And some distros use sudo and some let you run as root by either logging in as root or changing to root temporarily. I believe that su actually means substitute user and not switch user as previously said. Then there is Fedora which has su and su -. If you run as su then you cannot affect system wide changes. For that you need su - which means su - root. In many distros then su is understood as root, but the su - is the traditional Unix way. You can actually type su - bob to run as user bob. Then there is gksu and kdesu. It all makes for an interesting experience.
Roy Using Kubuntu 10.10, 64-bit Location: Canada On 20 February 2011 15:12, Rob <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >OSX has multiple levels of user permissions. Think of the OS as a >tree. > The "root" is, well, the roots of the tree. Some actions can >only be taken > at the "root" level. The root user has complete root >access. > > You mean the system kernel? Linux,Mac and Unix has this but not windows. > > >There is only one "root" user and this user does not exist by >default. > Every "admin" user has access to root powers, but only >indirectly and only > if the root does not exist. For the root to >exist, you have to "enable" it. > Think of the root user a potential >single point of ultimate authority. Once > the root user is enabled, >the root can override anything and nothing can > override the root. > > Why does windows not use this but Linux,Mac and Unix do? > > >Most users don't know about the root user because normal use of the >OSX > does not require root access. Even "power users" never resort >to enabling > or logging in as a root user. There is a command-line >function ("sudo") > that provides "super-user" access at the command >line without enabling the > root user. > > Is this some thing Linux,Mac and Unix set up to make it more secure this > way than windows that is full admin by default. > > >In roughly 15 years administering Macs, I have logged in as root >twice to > "crack" an admin user on systems where the admin password >was lost. Even in > those cases I'm not sure that operating as the >root user was necessary. ;) > > Do you not need a passward for root ? > > >I believe there are two reasons to enable the root. One is to >secure the > system at the deepest level. The other is to operate >directly on the OS > itself with total authority without resorting to >work arounds such as the > sudo command. > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ To unsubscribe from this list, please email [email protected] & you will be removed.Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LINUX_Newbies/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LINUX_Newbies/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
