Linux - GeneralThis Linux forum is for general Linux questions and discussion.
If it is Linux Related and doesn't seem to fit in any other forum then this is the place.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
While it's like everything else here it's open to interpretation, personally I didn't see it like that. BW-userx is still on-topic. As long as it's about the thread topic (which I must say all posts so far have been) and no rules have been broken, then it's fine by me.
I must say while I didn't intend on responding this soon, some great comments so far! Thanks guys!
You are correct - I took it wrong. I must admit I too get upset (angry too strong?) when certain aspects of computing get shoved down my throat without a choice. We are discussing security however, and since that is my business, I should be used to the reactions by people of security implementations: who knows how many users I have upset by pointing rules out to them, or by proving to them their system is not secure...
Distribution: Currently: OpenMandriva. Previously: openSUSE, PCLinuxOS, CentOS, among others over the years.
Posts: 3,881
Original Poster
Rep:
I guess that's why most of us are here... it's always good to have a choice. I hate being told what to use/do as well. I know exactly how ya feel there.
(not saying anyone responding to this thread was trying to dictate anything mind you)
There are rules all throughout Linux - file attributes, access rights, password requirements, all intended to make Linux more secure. "Power users" can easily tweak Linux, and that includes giving root a password for those distros who make the root password empty and locked by default (and these distros are not "dictators", they're just trying to improve security for the normal user).
define normal? if a user being the one installing the Linux/GNU operating system should by every right have access and or a root account attached to it. They are by default the root administrator, it is to whomever else they give an accountant to that does not necessary need root. to me removing the root account is them saying you do not know enough to get root, but we'll give you sudo and sudo su instead, then read in here how someone needs to use root to fix something but cannot obtain root because that distro "hid" root account. (because you cannot get rid of it, it is needed by design) making it difficult to fix something, having to go in backdoor grub access or some such thing. hours waisted when all one had to do is
Code:
su
passwd:
two lines now turned into having to do what else is now needed to obtain root. The responsibility should be left in the "owner/user" of the system and not the one making it available to the masses.
Quote:
d these distros are not "dictators", they're just trying to improve security for the normal user
matter of perspective. you are a newbie/normal user, we here believe you do not have the ability to learn and know how to use root, so we took that away from you for your safety.
( here is a pack of matches, and we removed the striker pad for your safety)
I am the owner of this system, I need root do some stuff, and to learn how to become God of Linux/GNU why are you hindering me?
I always keep a root terminal window handy for administrative things. That window has a light red background as a reminder to be careful when using it.
define normal? if a user being the one installing the Linux/GNU operating system should by every right have access and or a root account attached to it. They are by default the root administrator, it is to whomever else they give an accountant to that does not necessary need root. to me removing the root account is them saying you do not know enough to get root, but we'll give you sudo and sudo su instead, then read in here how someone needs to use root to fix something but cannot obtain root because that distro "hid" root account. (because you cannot get rid of it, it is needed by design) making it difficult to fix something, having to go in backdoor grub access or some such thing. hours waisted when all one had to do is
Code:
su
passwd:
two lines now turned into having to do what else is now needed to obtain root. The responsibility should be left in the "owner/user" of the system and not the one making it available to the masses.
matter of perspective. you are a newbie/normal user, we here believe you do not have the ability to learn and know how to use root, so we took that away from you for your safety.
( here is a pack of matches, and we removed the striker pad for your safety)
I am the owner of this system, I need root do some stuff, and to learn how to become God of Linux/GNU why are you hindering me?
So you are saying that the person who installed the system should, by default, run things like their browser as root? Even the installer wears two hats - the system administrator and a normal user. It is good to distinguish between these two for security purposes.
The thing is that if you know enough, or have the smallest Google-fu ability, you can easily set the root password in the *buntu family (it takes one command). Canonical's decision was to, by default, protect the non-savvy user from doing that (you see, the masses - of which I am one - now are the installers of systems). I think that's fair enough. The default is that sudo allows root privileges so there is no need to actually be root at any point (and I would be interested if you can come up with an example where you do).
Distribution: Currently: OpenMandriva. Previously: openSUSE, PCLinuxOS, CentOS, among others over the years.
Posts: 3,881
Original Poster
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rknichols
...That window has a light red background as a reminder to be careful when using it.
Now that's smart idea! Never thought of that!
Quote:
Originally Posted by hydrurga
...The default is that sudo allows root privileges so there is no need to actually be root at any point...
While I understand why sudo exists; Personally, it's annoying to have to put "sudo" front of every command you want to run with root permissions. Given that I only ever switch to root (with the su - command) when I actually NEED to do something that requires root, unless it IS something that requires root; I'm only running the terminal/shell under my normal scumbag account that doesn't have any root permissions anyway.
While I understand why sudo exists; Personally, it's annoying to have to put "sudo" front of every command you want to run with root permissions. Given that I only ever switch to root (with the su - command) when I actually NEED to do something that requires root, unless it IS something that requires root; I'm only running the terminal/shell under my normal scumbag account that doesn't have any root permissions anyway.
You don't. You can use sudo su (or sudo su -, or sudo -i, or whatever your choice is, depending on your needs) if you want to have root privileges on the command line for multiple commands.
So you are saying that the person who installed the system should, by default, run things like their browser as root? Even the installer wears two hats - the system administrator and a normal user. It is good to distinguish between these two for security purposes.
The thing is that if you know enough, or have the smallest Google-fu ability, you can easily set the root password in the *buntu family (it takes one command). Canonical's decision was to, by default, protect the non-savvy user from doing that (you see, the masses - of which I am one - now are the installers of systems). I think that's fair enough. The default is that sudo allows root privileges so there is no need to actually be root at any point (and I would be interested if you can come up with an example where you do).
