LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   Linux - General (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-general-1/)
-   -   All parties in the matter of Sudo v. Root Account please rise... (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-general-1/all-parties-in-the-matter-of-sudo-v-root-account-please-rise-866642/)

TobiSGD 03-09-2011 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SL00b (Post 4284233)
Actually, it's more secure, because you can't brute-force attack a userid if you don't know a valid userid.

I can do a remote login as root to my machines. But since I do not use a password for that, I wish you good luck and no boredom for the try to brute force that login. Or just a mainframe (or two).

SL00b 03-09-2011 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TobiSGD (Post 4284780)
I can do a remote login as root to my machines. But since I do not use a password for that, I wish you good luck and no boredom for the try to brute force that login. Or just a mainframe (or two).

I don't need to. All I need to do is pop the box you're logging in remotely from, and steal your public key.

RedNeck-LQ 03-09-2011 11:47 PM

In FreeBSD, you cannot log in as root even if you know the password. You have to be in the wheel group.

EDDY1 03-10-2011 01:00 AM

Being new to the whole linux movement, I take the path with the least resistance, su, sudo or root login.

lumak 03-10-2011 03:11 AM

su -c 'command options'
until I realize I need to execute multiple commands
su
or until I realize I just want to log in and do a whole session as root

then I very neatly clear my console window with:
exec reset

Kenny_Strawn 03-12-2011 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedNeck-LQ (Post 4285054)
In FreeBSD, you cannot log in as root even if you know the password. You have to be in the wheel group.

You shouldn't be using anything whose kernel is BSD instead of GPL in the first place, as it can be used by companies to make proprietary forks (like Apple for instance).

Sure, the Chromium browser may also be based on the BSD license, but the rest of the OS is GPL.

TobiSGD 03-12-2011 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenny_Strawn (Post 4288424)
You shouldn't be using anything whose kernel is BSD instead of GPL in the first place, as it can be used by companies to make proprietary forks (like Apple for instance).

Sure, the Chromium browser may also be based on the BSD license, but the rest of the OS is GPL.

LOL, wait a minute, you are using Android and ChromeOS, but recommend to not use an OS that has a BSD-license?
I couldn't really take you serious before this post, but now I know that I really shouldn't.

corp769 03-12-2011 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TobiSGD (Post 4288445)
LOL, wait a minute, you are using Android and ChromeOS, but recommend to not use an OS that has a BSD-license?
I couldn't really take you serious before this post, but now I know that I really shouldn't.

+1...

Kenny_Strawn 03-12-2011 03:43 PM

Only at the kernel level. Chrome OS and Android have the B$D license at the user level. If the kernel is B$D, that means that the whole OS can be forked into a proprietary version. In Chrome OS, only the browser can be forked into a proprietary version, and in Android, only Dalvik and above can be forked into a proprietary version.

TobiSGD 03-12-2011 03:45 PM

And what makes that for a difference? ChromeOS without Chrome. Android without it's userland? Wouldn't that be useless?

Kenny_Strawn 03-12-2011 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TobiSGD (Post 4288456)
And what makes that for a difference? ChromeOS without Chrome. Android without it's userland? Wouldn't that be useless?

Not really. And Android is the Apache License anyway. However, that's beside the point. Chrome OS without Chrome would just be Ubuntu JeOS with X and some added commands. Put Unity (and GNOME) back on it, and you've just turned it back into Ubuntu. And with Android? Programmers can still fork the version of Android without its userland using IcedTea (for instance) to create a FOSS alternative to Dalvik that is still compatible with Android apps. My point being: As much as someone tries to close something up, unless the kernel is partially closed, developers can easily fork the open source portion into something usable.

TobiSGD 03-12-2011 06:12 PM

The Apache license is somewhat similar to the BSD license.
Quote:

Chrome OS without Chrome would just be Ubuntu JeOS with X and some added commands. Put Unity (and GNOME) back on it, and you've just turned it back into Ubuntu.
And would it run the ChromeOS apps? If ChromeOS becomes closed, I doubt so.
Quote:

developers can easily fork the open source portion into something usable.
Do you really think that it would be easy to write an Android-clone? How many developers are actually working on Android? And if you close Androids userland, do you really think it will be difficult for Google to make it so that the apps will not run on a clone?

Kenny_Strawn 03-12-2011 06:29 PM

First of all, even with something as permissive as the B$D license, you can't just take something that is open source and make the whole thing proprietary. You would have to open up some code, even if it may be nothing at all. And Google is usually generous enough to open up a lot of code (which they do; Chromium is no more different from Chrome than CentOS [or more properly Fedora] is from RHEL as I have said), so that argument is moot. And Chrome OS apps are mostly Web apps, so they can run from any browser and therefore any OS.

However, can we get back on topic please?

tiredofbilkyyaforallican 03-12-2011 09:58 PM

When I wish to perform some task sudo works just fine, besides I feel more secure in NOT going into root (I forget to remove privileges LOL)

RedNeck-LQ 03-12-2011 09:58 PM

I don't think much about licenses when using operating systems because I don't understand the legal mumble jumbo of them.

To me an OS is an OS regardless of license type.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:18 PM.