Quantcast

The current status of OSProcess

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
10 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

The current status of OSProcess

gerard alis
Please, I need know the actual status of OSProcess; what I can wit it and cannot:

-Works in main platforms? Mac, Windows Linux? works of same way on all places?
-I could execute external executable files?
-I could execute commandline tools?
-Which will be the next steps of development?
-OsProcess will be integrated in Core?
-Exists some place with deep doc?

Thanks for the help.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: The current status of OSProcess

David T. Lewis
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 11:34:11AM -0800, nullPointer wrote:
> Please, I need know the actual status of OSProcess; what I can wit it and
> cannot:
>
> -Works in main platforms? Mac, Windows Linux? works of same way on all
> places?

OSProcess works on unix platforms, including Mac and Linux. Windows
support is incomplete.

> -I could execute external executable files?
> -I could execute commandline tools?

Yes. You should also load CommandShell in addition to OSProcess.

> -Which will be the next steps of development?

Well I probably should get Windows support working one of these days ;)

> -OsProcess will be integrated in Core?

No, OSProcess and CommandShell are external packages.

> -Exists some place with deep doc?

See class CommandShell, method category "documentation" on the class
side, as well as class and method comments throughout. Many classes
provide examples, and the unit tests may be helpful for understanding
usage.

Additional information is at:

http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/708
http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/1914
http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/2153
http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/6023

Dave


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: The current status of OSProcess

Igor Stasenko
David,
i don't remember the outcome of last discussion about it,
but i heard some people proposed to add the OSProcess plugin
to be built as internal one.
Or at least ship it with every VMs, same as FFI plugin.

On 12 March 2011 20:53, David T. Lewis <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 11:34:11AM -0800, nullPointer wrote:
>> Please, I need know the actual status of OSProcess; what I can wit it and
>> cannot:
>>
>> -Works in main platforms? Mac, Windows Linux? works of same way on all
>> places?
>
> OSProcess works on unix platforms, including Mac and Linux. Windows
> support is incomplete.
>
>> -I could execute external executable files?
>> -I could execute commandline tools?
>
> Yes. You should also load CommandShell in addition to OSProcess.
>
>> -Which will be the next steps of development?
>
> Well I probably should get Windows support working one of these days ;)
>
>> -OsProcess will be integrated in Core?
>
> No, OSProcess and CommandShell are external packages.
>
>> -Exists some place with deep doc?
>
> See class CommandShell, method category "documentation" on the class
> side, as well as class and method comments throughout. Many classes
> provide examples, and the unit tests may be helpful for understanding
> usage.
>
> Additional information is at:
>
> http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/708
> http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/1914
> http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/2153
> http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/6023
>
> Dave
>
>
>



--
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: The current status of OSProcess

David T. Lewis
Hi Igor,

I think it is good to make OSPP (and AioPlugin and XDisplayControlPlugin
where appropriate) available in all distributed VMs, but in some applications
they provide too much access to the operating system, so it is good to
have them as external modules so that people who do not want them on
the system can delete the modules. So I think it is best to treat it
like FFI, it is there if you want it but can be removed if you are doing
some sort of application where the user should not have easy access to
the OS functions.

Dave

On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 11:54:16PM +0100, Igor Stasenko wrote:

> David,
> i don't remember the outcome of last discussion about it,
> but i heard some people proposed to add the OSProcess plugin
> to be built as internal one.
> Or at least ship it with every VMs, same as FFI plugin.
>
> On 12 March 2011 20:53, David T. Lewis <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 11:34:11AM -0800, nullPointer wrote:
> >> Please, I need know the actual status of OSProcess; what I can wit it and
> >> cannot:
> >>
> >> -Works in main platforms? Mac, Windows Linux? works of same way on all
> >> places?
> >
> > OSProcess works on unix platforms, including Mac and Linux. Windows
> > support is incomplete.
> >
> >> -I could execute external executable files?
> >> -I could execute commandline tools?
> >
> > Yes. You should also load CommandShell in addition to OSProcess.
> >
> >> -Which will be the next steps of development?
> >
> > Well I probably should get Windows support working one of these days ;)
> >
> >> -OsProcess will be integrated in Core?
> >
> > No, OSProcess and CommandShell are external packages.
> >
> >> -Exists some place with deep doc?
> >
> > See class CommandShell, method category "documentation" on the class
> > side, as well as class and method comments throughout. Many classes
> > provide examples, and the unit tests may be helpful for understanding
> > usage.
> >
> > Additional information is at:
> >
> > http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/708
> > http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/1914
> > http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/2153
> > http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/6023
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: The current status of OSProcess

Igor Stasenko
On 13 March 2011 00:19, David T. Lewis <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Igor,
>
> I think it is good to make OSPP (and AioPlugin and XDisplayControlPlugin
> where appropriate) available in all distributed VMs, but in some applications
> they provide too much access to the operating system, so it is good to
> have them as external modules so that people who do not want them on
> the system can delete the modules. So I think it is best to treat it
> like FFI, it is there if you want it but can be removed if you are doing
> some sort of application where the user should not have easy access to
> the OS functions.
>

Well, i think for making a secure 'appliance' sort of, a better
approach to not rely on
prebuilt VM , but build your own where you can always decide what is
secure enough and what's not,
and should be removed/disabled.

Btw, we discussed a bit of this today with Henrik, and first thing i
think people should do, in order to make it more secure
is to disable external module loading mechanism.
Declaring that standard VM is more secure if you don't ship it with
_external_ modules (like FFI) sounds like a joke.