NO I am saying by default the one that installed it should have root account access. as most are home users, and the "corporations" should it not be the server techs that know root anyways?
just because one does not always use root, instead sudo is set up, is not to say might as well just hide it way so one has to jump through hoops to gain root account access. because they won't know how to use it in the first place, and if they do all they will do is destroy there system using root (su) anyways, so we'll look out for them and make it harder to gain su (root), mentality it implies.
it is their system, their responsibility. lets keep them non-savvy so we can still have an amount of control over the ones that use "our" systems. Lets burn books and remove schools so they will not learn too much and become free thinkers. it is a means of control, not security.
Distribution: Currently: OpenMandriva. Previously: openSUSE, PCLinuxOS, CentOS, among others over the years.
Posts: 3,881
Original Poster
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by hydrurga
You don't. You can use sudo su (or sudo su -, or sudo -i, or whatever your choice is, depending on your needs) if you want to have root privileges on the command line for multiple commands.
Thanks for the info! Should have remembered that!
While if it was say a medium to large sized business where you have say 10 techs and say the administrator and their deputy, it makes a lot of sense that you wouldn't be giving the root password to all 10 techs; if it's just a home machine where there is only one person acting as administrator when required and that's it, I don't think it makes a lot of sense to have to use sudo by default (even though you can enable root itself obviously).
Even if it's only one command you want to run with root permissions, it's still annoying to have to put "sudo" in front of the command you want to run with root permissions.
NO I am saying by default the one that installed it should have root account access. as most are home users, and the "corporations" should it not be the server techs that know root anyways?
just because one does not always use root, instead sudo is set up, is not to say might as well just hide it way so one has to jump through hoops to gain root account access. because they won't know how to use it in the first place, and if they do all they will do is destroy there system using root (su) anyways, so we'll look out for them and make it harder to gain su (root), mentality it implies.
it is their system, their responsibility. lets keep them non-savvy so we can still have an amount of control over the ones that use "our" systems. Lets burn books and remove schools so they will not learn too much and become free thinkers. it is a means of control, not security.
"Jump through hoops"? One single command to restore a root password on a *buntu system. One. Single. Command. Life is tough. Oh yes, right up there with "burning books", sure enough.
Not to digress too much but...microsoft utterly failed with windows because the only user installed is the "root" user on end user PCs. So, malware has free reign on the system because the end user context is an admin. Since windows version 1, this has been and still is, the standard.
Since most end users (not admins) do not understand the implications of using a system as the admin, mass produced OS's should not make the only user of the system an admin, but should err on the side of caution and make the only user a non-admin, with the option to elevate if the user is savvy enough to know what they are doing.
My .02 - not trying to argue, just demonstrate that since the planet has millions of PC's all running as root, this makes virus distribution so much easier...
While I understand why sudo exists; Personally, it's annoying to have to put "sudo" front of every command you want to run with root permissions. Given that I only ever switch to root (with the su - command) when I actually NEED to do something that requires root, unless it IS something that requires root; I'm only running the terminal/shell under my normal scumbag account that doesn't have any root permissions anyway.
exactly, when I get tired of using sudo then try to use su, and get told what are you talking about su?
google search, next distro to try out...
"Jump through hoops"? One single command to restore a root password on a *buntu system. One. Single. Command. Life is tough. Oh yes, right up there with "burning books", sure enough.
yep I left Ubuntututu for more than that reason, admitting I never looked into that part of it, as I left Ubuntututu long before, for reasons other than root issues, I only read in here all of the issues users where having with Ubuntututu after I left it to backdoor into Ubunutututu to fix something when a normal Linux distro all that user had to do was type su : passwd. instead the user had to go through a complicated list of commands. maybe they fixed that part of it, but I still stand that it should not even be hidden. this is Linux/GNU so yes if you are going to be using it then learn about that end of it too, and not have it hidden from the users, it keeps them dumb down. an attempt to burn books, yes it is.
I bet if it were possible to remove root all together then the *untutututu would do that.
Distribution: Currently: OpenMandriva. Previously: openSUSE, PCLinuxOS, CentOS, among others over the years.
Posts: 3,881
Original Poster
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BW-userx
exactly, when I get tired of using sudo then try to use su, and get told what are you talking about su?
google search, next distro to try out...
That's the other thing isn't it? Depending on the distro concerned it might be the root user itself or it might be "sudo" for root permissions. It doesn't make life easy, particularly for the newbie. Like when we answer questions here... which distro are they using? Oh, one of the *buntu's, then if it needs root, it's "sudo bahbahbah". But on the other hand, it's CentOS, so it's just switch to root (su -) and then whatever command run as root.
BTW, "here is a pack of matches, and we removed the striker pad for your safety", what a perfect analogy! You make me laugh (in a good way - not bagging/disagreeing your response), keep it up!
We really need a :laughing: emoji! (sorry that was off-topic - my fault - don't follow my example there )
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
I left Ubuntututu for more than that reason, admitting I never looked into that part of it, as I left Ubuntututu long before, for reasons other than root issues, I only read in here all of the issues users where having with Ubuntututu after I left it to backdoor into Ubunutututu to fix something when a normal Linux distro all that user had to do was type su : passwd. instead the user had to go through a complicated list of commands. maybe they fixed that part of it, but I still stand that it should not even be hidden. this is Linux/GNU so yes if you are going to be using it then learn about that end of it too, and not have it hidden from the users, it keeps them dumb down. an attempt to burn books, yes it is.
)
