Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
GNU/Linux Basic Guide
This 255-page guide will provide you with the keys to understand the philosophy of free software, teach you how to use and handle it, and give you the tools required to move easily in the world of GNU/Linux. Many users and administrators will be taking their first steps with this GNU/Linux Basic guide and it will show you how to approach and solve the problems you encounter.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
In Linux, and other UNIX-like systems, you have to be root (have superuser privileges) in order to listen to TCP or UDP ports below 1024 (the well-known ports).
This port 1024 limit is a security measure. But it is based on an obsolete security model and today it only gives a false sense of security and contributes to security holes. Therefore, it should be removed. As soon as possible.
Today the typical Linux machine is not used in a way which makes the port 1024 limit relevant. We tend to use it as a desktop client (workstation) with only one user which has superuser access via sudo.
Which distros other than the Ubuntu family follow this model? Might be popular, but typical?