On 30 May 2006 at 15:02, Andreas Hanke wrote: > Kenneth Schneider schrieb: > > True, if you want a less secure OS use MS windows. If you want a more > > secure OS use linux > > > >> If a home user does not want to type the root-password each time he is > >> installing a program, then this is his choice. > > > > Then just login as root all the time. > > > > Again, linux is not MS windows and should -not- be made to act like it. > > Why do we need these Windows-Linux comparisons? Superuser capabilities > are a genuine UNIX feature. There is nothing "MS Windows-like" in having > an option to grant users certain permissions.
If you can take away root'srights via ACLs in Linux, MS-Windows and Linux are comparable: Take away all rights from root, then root is nothing special any more. Likewise: Add all rights to the Administrator in Windows, and you have something like root in Linux. > > It shouldn't be the default, of course, but nobody seriously proposes > insecure defaults. sudo exists anyway, so I fail to see the point why > having such an option in the software updater can be a problem. > > Educating people how to manage their systems is out of scope in this > discussion IMHO. If someone wants to grant permissions, he will do it > anyway, does it really matter if it's the classical UNIX tool named sudo > or a built-in feature of the software updater? I think the real problem is when the user has to guess the security concepts. (Just like in Windows: Most users don't know they are working as Administrator (Default installation) Regards, Ulrich --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
