* luciano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Everywhere i read about not using the root account all the time, but i
> don't see where's the problem in doing it.
> I use linux on 1 machine not conected to a lan, only with a dial
> up connection to internet. My question is, it's really necesary for me
> to have another account besides root (i'm the only one who uses linux
> in this pc)?
Yes...
Because you have just told a large number of people that you have a
dial-up connection to the internet and you only run as root. Any
would-be cracker out there is now thinking..."hmm, he only runs as
root... bet he hasn't set up a firewall or any other kind of
security... next time he's on the net I'll see what's interesting on
his box or what interesting things I can do from his box..."
Yes...
Because root doesn't have limitations and it's good to have limits,
especially when you are new. As an example, rm -rf / will only give a
permission denied error as a normal user, but it will delete _all_
files on _all_ mounted read-write filesystems on you computer. Now,
you might think that "oh well, I can just boot to windows". Guess
what? If your windoze partitions are mounted when you rm -rf / as
root, you have just lost windows as well as Linux.
Yes...
Because if you ever use IRC as root, at best you'll get laughed at.
At worst you'll lose every file on your computer, because someone
will just help themselves to your system.
There's lots of other reasons but hopefully you get the picture. It's
up to you to decide whether or not you will continue to use root all
the time. If you do, the chances of you having to re-install
everything because of a stupid mistake are incredibly high.
--
---Regards, Steve Youngs--------Email:-<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>---
| If Microsoft is the answer, then all I can say is that |
| you are asking the wrong question. |
------------------------------<Don't be a Newbie--Be a Gnu-bie>---
