What invokes cricket on FreeBSD

[stan]

On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 08:56:59AM -0400, Jerry wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 08:25:32 -0400
> stan <stanb at panix.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 07:48:57AM -0400, stan wrote:
> > > I have inherited a system that uses Cricket on FreeBSD to do some
> > > data collection. I have set this up myself in the distnat past, but
> > > this time I asked a contractor to set it up. I no longer have
> > > access to this contractor, and the toher day, we shut down the
> > > system this was running on, and when we rebooted the system,
> > > cricket id not resume collecting data.
> > > 
> > > I don't see anyhting in /usr/local/etc/rc.d to start it up, nor do
> > > I see anything in /etc/crontag. I don't seen any processes owned by
> > > cricket running.
> > > 
> > > In FreeBSD, how is this process noramally invoked?
> > 
> > Sorry to reply to my own message, but I have more data. I did find 
> > 
> > -rw-------  1 root  wheel  288 Jan 12  2009 /var/cron/tabs/cricke
> > 
> > Which is, I am failry certain, what is _intended_ to invoke the
> > cricket process. However, acording to the cricket logs, the last time
> > I have an entry is Aug 29th, which was when the machine was shut
> > down. So, I decided to try running this command by hand. Now, to do
> > so I need to be the cricket user, so I tried to su - cricket. I was
> > told that this user was not avaialble. Looking in /etc/passwd. I
> > found that this users shell was listed as /usr/sbin/nologin. I
> > edited /etc/paswd to change this to /nin/sh, but I still get the smae
> > error message when I try to su to that user.
> > 
> > What do I need to change to be able to su to this suer, and might
> > this be the reason tha it's crontab entry is notbeing run?
> 
> There is no native port for Cricket on FreeBSD; however, I did find
> this URL: http://cricket.sourceforge.net/support/doc/beginner.html
> 
Interersting, I have the following directory /usr/ports/net-mgmt/cricket

-- 
One of the main causes of the fall of the roman empire was that, lacking
zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C
programs.