----- Original Message -----
From: "tazmun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Matt Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: [newbie] Use of Linux
> My primary OS at this point it Win 2k, but dual booting with MD 8 on one
of
> my systems. But even on my Win system I operate 100 % of the time as a
user
> with administrative priviledges. I suppose this is somewhat risky but is
> worth the aggravation to me. I have it set so I don't even have to log
> in...it just goes right to my desktop from boot. MD will do this for a
user
> but not sure about root. One of Win 2k's best points other then NT
security
> is the included backup program which I have learned to use religiously and
> often. I'm not even sure how to start backing up Linux yet. But even if
I
> blow the entire OS up in Windoze and have to reload the initial OS which I
> find unlikely I can have it back to it's present state in a few minutes
> using the backup program on another harddrive. I should use a tape drive
> but the hard drive is so fast it's hard to beat. Linux loads fast and
easy
> initially from what I've seen. The point I'm making is wouldn't it be
> easier to just figure out how to backup the system properly and find or
have
> the experts design a program that will do this similiarly to win 2K and be
> able to relax a bit on being logged in as root. This program may already
> exist for all I know. One of the things I find a bit confusing is I wish
> the file managers would show you what directories are mounted on what
drive.
> I made a extra linux partition on my last install trying to have some
backup
> and mounted the home directory on it. But now I'm confused because there
> are 2 home directories it appears. One under /root and one under / and
I'm
> not even sure which one I have mounted on the separate partition now!
>
> Tazmun
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Matt Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "C.Heaven" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 11:19 AM
> Subject: Re: [newbie] Use of Linux
>
>
> > hey - being a relative linux newbie i also once
> > switched to the "always logging in as root" method. i
> > figured the same, im the only user and i am always
> > logging in as su to do stuff anyhow so...
> >
> > well, after once having to ctrl alt backspace out of
> > xwindows and subsequently loosing my whole linux
> > install, and then later suffering ap owerloss and
> > again losing my whole system both while logged in as
> > root i realized the wisdom of logging in as user and
> > then becoming su when i need to. actually between
> > using alt f2 to run any program you want as root and
> > the fact that mandrake 8.0 is much better at
> > recognizing when you need to be root and prompting you
> > for the password it isn't that much of a burden.
> >
> > speaking of mac, i'm curious, how does osx handle this
> > (anyone know?) i can imagine them wanting to be as
> > user simple as possible (ie. for software installs
> > etc) but still maintaining the *nix system.
> >
> > matt
> >
> >
> > --- "C.Heaven" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On June 30, 2001 02:43 pm, you wrote:
> > >
> > > <SNIP>
> > >
> > > > After getting mightily annoyed at having to run
> > > "su" in a console or run
> > > > Super User file managers or give my root password
> > > time after time in
> > > > order to run Mandrake Control Center or other
> > > root-only utilities, I now
> > > > log in all the time as root. Before the geekoids
> > > on the list warn me of
> > > > my impending eternal damnation,<g> let me explain
> > > my reasoning:
> > > >
> > > > I am the sole user. I am thus both root and judy
> > > (the only user). If I
> > > > want to do something that will affect the
> > > all-important system files,
> > > > I'm going to do it whether I'm logged in as user
> > > or root. So working as
> > > > user does nothing but make me jump through more
> > > hoops to do what I'm
> > > > going to do anyway. Why not avoid the hassle and
> > > work as root all the
> > > > time? One password per session and no consoles for
> > > "su"-ing, I can
> > > > unmount my Zip disks at will, I can deal with all
> > > files in all file
> > > > managers, I can edit what I need to, I can install
> > > programs without
> > > > problems.
> > > >
> > > > See, these "security features" can't stay the way
> > > they are if Linux is
> > > > to attract even the Mac's share of the desktop
> > > market. Home business and
> > > > consumer users will react the way I did
> > > > and just get fed up and abandon Linux if they have
> > > to go through these
> > > > endless permissions, logins, and passwords to
> > > manage their systems. In a
> > > > home system, you're constantly installing or
> > > upgrading software or
> > > > making changes to your display or your hardware.
> > > Any consumer GUI has to
> > > > accommodate such usage, which is nothing at all
> > > like what a larger
> > > > network requires.
> > >
> > > <begin sarcastic comment>
> > >
> > > Perhaps you should forward your comments to
> > > Microsoft in order to save their
> > > impending doom on the desktop due to implementing
> > > the very same super user
> > > concept in their NT based operating systems.
> > >
> > > <end sarcastic comment>
> > >
> > > Restricted super user authority is a hallmark of
> > > *NIX, and is one of the
> > > primary reasons it is so stable. Microsoft
> > > recognized this when they went to
> > > work on NT, and carried on w/ the practice thorugh
> > > Win2k. Regardless of the
> > > crap coming w/ XP one major advancement is the same
> > > multi-user/permission
> > > based concept. The bottom line is that the majority
> > > of PC users who claim to
> > > be proficient know jack, and need to be protected
> > > from themselves more than
> > > anything else. This is one of the primary reasons
> > > our company deploys Win2k
> > > on the desktop - to stop users from trashing their
> > > systems, and then
> > > requiring us to fix their mistakes. We promote the
> > > very same practice to
> > > home users in order to prevent kids, or other family
> > > members from installing
> > > some piece of hellware that guts Windows.
> > >
> > > Don't hold your breath waiting for Linux
> > > distributors to remove su, and
> > > permission based file structures. Not only would
> > > such a distro be non POSIX
> > > compliant, no self respecting *NIX vendor would
> > > abuse such a time proven and
> > > effective model.
> > >
> > > If this concept had of been implemented in the 9x
> > > line of products (even
> > > though the underlying technology is absolute junk) I
> > > can hardly imagine how
> > > astronomical the world wide productivity gains would
> > > have been over the past
> > > seven years - compared to what has actually
> > > transpired.
> > >
> > > Considering you just started using *NIX I guess it
> > > isn't fair to expect you
> > > to fully understand, and respect the benefits of
> > > POSIX. However, I will bet
> > > a dime to a dollar that if you continue using *NIX,
> > > and don't respect it's
> > > structure you will end up w/ an unstable operating
> > > system just like Win 9x.
> > >
> > > <SNIP>
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > SpeedMan
> > >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
> > http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
> >
>
