PuppyThis forum is for the discussion of Puppy Linux.
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.
Why would anyone want a bookmark.html directory ? :-)
It exports the bookmark file in Windows XP.
Quote:
Background
Firefox 3 (and later) and SeaMonkey 2.1 (and later) store their bookmarks bookmarks in places.sqlite and use JSON as the format for backups stored in the bookmarkbackups folder so, by default, bookmarks are no longer saved in HTML format. This preference allows bookmarks to be exported at shutdown to the Firefox or SeaMonkey profile folder as bookmarks.html. [1]
[edit]
Possible values and their effects
[edit]
True
Export bookmarks to bookmarks.html each time the browser shuts down.
When browser.bookmarks.autoExportHTML is set to On, it only creates a bookmarks.html directory instead of the bookmarks file.
Anyone know of a workaround to export that file ?
If you can reproduce it, then document it, and report it to the developers. Take some screenshots, zip up the directory in question and attach it to the bug report.
But it is based on mis-conceptions about running as root.
Linux Puppy runs everything as root.
I have been using Puppy for about 2 years.
I have NEVER experienced any viruses,malware, or hacks.
(That wasn't the case with Win XP.)
I hope the following will ease your concerns.
Quote:
About root, spot and fido
This is a short explanation of why users run as the administrator (root) in Puppy Linux, and/or use the non-root spot and fido accounts.
root, spot, fido
In a nutshell, root login gives you total access to everything, whereas a non-root login gives you restricted access (that is configurable for each user by the administrator).
Puppy is not a multi-user system as are most other Linux distributions, in which there is a root login plus any number of non-root login accounts.
Puppy on the other-hand, has root, plus just two non-root logins, named spot and fido.
root
There are two main objections to running as root: firstly, that you might accidentally do something dumb, such as delete important files, secondly that if someone gains access to your computer, either remotely via the Internet/network, or locally, they will be at root-level and able to do much more damage than if they gained access as a non-root user.
Doing something dumb
In the case of accidentally wiping important files, which files are important to you? Your own personal files and data of course, which regardless of whether you are logged in as your non-root account, or logged-in as root, you are just as prone to doing the same dumb thing.
That is, your personal files, settings, applications, are all owned by the non-root user, and can just as easily be deleted by the non-root user as can be deleted by the administrator.
In other words, this argument against running as root is itself dumb. At least in respect to the safety of your own files.
Where the "doing something dumb" argument is valid is in a multi-user system, where the administrator could accidentally delete or otherwise compromise another user's files. However, Puppy is not multi-user.
With regard to system files, they can easily be restored, in fact Puppy makes this easy as the entire system is in one Squashfs file.
Remote access as root
What are you afraid of? Someone getting at your personal files and data, especially such things as identification and login/password data. Much of this is on your computer, and if you run a distro in which you login as a non-root user, are in files owned by your non-root account, meaning they are accessible equally by someone breaking in as non-root user or as root.
However, there are two scenarios in which running as root has a security risk, only one of which applies to Puppy.
Firstly, if you login non-root, you could bump up to root-level to perform certain operations such as keep a file of usernames and passwords. There are some applications also that use secret files owned by root, that non-root users are not supposed to read. Thus, anyone gaining access as root, can read all of those files.
A note on the side about the above paragraph: major distros such as Ubuntu allow the first user account to bump up to root just by prefixing commands with "sudo" or "su", without requiring root password, which makes the whole protection mechanism a joke. Considering that most Ubuntu users are using this first login account as their regular login.
Secondly, in a multi-user environment, the enemy may be another user. You would never have users logging in as root in that scenario. But, I repeat, Puppy is not multi-user.
Note, Puppy allows multiple session save-files, which are usually managed by one user for different usage profiles. However, this can also cater for different users, even with optional password protection on a save-file, however this is only intended to be used in a "friendly" local environment. It is a very light-weight alternative to a multi-user system.
Puppy supposes a "friendly" local environment, and the main threat is from someone gaining access to your computer via the network ports while you are online.
Which is highly unlikely in Puppy, due to the firewall, minimal daemons (with network capability disabled). But, the concern is still there...
With there being hundreds of Linux versions,the amount of work to attack them would be almost astronomical.
That is why I love Linux.
It is also 1/5th the size of Windows. :-)
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
