| Computing desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < August 7 | << Jul | August | Sep >> | August 9 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
August 8 Information
Google Authenticator is the only trusted and free implementation of RFC 4226 that I know of. It falls short in two aspects. First, it uses an 80-bit secret key instead of the suggested minimum 128-bits. Second, it uses SHA1 for the hashing algorithm instead of at least SHA2. Is there a free implementation that has at least a 128-bit secret key and better hash algorithm and also is as versatile as Google Authenticator, with applications across multiple platforms? 209.149.113.5 ( talk) 19:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I accidentally mistyped "ls" as "ll" on my Ubuntu machine and was surprised to find that it's actually a valid command. Ubuntu comes standard with the following alias by default:
alias ll='ls -alF' alias la='ls -A' alias l='ls -CF'
Are these aliases standard across various Linux distributions? Are they available on the *BSD platforms as standard?
I wouldn't want to start memorizing them and relying on them unless they are fairly standard across most distros. Mũeller ( talk) 23:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- I use RedHat. It has an alias for ll, but it is ls -l. It also has l. that shows only hidden files. It does not have la or l. You can set up any aliases you like in your own config. That is how you are expected to use the system.
71.85.51.150 (
talk) 00:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. I know I can setup aliases, but I can't, or isn't allowed to, mess with aliases on every server I administrate, and other people's computers that I ssh into. If "ll" won't give me identical results on every system I use then it's safer if I just stick to "ls -alF". Mũeller ( talk) 05:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- If you can ssh into a system, you should have a home directory on the system. You set up your aliases in your home directory. For example, if you are in a bash system, you edit .bashrc in your home directory. 209.149.113.5 ( talk) 11:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'm disappointed and surprised that I can't find any articles comparing the default .bashrc files across different distros. That seems like the sort of thing people would write long screeds about.
- As far as I know, those aliases are common, but not universal. Other common ones I appreciate are "alias ls='ls --color=auto'" and "alias vi='vim'". ApLundell ( talk) 14:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
| Computing desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < August 7 | << Jul | August | Sep >> | August 9 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
August 8 Information
Google Authenticator is the only trusted and free implementation of RFC 4226 that I know of. It falls short in two aspects. First, it uses an 80-bit secret key instead of the suggested minimum 128-bits. Second, it uses SHA1 for the hashing algorithm instead of at least SHA2. Is there a free implementation that has at least a 128-bit secret key and better hash algorithm and also is as versatile as Google Authenticator, with applications across multiple platforms? 209.149.113.5 ( talk) 19:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I accidentally mistyped "ls" as "ll" on my Ubuntu machine and was surprised to find that it's actually a valid command. Ubuntu comes standard with the following alias by default:
alias ll='ls -alF' alias la='ls -A' alias l='ls -CF'
Are these aliases standard across various Linux distributions? Are they available on the *BSD platforms as standard?
I wouldn't want to start memorizing them and relying on them unless they are fairly standard across most distros. Mũeller ( talk) 23:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- I use RedHat. It has an alias for ll, but it is ls -l. It also has l. that shows only hidden files. It does not have la or l. You can set up any aliases you like in your own config. That is how you are expected to use the system.
71.85.51.150 (
talk) 00:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. I know I can setup aliases, but I can't, or isn't allowed to, mess with aliases on every server I administrate, and other people's computers that I ssh into. If "ll" won't give me identical results on every system I use then it's safer if I just stick to "ls -alF". Mũeller ( talk) 05:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- If you can ssh into a system, you should have a home directory on the system. You set up your aliases in your home directory. For example, if you are in a bash system, you edit .bashrc in your home directory. 209.149.113.5 ( talk) 11:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'm disappointed and surprised that I can't find any articles comparing the default .bashrc files across different distros. That seems like the sort of thing people would write long screeds about.
- As far as I know, those aliases are common, but not universal. Other common ones I appreciate are "alias ls='ls --color=auto'" and "alias vi='vim'". ApLundell ( talk) 14:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)