Re: [newbie] Use of Linux
Yes I quite agree with Jim- I probably have messed up Window$ much more than my 5-yr old nephew has. :^) That is why it is a good idea not to log in as root unless needed. As for Sridhar( I wonder how should I pronounce your name?), you actually are a genius. While starting to learn early is of course easier, being able to read anything at all, let alone the MS-DOS manuals, at the age of 3 is something even Gates will be envious for sure. I myself started at about 9 with my lovely 16kb ZX82c. Basic, a bit of assembler, cassete tapes... :^) Enough of that I'm feeling old. As a matter of fact I'm turning 30 hopefully next year and here in Brazil there is a legend that anyone who has never compiled his own kernel will turn into a pumpkin in his 30th birthday. That is why I'm learning Linux right now. :^) Speaking seriously now, If I ever get to be a good C/C++ programmer and ever manage to understand QT libraries and whatever it takes to make programs for KDE/Gnome/X than I really plan on releasing a ChildDesktop for Linux. It would be an enormous boost to Linux- parents would love the thought of being able to leave their child with their computers unattended without the risk of them doing serious harm to the system. --Jeferson L. Zacco aka Wooky [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux registered user #221896 - Computers are used to solve problems that wouldn't exist if computers weren't invented in the first place. From James Bear: I let my four-year old run my box on the windows and the linux side--even as root--she loves xbill and chess--I've had to fix a couple of things, but she can never mess things up as badly as I can. jim Quoting Jeferson Lopes Zacco [EMAIL PROTECTED]: From Sridhar Dhanapalan: Children, IMHO, are the best group to teach GNU/Linux to. Their minds are like sponges, developing at a rapid pace, and so they can learn new things quickly. They do not have any predetermined notions of how things should be, unlike people who have been using WinDOS for a while. I personally began learning MS-DOS (version 2.1) on an IBM PC in 1985, when I was three (yes, three) years old. The IBM quick reference guides were amazingly easy to follow (I also had some chunky manuals, but I didn't touch those). While I realise that most people are not like myself, I believe it *is* possible to teach young children an OS like GNU/Linux, especially with fancy X interfaces like GNOME and KDE.
Re: [newbie] Use of Linux
I agree with most of your points, although loving netbeui is not necessarily my choice. I would also point out that linux, with all it's configuration abilities and learning curve (mostly an admin type thing really, most users should not have to setup anything, and in most business operations the IT dept does not want users screwing with the settings. Now the real point I wanted to make here. You say: The reality is that Linux will never penetrate the SOHO/home market unless it bgecomes easier to manage and more accommodating to the needs and preferences of non-technical users. There is no reason a powerful OS can't have a friendly face. As I see it, a problem like XP's rental (my term, not M$'s) software idea is likely to insure that everyone pays for M$ software that uses it, but the hassle of not being able to try the software on another computer, continued re-registrations (again MY term) and possible increase in lic. charges, (and If I remember correctly, M$ has changed the lic. agreement after the fact before, and required additional per-seat payments in the past, when NT server was new) will sour almost anyone one on big Bro Billy's pocket lining schemes, err I mean whatever is next for wineblows,,,err window$. Also as I see it, Linux has a MUCH friendlier face. I mean you thinks penguins are rough and terrible? I mean a cloud or a building component (a window or a Gate) might be some what inanimate and present an open hole, but they are not the least bit friendly unless the are an open hole in what otherwise is a device to provide privacy (a window is part of a wall, but the open hole in it, Gates are an open in a fence. I don't consider either walls or Gates to be friendly. grin By The Way, i don't hate winders, I am useing it right now. of course if all my hardware worked in linux I would not hardly ever boot into winders, (I have a USB scanner [acer320usb] that only cost $35.00 US after rebates, that is not completely supported yetsure wish Acer would wake up and get their heads out...) and someday it might, but for right now... they both work for me.
