Gustin Johnson wrote: > I do not wish to assist people into reducing their security further.
What's less secure if I have a user without superuser permissions and a superuser account that I only will use if there is the need to. It's more safe than the way it's for Ubuntu. > If someone can make such an educated decision, they certainly do not > need my help. That reminds me to a discussion. I once would someone tell how to get access to his Linux, while he has forgotten his passwords, but I wasn't allowed to do this in an open forum, with a similar argument to yours, plus the argument he might illegal hack a Linux of someone else. But back to the topic. Why it's less secure the way "normal" Linux like Debian, Suse and a lot of others do it, resp. what's more save if a user only needs to type sudo? I don't want to have other people on my computer being able to do things that only a superuser should be allowed to do. Your argument is paradox to the situation it's for Ubuntu. Ubuntu is less secure, because ther's no superuser account.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ 64studio-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.64studio.com/mailman/listinfo/64studio-users
