Thank you for your very gracious message, Sridhar. Misunderstandings and
misjudgments are a common problem in e-mail lists and forums, especially
when we aren't very well acquainted.
I think I was expecting too much too soon with my Linux installation. I
wanted to get it up and fully useful within two weeks, which I stretched
to three. I now realize it will take much longer to set up my desktop
and become familiar with the system and the applications. I have other
work to do, so I'll continue working with Linux as I can find time for
it--and I really enjoy it, so finding time will be a high priority.
>> I still get the feeling, however, that you are annoyed that GNU/Linux
is not Windows. <<
No, I'm not. I accept the system for what it is, I respect it, and I
like it. I think most users of the graphical interface would agree that
there is still work to be done. Things that Windows or Mac OS have
gotten right ought not be rejected simply because of the source,
however. Eventually Linux with a graphical interface will be so much
nicer than Windows or the Mac because the user will have *choice* far
beyond what can be done in the other OSes. You can set it up exactly the
way you like and have so many more possibilities.
>> Your "special character" (e.g. cedilla) problem is interesting.
Microsoft tries its best to blur the distinction between elements in its
OS, as Civileme has noted. In GNU/Linux, on the other hand, packages and
elements are clear-cut and well-defined. Civileme appeared to be annoyed
that many people blame the entire OS for little problems like this, <<
It's a MAJOR problem, not a "little problem." It is also not really a
blurred distinction in Windows--or in the Mac OS. Windows uses the
so-called Microsoft 1252 character set. This is essentially the Latin 1
character set with typographical characters inserted into the empty
positions between 129 and 160 in the 256 available slots. *All*
applications use the same character set, and all characters can be
entered from the keyboard (with many languages supported). All TrueType
fonts in the \Windows\Fonts directory are available to all applications
for printing, with correct screen rasterization at all point sizes. All
Type 1 fonts managed by Adobe Type Manager are available to all
applications for printing and viewing. Character sets are consistent
across applications. It is seamless and transparent to the user. You
*never* have to install fonts into applications. The system supplies the
fonts to the applications. Windows 2000 supports both Type 1 and
TrueType natively, and Unicode is also supported, though the extent
depends on the application. Unicode is still fairly new and applications
have to be written to take advantage of it. Plus most fonts do not yet
have a full Unicode set of glyphs and many never will. Mac OS operates
similarly, with a consistent character set available to all applications
with the same keystrokes.
Lest you think I am viewing this problem through a Windows lens, let me
quote from the "Font HOTTO" from linuxdoc.org (also installed with
Mandrake 8 documentation):
"Installing fonts for WYSIWYG publishing on Linux is a relatively
complex task... The main reason for the complexity is that the font
printing system (ghostscript) is unrelated to the screen font system. In
a way, Linux's left hand does not know what its right hand is doing.
This problem is nontrivial to solve, beause it is possible that printer
fonts and display fonts reside on different machines, so there is no
guarantee that all fonts the XClient uses are printable.
"...It seems that font management standards which address this issue
would greatly simplify the installation of fonts into WYSIWYG publishing
systems, because all applications could use a system-wide (as opposed to
application-specific) configuration."
Read the last sentence again. That's the point I was trying to make. Is
the author of "Font HOWTO" a fifth columnist as some on this list
thought I was?<g>
>> I still cannot excuse your assertions that logging in as root is
harmless. This has got to be the *worst* thing you can do. <<
I've never made a general statement that logging in as root is harmless
or ought to be a general practice. I have ALWAYS acknowledged the
importance of the root/user distinction when multiple users are
involved. What I have been trying to *find out* (because I do not KNOW)
is whether the "harmfulness" really applies when the sole user of the
system is also root. Leaving aside the question of being online as root,
so far the only harmful thing anyone could suggest as a result of a
single user working regularly as root is that not being forced to enter
a root password would make "single user" less conscious of the
consequences of an action. Frankly, this seems paternalistic to me--as
if one says, "you are so careless that unless you are forced to think
about it, you'll do crazy things like delete files and directories
willy-nilly." Besides, if it's MY system and I mess it up because I was
flailing about as root, it's also MY problem, isn't it? As long as I'm
the only one who is suffering the consequences, why should anyone else
care? If you've warned against it and I ignore your advice, do something
foolish, and suffer for it, you've done what you were supposed to do and
are not responsible for my mess. In no way was I criticizing the basic
design of Linux and I don't know why people thought I was.
As for Internet consequences, I agree that being online as root *may*
make your computer an easier target for crackers. Again, if a virus or
trojan affects only my computer, I don't think anyone else need be
concerned about it. If I'm passing on the virus, then it becomes more of
a public matter. And if my computer becomes a launching pad for DoS
attacks because of my lax security, I am part of a problem and failing
in my responsibility. The question is how secure is secure? If I pass
every open port test and am using a firewall, can't I feel I am doing
enough to foil the baddies? I am only looking for answers based on fact,
not OS religion.
What about this theoretical scenario? Work as root if it's convenient
and log on as user when one wants to go online. That would preserve my
responsibility to the online universe, would it not? Especially given
that I have a dialup connection that is in use *only* when I am actually
doing something, so it is an unattractive target for crackers. Firewall
and closed ports in effect, of course.
I really don't want to keep going round and round on this and would just
as soon drop it. I do feel that some people have overreacted to my
questions, however. I want to know the genuinely possible bad effects of
operating as root, both within my system and online, and then I can make
my own decision accordingly.
>> your annoyance with typing the root password over and over can be
safely circumvented with user permissions, su, kdesu and sudo <<
Until I asked about this, I did not know about kdesu and sudo, and I
thank you for the information. Let me ask this: in what way is a user
with root functions through kdesu and sudo less dangerous than simply
being root? If you can tell me where to look to find the information,
you needn't take the time to answer this yourself.
I am trying to learn, which is why I continue to ask the questions. If
you're tired of going over this again, you can decline to answer and I
won't feel ignored.<g> At any rate, I hope this will be the end of the
root/user discussions because I think everything that can be said has
been said.
Thanks again for your friendly message.
--Judy Miner
