7/2     Does it make sense to run NFS without NIS/NIS+? I've heard that file
        permissions won't work if you're running NFS w/o NIS.
        \_ nfs can run perfectly fine w/o NIS... thers not dependancy
           either way.. the file perm shit is dumb and wrong or you badly
           misunderstood... blah why do i post in the motd? -shac
           \_ It's good that you post on the motd. Not the dumbass posters
              who haven't figured out how to google.
        \_ NIS is not required to run NFS but you still have to come up with
           a way to synchronize the UID's and login names on all machines
           accessing NFS file systems if you care about file ownership.
           Here are some possible ways of doing this:
           1) rebuild the /etc/passwd and /etc/group files on all of your hosts
              (using the default portion of the file that came with the OS and
               the site added entries)
           2) use NIS.
           3) use LDAP
           DON'T use NIS+ as it has been EOLed in future solaris releases.
           \_ http://wwws.sun.com/software/solaris/faqs/nisplus.html
        \_ OP here. Sorry for the dumbass question. My problem was that I
           didn't realize that root has *less* access than other users by
           default. This is a good url:
           http://www.ebsinc.com/solaris/network/nfs.html
           \_ There's a good reason for it.  For those too lazy to read the
              URL, I assume it's going to say that root is usually mapped to
              'nobody' because otherwise you're in the situation where someone
              else can plug their box into your network.  They're suddenly root
              on all your nfs shares.  Bad news.
                \_ as opposed to being able to su to any user on your NFS
                   shares--not a whole lot of difference.  If you're exporting
                   NFS to people you don't trust, you've already lost. -tom
                   \_ It's not about people, it's about physical access to
                      the network.  NFS wasn't designed to be secure but at
                      least they can't trojan system binaries as root, only
                      user owned files.  This is an important difference.
                      Security isn't all or nothing.  Layers, son, layers.
                        \_ uh, you're exporting system binaries on writable
                           filesystems via NFS? you need more than layers. -tom
                           \_ FYI, robust NFS implementations support strong
                              authentication methods including kerberos 5.
                              Unfortunately, Linux NFS client doesn't support
                              any of that fancy authentication stuff so you
                              must choose between Linux and security..
                           \_ Uh, you've never used a dickless client? i have
                              \_ Did you miss the part about "writable
                                 filesystems"?  A diskless client doesn't need
                                 to be able to write to its /usr partition.
                                 If you allow this, then you're an accident
                                 waiting to happen.  --scotsman
                                 \_ Nope.  Your call.  Not my problem.  You'll
                                    find out the hard way one day.
                              exactly what i need, thanks for all your help.
                              you can stop helping anytime... you've already
                              provided such great help from your vast depth
                              of knowledge from working with so many diverse
                              systems over the course of your lengthy career,
                              i couldn't possibly ask you to help any more
                              than you already have.
                              \_ You know, you can stop listening also.  It's
                                 not like you're a powerless victim.
        \_ OP: tom is helpful. so is shaq.
        \_ OP: tom is helpful. so is shaq. YMMV.
           \_ tom is the techie guru god of all knowing.  tom has never been
              wrong.  i religiously follow all of toms advice.
              \_ I don't know everything.  But I probably know more than you
                 do.  -tom
                 \_ I won't lick your ass, but I appreciate your postings.
                    Don't always agree wtih you, but do appreciate them.
                 \_ What?  nonononono this is wrong.  You know *EVERYTHING*!
                    You've *NEVER* been wrong!  It's *NEVER* happened!
                    \_ Sarcasm aside, not knowing everything and never being
                       wrong are not mutually exclusive.
                       \_ But when you have an opinion about *EVERYTHING* and
                          you're *NEVER* wrong, you therefore know everything
                          as well.  Life is good.
                          \_ obLithium.