Arguable. I'd say you do; let's agree to disagree
on that one, and come back to my previous post about
not attacking people personally.

I can assure you that you would have to be root
on my machine for it to be prone to becoming a zombie.

Makes your analogy worthless.


Just playing along with your plays on words and
emotions; I'm neither American, nor do I live (or
wish to live) in the US.



Cheers,
Tink

Back when I was dual-booting between Linux and Windows, I kept a separate drive with my data files (documents, graphics, zips, etc.) in a number of FAT32 partitions. That way I had access to all my "stuff" no matter what OS I was running. Now that I'm all Linux, though with a number of distros on partitions in my OS drive, those data partitions are EXT3's and still accessible to whatever distro I'm running.

Yes, but giving a password to root used to be not enough to have root logon. It required modification of some other file or use of a GUI program.

Yes, but my computing life involves much more than that, and I choose to be able to do all my computing with convenience, even though it involves a certain amount of risk. It's similar to the decision I make to drive 65 mph where that's the posted speed limit, even though it would be safer, perhaps, to drive at 55.

lucmove made a number of points that I would have made in their absence. I'm glad there's another Linux Libertarian in the world. :-)

Lane

0 members found this post helpful.

Please, tell me, what are the inconveniences of running as a user?

It seems to me that all of you ex-Windows guys have no understanding of basic security concepts, and you seem to have actually mis-interpreted them to be the taking away of your rights...

Wrong!
Yes, and they've all been rebutted.
Since when does running as root make you a "Linux Libertarian" ??? That's a ridiculous statement.

Running as root is a fundamental mistake that demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of basic system security. Furthermore, there are actually some day to day things which will not work properly when run by root.

At the end of the day, you can do as you please. That is the beauty of Linux.
Yes, it was. No, it didn't.

I always use "sudo su" in Ubuntu family distros to work as root when I needed. Adding "sudo" in front of every command isn't for me when I need to do a big chunk of typing. The root privilege ceases when one close the terminal.

It has already pointed out that one can install a root account in Ubuntu and become root by command "su". I used to do that too but found "sudo su" can achieve everything I need without having a root account installed.

I am puzzled by the hostility some Linux users have against using a root terminal. If a user boots more than one operating system he/she needs to mount the partitions, transfer files (of different ownerships) between different OSes and configure the boot loaders. These operations can only be done as root.

To clarify my position:

There is nothing wrong with using a root terminal to perform administrative tasks. In fact, as you correctly pointed out, effective system administration requires it.

However;

There is plenty wrong with using the root account 100% of the time for day to day tasks which do not require root-level access. If you guys don't understand the reasons for this by now, you never will.

It has nothing to do with political beliefs.

It has nothing to do with trying to control anybody.

It is purely common sense.

I run as root on testing machines, like an Arch installation where I'm basically just trying to learn how to administer it, or a Slackware "build" machine that I use to build packages for other machines. Proper permissions and UID/GID's allow me to not have to run as root for much on my "full time" installs where I have samba shares, owned by a user with a certain UID, and that same user on the other machines has the same UID, the shares and directories are mounted at boot with the user's credentials and thus his permissions. It is more work to properly do all of that, but learning through use is my goal so that's just a part of it. I do agree that some people come off very hostile to the idea, but it is bad practice. However, if you accept the risks, go for it if that's what you want to do. Just my two cents

I wonder why do people get so upset about not running as root?

MTK358,

The box I am doing this reply has some 60 partitions. There are 4 MS Windows while the other partitions are packed with Linux. The point I made is that everybody has his/her own needs.

A simple case is when I am answering a member's post which may be related to a MS Windows or a Linux distro I could check my installation and offer advice, say showing how to disable a timeout statement in Lilo or Grub. To mount a partition requires root privilege!

Other operating systems are just the same. A user cannot even see the BCD without running bcdedit.exe as an admin in Win7 or Vista.

I do agree that users who donot venture outside one operating system will have little need to use root.

Exactly! I think that's the difference. (I mean between users like you and me, and in this thread, and wrt this particular topic.) When you offer your advice you do that based on the specific purpose you have for your system in mind, as you have cited a few times over, and the way you configured your system that way is because it benefits you to the max. When I offer my advice I keep the benefit of the GNU/Linux community in mind.

Note I'm not talking about highly specific purposes like yours or incidentally having to fire up an application requiring root access rights or a DE once in a while, I'm concerned with those thinking running a system as root continuously is the seemingly convenient way to do things. The problem, especially with new members and those low on knowledge, is they have not (yet) learnt, they do not know or recognize that to run as root continuously is "the wrong way to do the right thing". No GNU/Linux distribution (and I'm not talking Live CDs) in their documentation promotes it as a standard operating procedure and it is "wrong" in terms of heritage (system architecture) and security anyway.

The problem with security, GNU/Linux being the multi-user networked O.S., is that a local risk doesn't need much to become a threat to anything connected to the same network. Superseding personal preference and individual needs the liability becomes a concern for all of us.

1 members found this post helpful.

Not necessarily.

You can easily edit /etc/fstab to allow mounting specific partitions as a user. You can even limit it to particular users.

rkelsen,

Recently I have been thinking about the difference between MS Windows and Linux and suddenly realise a MS Windows always mount every partitions it recognises whereas in Linux we only mount the ones we need to use.

According to you it would be safer to put all of my partitions, just in case I need them, on the fstab instead of invoke the root privilege to mount the one that needs to be accessed from time to time.

Your attitude also leads me to recall Win7/Vista reaction to my 128 partition of a gpt disk. Although all of my partitions were Linux Type 83 the Win7/Vista still tried to mount them but couldn't yet a drive letter was still assigned for each one until the characters run out.

You can use pmount to mount drives as a normal user.

Also, you can use GUI file managers that mount devices without the need to be root.

Please do not put words into my mouth. I didn't say that.

I was merely pointing out that it could be done.
That must be a recent innovation. xp doesn't do this.

Regardless, Windows has always tried to take control of your hardware. It will overwrite the MBR of your hard drive upon installation without creating a backup. W7 even creates additional partitions without asking. It always assumes that it is going to be the sole OS on your machine, and it must be installed on a primary partition.

Linux, on the other hand, couldn't care less where you install it or how many other OSes you have on your machine. Some distros (like Ubuntu) try to over simplify things a little, but with some skill (and the use of "Advanced" settings...) it is easy to install it wherever you like, without overwriting your MBR.

I beg your pardon I have been a windows power user for the past 9 years and find that the security in the newer versions of windows is more annoying than the security in Linux,and i much prefer the Linux approach over the Mircrosoft@$)&^# approach of granting the average user Administrator permissions.

I am getting censored, so I am out of this thread.

0 members found this post helpful.