Re: [newbie] Use of Linux
one of the problems with your argument is that your windows setup could allow someone to set up a script that after you had launched any program in say... M$ Office, the next time your computer was left turned on at say, 3 am, it could concievable be used to, lets say dial up a phone number in Timbuktu and change your dialup number to look as if you are still dialing into your regular ISP but infact are dialing to Haiti and running up a NICE bill. or maybe they would use your computer (a little script) to launch a DDOS attack so that the trace would be back to your 1 or 2 user home computer network. No as i think about it... heck I would like everyone ELSE to use winders On Saturday 07 July 2001 18:15, Judith Miner wrote: snip certainly not be downloading programs, installing anything, or messing with the system. That leaves one person--me--as root and user. Shares are irrelevant in this situation. So are permissions. And so is this kind of business: With linux, there is more control over who can actually see the shares--you have options to limit by IP (such that only specific computers on the network can even see the shares), by users (such that only specific users on the linux server can see the shares), by permission (such that only certain users or groups of users can edit the files, and other users or groups have read only privilege), or by a combination of the above (such that only certain users from certain computers can see the shares). I agree that all of this is great on a multiuser system, even one with, say, 10 users such as a smallish business, but on a two- or three-computer, one- or two-user home network, it's irrelevant and more of a bother than a feature. This also leaves out the security risks of sharing an entire hard drive to begin with, especially under windows. You are much better off only sharing directories on the drive, then the whole thing (with the wrong permissions, someone could delete the entire Windows or winnt directory, which would leave the computer unuseable and almost certainly require either a re-install, or recopying the hard drive image back to the PC.) These are all good points unless the one sharing the hard drive is ME. Who is going to delete the entire Windows directory? Me?? Well, as root I can do that anyway! So as a general statement, You are much better off only sharing directories on the drive applies only in some small LAN situations. It most likely does not apply to home situations where one or two mature, responsible, computer-literate adults share computers on a network. Anyway, SOHO and home computers should be backed up regularly, regardless of what the networking situation is. Could you stand to lose it? Do you want to start from scratch? If the answer is no, you must have a backup strategy and DO IT. It is a lot easier to keep the thing backed up than to fool with permissions, shares, and passwords day in and day out--again, in the two-user situation. You incorrectly state that with TCP / IP file and printer sharing, your hard drive can be viewed by the outside world. Are you sure that's incorrect? I was under the impression that if you had file sharing enabled under TCP/IP and had a cable modem, you were essentially on a LAN with everyone else on your cable line. It would seem that if they could access your machine, they could indeed share files with it. I am obviously no expert on networking, especially TCP/IP networking. The only LAN networking I have experience with is NetBEUI on a small two- or three-computer network, entirely self-contained in a home. I use TCP/IP only for Dial-Up Networking and it is not bound to any components and NetBios is not enabled. While this may seem to be a joke network to some Linuxies, it is exactly what we want and works perfectly for us. I dare say this is what a large number of two-computer households want in a network. We appreciate the value of heavy-duty Linux networking where it is needed, but in our situation it is overkill many times over. There are problems with NetBEUI, especially so for larger networks, but also applicable for smaller networks in that it creates a lot of network traffic. NetBEUI was never intended for large networks. In fact, I think there is a rather small limit on the number of computers that can be connected over NetBEUI. It is also peer-to-peer and cannot be anything else. It is not appropriate for business networks of more than a few computers, but is excellent for a very small home network because it is very easy to set up and does not communicate with the outside world. Now tell me how a network with two computers is going to create a lot of network traffic.g The *only* traffic on it is when I'm transferring files from one machine to the other or sending data to a printer connected to the other computer. That's it!! Never had a collision, never could have a collision. There
Re: [newbie] Use of Linux
