ownership changed from 0.0 to 31.0. On
my other machine I used gtar to save all files on the HD to tape and then
reformatted the HD and restored the files. ALL THE FILES ON THE HD ARE NOW
OWNED BY 31.0!

I don't like this. I will have to play with gtar to see if this is avoidable.
In the meantime, I am running chown to restore my file ownerships.


#: 20713 S12/OS9/68000 (OSK)
    15-Jan-95  15:21:46
Sb: PC <--> OS/9 via TCP/IP?
Fm: Nick Hall 100330,2555
To: Ingo Pakleppa (ECS) 100041,102

Hi Ingo,

Yep - I've written some simple apps using the Distinct VBX's talking to OS-9
via TCP/IP. These PC apps actually sat on top of NetManage stack and
communicated at the WinSock level.

I had chosen the NetManage stack before I became aware of the Distinct tools;
however, no major problems so far. BUT we are using the Telnet VBX  and not
FTP.

I did have some minor problems and contacted Distinct. No firm solutions were
found, but shortly after the problem seemed to go away!!

Shout if you want to discuss your problems further - I might be able to help
:-)

Regards,
Nick
[England]
[Internet: nhall@dircon.co.uk]

#: 20714 S12/OS9/68000 (OSK)
    15-Jan-95  19:54:36
Sb: module permissions
Fm: David Breeding 72330,2051
To: Bob van der Poel 76510,2203 (X)

RE : can't load VED from terminal

 > If superuser loads VED into memory, all works fine. But, if user 3.3 or 4.4
 > types "ved foo" at the keyboard they receive an error 164.

Do you mean they can run it if it is loaded?  If they can't run it at all,
could it be that the attrib of some support files might be wrong, or maybe even
the text file(s) themselves, and the error report could be coming from within
the program?  Being a relative newcomer to OSK, it's still a little new to me,
but this error #164 looks a little odd.  I would think it is not coming from
the shell load itself.

 > problem with attributes you get an error 214. However, I am getting an
 > error 164! Hey guys...this is really bugging me...any suggestions are
 > welcome!

I know what you mn doing an ident, which works).

I have some other modules with similar attributes and they work fine. Also, I'm
sure that this used to work!!!


#: 20708 S12/OS9/68000 (OSK) Sat 14-Jan-95  12:55:19 Sb: #20704-module
permissions Fm: Kim Kempf 71161,3221 Tove been playing around with login
myself..  Seems like I've seen some posts about all this stuff before, but
they've disappeared somewhere.

If I understood my manual correctly, it said you had access to a file as long
as your Grp #'s matched _OR_ your User #'s matched.  However, in playing around
with my system, you could access a file _ONLY_ if your User #'s matched.
Different Grp #'s would lock you out.. Is this the way it's supposed to be?  I
just _KNOW_ I've seen this discussed before, but I've lost it.. sorry.

Also, it appears that "motd" is displayed if the GRP # is either 0 or 1, with
any user #, but not displayed for a higher Grp #.  Is this the way it is?



                   -- David Breeding --
                 CompuServe :  72330,2051
                     Delphi :  DBREEDING

         ***  Sent via CoCo-InfoXpress V1.01 ***
                       ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^

Press <CR> !>