So, what i'd like to ask is, that if everyone feel a day-to-day need
for using things like FFI or OSProcessPlugin
we should make it available by default and out of the box. And for
those, who concerned with low security there is always
an options to improve it, like hiring people to develop a custom VM
based on default one, where all security problems is
addressed properly.

So, i don't see why we should constrain ourselves with things we use
and need, only because in eyes of someone
it doesn't looks secure enough.

> Dave
>



--
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: The current status of OSProcess

Stéphane Ducasse
+1

OSProcess is really important for us.
Like a good FFI

Stef

On Mar 13, 2011, at 1:11 AM, Igor Stasenko wrote:

> On 13 March 2011 00:19, David T. Lewis <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hi Igor,
>>
>> I think it is good to make OSPP (and AioPlugin and XDisplayControlPlugin
>> where appropriate) available in all distributed VMs, but in some applications
>> they provide too much access to the operating system, so it is good to
>> have them as external modules so that people who do not want them on
>> the system can delete the modules. So I think it is best to treat it
>> like FFI, it is there if you want it but can be removed if you are doing
>> some sort of application where the user should not have easy access to
>> the OS functions.
>>
>
> Well, i think for making a secure 'appliance' sort of, a better
> approach to not rely on
> prebuilt VM , but build your own where you can always decide what is
> secure enough and what's not,
> and should be removed/disabled.
>
> Btw, we discussed a bit of this today with Henrik, and first thing i
> think people should do, in order to make it more secure
> is to disable external module loading mechanism.
> Declaring that standard VM is more secure if you don't ship it with
> _external_ modules (like FFI) sounds like a joke.
>
> So, what i'd like to ask is, that if everyone feel a day-to-day need
> for using things like FFI or OSProcessPlugin
> we should make it available by default and out of the box. And for
> those, who concerned with low security there is always
> an options to improve it, like hiring people to develop a custom VM
> based on default one, where all security problems is
> addressed properly.
>
> So, i don't see why we should constrain ourselves with things we use
> and need, only because in eyes of someone
> it doesn't looks secure enough.
>
>> Dave
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: The current status of OSProcess

Tudor Girba
+10

We definitely both of them in Moose.

Doru


On 13 Mar 2011, at 10:46, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:

> +1
>
> OSProcess is really important for us.
> Like a good FFI
>
> Stef
>
> On Mar 13, 2011, at 1:11 AM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>
>> On 13 March 2011 00:19, David T. Lewis <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Hi Igor,
>>>
>>> I think it is good to make OSPP (and AioPlugin and XDisplayControlPlugin
>>> where appropriate) available in all distributed VMs, but in some applications
>>> they provide too much access to the operating system, so it is good to
>>> have them as external modules so that people who do not want them on
>>> the system can delete the modules. So I think it is best to treat it
>>> like FFI, it is there if you want it but can be removed if you are doing
>>> some sort of application where the user should not have easy access to
>>> the OS functions.
>>>
>>
>> Well, i think for making a secure 'appliance' sort of, a better
>> approach to not rely on
>> prebuilt VM , but build your own where you can always decide what is
>> secure enough and what's not,
>> and should be removed/disabled.
>>
>> Btw, we discussed a bit of this today with Henrik, and first thing i
>> think people should do, in order to make it more secure
>> is to disable external module loading mechanism.
>> Declaring that standard VM is more secure if you don't ship it with
>> _external_ modules (like FFI) sounds like a joke.
>>
>> So, what i'd like to ask is, that if everyone feel a day-to-day need
>> for using things like FFI or OSProcessPlugin
>> we should make it available by default and out of the box. And for
>> those, who concerned with low security there is always
>> an options to improve it, like hiring people to develop a custom VM
>> based on default one, where all security problems is
>> addressed properly.
>>
>> So, i don't see why we should constrain ourselves with things we use
>> and need, only because in eyes of someone
>> it doesn't looks secure enough.
>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
>>
>
>

--
www.tudorgirba.com

"Obvious things are difficult to teach."




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: The current status of OSProcess

CdAB63
In reply to this post by Stéphane Ducasse
+1

OSProcess important
FFI and/or "Alien running Ok in Linux and Windows" important

CdAB

Em 13-03-2011 06:46, Stéphane Ducasse escreveu:
> +1
>
> OSProcess is really important for us.
> Like a good FFI
>
> Stef
>
> On Mar 13, 2011, at 1:11 AM, Igor Stasenko wrote:


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: The current status of OSProcess

Schwab,Wilhelm K
+1



________________________________________
From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Casimiro de Almeida Barreto [[hidden email]]
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 11:37 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] The current status of OSProcess

+1

OSProcess important
FFI and/or "Alien running Ok in Linux and Windows" important

CdAB

Em 13-03-2011 06:46, Stéphane Ducasse escreveu:
> +1
>
> OSProcess is really important for us.
> Like a good FFI
>
> Stef
>
> On Mar 13, 2011, at 1:11 AM, Igor Stasenko wrote:



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: The current status of OSProcess

Igor Stasenko
i added this to issue tracker :)

On 14 March 2011 16:54, Schwab,Wilhelm K <[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Casimiro de Almeida Barreto [[hidden email]]
> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 11:37 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] The current status of OSProcess
>
> +1
>
> OSProcess important
> FFI and/or "Alien running Ok in Linux and Windows" important
>
> CdAB
>
> Em 13-03-2011 06:46, Stéphane Ducasse escreveu:
>> +1
>>
>> OSProcess is really important for us.
>> Like a good FFI
>>
>> Stef
>>
>> On Mar 13, 2011, at 1:11 AM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>
>
>
>



--
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

Loading...