Judy, Judith Miner wrote: I sense a big split among Linux users (I hate terms like Linux communityg) between those who want the OS to become friendly enough to lure disgruntled SOHO/home users from Windows and those who want prospective users to do it their way or the highway. The reality is that Linux will never penetrate the SOHO/home market unless it bgecomes easier to manage and more accommodating to the needs and preferences of non-technical users. There is no reason a powerful OS can't have a friendly face. It doesn't seem like you need any encouragement, but just in case you do, I think you're doing good! Randy Kramer
Re: [newbie] Use of Linux
Judith, I want to present you the title of the most active newbie in the list. As a matter of fact, I'm unsubcribing because I can't stand hundreds of msgs in my poor 56k conn, half of them yours. (This is a half-joke: I'm really unsubscribing, but not due to your msgs.) As a matter of fact, your attitude is one that should be followed by other Linux users, newbies and experts alike: not only do you discuss your own problems, but you also answer other's newbies doubts - when you know how- and raise interesting questions such as the the future Linux development as an alternative to Window$. While I agree mostly with everything you and tazmun wrote, I think two questions are crucial: attitude and standatization (is that spelled right? Forgive my English) Attitude- the attitude of seasoned Linux users towards newbies. Unfortunately, most either have the RTFM approach- and most newbies doesn't know WHERE to get the manuals, let alone read them. This attitude reflects in the way Linux upgrades are planned and released, and even in the way some people with good hearts answer: [newbie] I just installed mandrake 8 and I want to install Acrobat Reader so I can view the pdf help files. What should I do? [expert] dld the rpm and as root rpm-i it or taz -zxfv the tar.gz then ./INSTALL I'm sure someone who just came from Windows, and had not the chance to read anything about Linux beforehand will think that that expert is indeed a hacker trying to get some virus in to his computer. A typical Window$ user will know nothing about shells, command line, man pages, info, root, tarballs or rpms. And altough there are lots of documentation freely available on the internet, it's just way too difficult to a newbie to know WHAT and WHERE to read FIRST. Second is Standartization. The real difficultie for newbie linuxers is NOT the command line. Anyone who can type and read can use a comand line.It may be awkward and ugly, but it is usable. The difficultie is the lack of standartization about configuring a linux system. In which directory the configuration files goes? In which format they are written? What do they do? When this app crashes, where can I see the error log/ restore old settings? None of this are standart across the different components of a Linux system, and they differ even more across different distros. It is just painful for a newbie to memorize which file should be a script (in which shell?), a function, a plain text file (in what format?), where it is and what it does. I understand that many of these are features actually buried deep within Linux structure, and they provide a good part of the Linux power and safeness. But is also what keeps Linux from getting to the masses. This is specially true for the GUIs or WMs . They're quite difficult to configure for the average user- look at that guy who can't kill the eyes applet in KDE. Gnome is still buggy. Mine has stopped logging out for no apparent reason.Suppose I din'nt know about CTRL-ALT-BKSP? So that is my call to Linux developers which seek to make Linux a viable alternative to Window$. Such as Mandrake, KDE and Gnome developers. It's not about changing Linux so that it's ease to use. It's about providing a LAYER of ease of use for newbies, a layer where configuration is easy and standart across ALL linux components - the shell, the path, permissions, security, windows managers, mounting devices, networking, applications, X Window, ALL. It shouldn't be a graphical gadget configuring tool: if the configuration is truly standart, anyone can write a tool that will read and write the necessary file(s). Advanced users could just ignore this layer. This is the true reason window$ is popular: you don't have to have a precise knowledge of the system workings to use it. If Linux can manage this without taking away its power and features, then, and only then it will be a real competitor to Microshaft. Probably then it will sue Linux by being anti-american and anti-capitalist (well I'm not american anyway, and noone ever asked me if I wanted to be capitalist) or will hire Linus,Alan Cox and the other Linux developers for a billion dollars a day. But that's another story... That said, I would thank all the people who take the time to answer newbies questions in this and any other places. Tux owns much to you all.:-^) --Jeferson L. Zacco aka Wooky [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux registered user #221896 - Computers are used to solve problems that wouldn't if computers weren't invented in the first place.
