What is the difference between private/etc/hosts and etc/hosts?

Question

Level 1

5 points

What is the difference between private/etc/hosts and etc/hosts?

I was attempting to modify my iMac 'hosts' file in terminal and tried the usual sudo nano /private/etc/hosts. It would bring up an empty page. I thought the hosts file was simply empty. I added the entries I wanted to block and when I tried to exit and save (^o or ^x and choosing yes), i would get the error '/private/etc/hosts: No file exists' (or something to that effect).

After some researching, I tried using 'sudo nano /etc/hosts' and it brought up what looks like the hosts file (It has the same entries as I have on my MBP running the same OS when I sudo nano /private/etc/hosts)

Is there a difference in the file in /private/etc/hosts and /etc/hosts ?
Does that mean I have a problem with my iMacs' host file?

iMac, Mac OS X (10.6.8)

Posted on Feb 20, 2013 5:38 AM

Reply

Answer 1

WZZZ

Level 6

13,220 points

Feb 20, 2013 8:27 AM in response to ds store

Hmmm, alias? Where do you see that?

Reply

Answer 2

WZZZ

Level 6

13,220 points

Feb 20, 2013 6:59 AM in response to chungster

Don't undertstand that. /private/etc/hosts is the full path to /etc/hosts. What about just entering /private in Go to Folder, then hitting /etc and then scrolling to and opening /hosts?

Reply

Answer 3

ds store

Level 7

30,715 points

Feb 20, 2013 8:03 AM in response to chungster

/etc folder is a alias that points to /private/etc

Use the free TextWrangler directly from Barebones, it's a lot easier editing this hosts file and copying/pasting than via Terminal.

direct changes to /private/etc/hosts is likely restricted, thus the alias is likely used to keep security checks in the loop.

Reply

Answer 4

chungster Author

Level 1

5 points

Feb 20, 2013 11:18 AM in response to WZZZ

Hi WZZZ,

Yes, when I go/private in a finder window it shows 4 directories: etc, tftpboot, tmp and var. When I open etc, I see the hosts file (there is also 'hostsconfig', 'hostsconfig~orig', 'hosts' and 'hosts.equiv'). Clicking on 'hosts' opens text edit and does display the file with entries, including the ones I added. So it seems all is well.

It doesn't really explain why sudo nano /private/etc/hosts brings up a blank file when I use terminal though. Any thoughts?

Sorry if my reply is so verbose, just wanted to report in detail. Thank you very much for your help!

Reply

Answer 5

chungster Author

Level 1

5 points

Feb 20, 2013 11:23 AM in response to ds store

Hi ds_store,

Thanks for our response! You may be right about the /private/etc/hosts path being restricted. Although, I am able to access the hosts file using that path on my MBP. Both are running OS10.6.8. Perhaps my iMac is configured differently (although I could not for the life of me recall any tinkering on my part that would have done that).

Reply

Answer 6

chungster Author

Level 1

5 points

Feb 20, 2013 11:29 AM in response to chungster

So if I understand correctly the 'hosts' file from both paths, /private/etc/ and /etc/ is the exact same file?

Should I be concerned about the failure / inaccessibility of the hosts file via /private/etc/hosts in terminal?

As mentioned above to WZZZ, I am able to see the proper entries in the hosts file when I access it as he suggested (via the go command in finder).

Reply

Answer 7

chungster Author

Level 1

5 points

Feb 20, 2013 11:46 AM in response to chungster

Magic?!!! Hey folks, I don't know what you guys did, but I just tried the 'sudo nano /private/etc/hosts' via terminal and it brought up a list of entries (not a blank page like before). I promise I wasn't on drugs last night, but somehow all seems ok!

Reply

Answer 8

BobHarris

Level 9

53,045 points

Feb 20, 2013 1:28 PM in response to WZZZ

Hmmm, alias? Where do you see that?

Technically it is a file system "Symbolic Link" which is similar to a Mac OS X Finder Alias, but different.

Symbolic Links are dereferenced by the file system drivers. Aliases are dereferenced by code above the file system, so strict Unix command line commands cannot use an Alias to find a file.

There are also file system "Hard Links" which are yet another similar to an Alias, but totally different.

Each has its advantages, and their limitations.

Reply

Answer 9

WZZZ

Level 6

13,220 points

Feb 20, 2013 1:40 PM in response to BobHarris

But since it's a symlink (not to be confused with a Finder alias) to /private/etc, I still don't understand ds store's screenshot showing etc as an alias. Why is that showing as a Finder folder with the alias icon?

Reply

Answer 10

ds store

Level 7

30,715 points

Feb 20, 2013 1:36 PM in response to chungster

chungster wrote:

I just tried the 'sudo nano /private/etc/hosts' via terminal and it brought up a list of entries (not a blank page like before). I promise I wasn't on drugs last night, but somehow all seems ok!

You were tired and mistyped, nano created a new file at that location is likley what occured.

Hmmm, alias? Where do you see that?

At / (root directory)

There is a whole smathering of hidden files and folders there if you enable invisble things.

Reply

Answer 11

WZZZ

Level 6

13,220 points

Feb 20, 2013 1:39 PM in response to ds store

Hmmm, alias? Where do you see that?

At / (root directory)

That's exactly from where I took that screenshot (after toggling visibility), which does not show etc as an alias.

Reply

Answer 12

BobHarris

Level 9

53,045 points

Feb 20, 2013 1:49 PM in response to WZZZ

But since it's a symlink (not to be confused with a Finder alias) to /private/etc, I still don't understand ds store's screenshot showing etc as an alias. Why is that showing as a Finder folder with the alias icon?

The Finder can see that it is a Symbolic Link, and since Aliases and Symlinks perform similar services, the Finder is being lazy and tagging both Aliases and Symbolic Links as "Alias".

But /etc would not function as a Finder Alias, and really needs to be a Symbolic Link, as the various Mac OS X commands, utilities, daemons, etc... would fail if /etc was an Alias.

Reply

Answer 13

ds store

Level 7

30,715 points

Feb 20, 2013 1:57 PM in response to WZZZ

WZZZ wrote:

That's exactly from where I took that screenshot (after toggling visibility), which does not show etc as an alias.

Your screen shot only shows the open private folder

Are you on 10.6? If not that might explain it.

Use TextWranger > Open and Show Everything and Invisible thingies.

Reply

Answer 14

WZZZ

Level 6

13,220 points

Feb 20, 2013 2:18 PM in response to ds store

I AM showing all invisibles. That's where the Get Info for etc is coming from, which is showing etc without the alias symbol. No matter what I try it comes up without the alias. This is on 10.6. BobHarris is saying that it really shouldn't be showing as an alias, since it's a symlink.

Maybe it's showing like that with TextWrangler on yours? I'll have to try TW later.

Reply

Answer 15

ds store

Level 7

30,715 points

Feb 20, 2013 2:35 PM in response to WZZZ

There is a etc folder "alias" or "symbolic link" at the root directory which if you double click on it it opens /private/etc

So if you sudo pico /etc/hosts it's the same as sudo pico /private/etc/hosts

If yours is deleted, then it's likely no big deal. Resinstall OS X over itself and it likely will return it.

Reply