Re: [newbie] Use of Linux
the real question (as I see it) is something I was taught earlier in life. when a person speaks, they have to speak to the audience it does no good to explain brain surgery in highly medical and technical terms to kindergarten classes that are visiting the hospital on a field trip. in the same vein (but not QUITE as drastic) it does no good to write a different version of windows that does the same things. the people whom (at this time anyway) want to buy a boxed set of linux are NOT first time computer users. they buy a complete computer (usually winders loaded) from a name brand manufacturer (Dell, Compaq, IBM, Gateway, etc... and from then on they feel like what winders does is what a computer ought to do. The people to whom (I believe) Mandrake is attempting to reach at this point are people whom have learned enough to hope there is a different way to work and think about computers. hoping the comprises made by some un-named and profit motivated executive that short change me in what I want to do can be changed. MOST computers are still a business tool world wide. I would propose the best way for Mandrake to grow market share for Linux would be assiting OEMs that want to sell a MANDRAKE whitebox computer system. (in fact i believe i will offer a Mandrake loaded whitebox computer system for the low low price of $1000.00 US to anyone whom asks (price does not include shipping)GRIN On Sunday 08 July 2001 12:01, Jeferson Lopes Zacco wrote: Judith, I want to present you the title of the most active newbie in the list. As a matter of fact, I'm unsubcribing because I can't stand hundreds of msgs in my poor 56k conn, half of them yours. (This is a half-joke: I'm really unsubscribing, but not due to your msgs.) As a matter of fact, your attitude is one that should be followed by other Linux users, newbies and experts alike: not only do you discuss your own problems, but you also answer other's newbies doubts - when you know how- and raise interesting questions such as the the future Linux development as an alternative to Window$. While I agree mostly with everything you and tazmun wrote, I think two questions are crucial: attitude and standatization (is that spelled right? Forgive my English) Attitude- the attitude of seasoned Linux users towards newbies. Unfortunately, most either have the RTFM approach- and most newbies doesn't know WHERE to get the manuals, let alone read them. This attitude reflects in the way Linux upgrades are planned and released, and even in the way some people with good hearts answer: [newbie] I just installed mandrake 8 and I want to install Acrobat Reader so I can view the pdf help files. What should I do? [expert] dld the rpm and as root rpm-i it or taz -zxfv the tar.gz then ./INSTALL I'm sure someone who just came from Windows, and had not the chance to read anything about Linux beforehand will think that that expert is indeed a hacker trying to get some virus in to his computer. A typical Window$ user will know nothing about shells, command line, man pages, info, root, tarballs or rpms. And altough there are lots of documentation freely available on the internet, it's just way too difficult to a newbie to know WHAT and WHERE to read FIRST. Second is Standartization. The real difficultie for newbie linuxers is NOT the command line. Anyone who can type and read can use a comand line.It may be awkward and ugly, but it is usable. The difficultie is the lack of standartization about configuring a linux system. In which directory the configuration files goes? In which format they are written? What do they do? When this app crashes, where can I see the error log/ restore old settings? None of this are standart across the different components of a Linux system, and they differ even more across different distros. It is just painful for a newbie to memorize which file should be a script (in which shell?), a function, a plain text file (in what format?), where it is and what it does. I understand that many of these are features actually buried deep within Linux structure, and they provide a good part of the Linux power and safeness. But is also what keeps Linux from getting to the masses. This is specially true for the GUIs or WMs . They're quite difficult to configure for the average user- look at that guy who can't kill the eyes applet in KDE. Gnome is still buggy. Mine has stopped logging out for no apparent reason.Suppose I din'nt know about CTRL-ALT-BKSP? So that is my call to Linux developers which seek to make Linux a viable alternative to Window$. Such as Mandrake, KDE and Gnome developers. It's not about changing Linux so that it's ease to use. It's about providing a LAYER of ease of use for newbies, a layer where configuration is easy and standart across ALL linux components - the shell, the path, permissions, security, windows managers, mounting devices, networking,
Re: [newbie] Use of Linux
At 06:15 PM 07/07/2001 -0400, Judith Miner wrote: Thank you, Michael, both for your information and for demonstrating so clearly my contention that Linux partisans in general *cannot* see issues from the perspective of the SOHO/home user.g Actually, this was my view after having been a computer support specialist (which included significant amounts of administration), not necessarily as a Linux partisan. And yes, I can see issues from the perspective of SOHO/home users--it was not made clear that you were talking about a 2-3 computer home lan. You said: I administered a small lan with 35 workstations Ahem. 35 workstations is not really a small LAN. In the corporate / education worlds, 35 workstations *is* a small lan--as for personal lans, you're right--they don't typically exceed 3 or 4 PCs. Shares are irrelevant in this situation. Actually, shares are not irrelevant, even in your case--after all, if you are copying files from one PC to another, or using a printer connected to another PC, that is called sharing, with individual printers / drives being called shares. So are permissions. Permissions are not irrelevant--for example, under windows NT / 2000, you can't install programs or make many changes to system properties unless you are either logged in as an Administrator or are a user in the Administrator group. Nor are they totally irrelevant on a linux workstation (or server for that matter), since unless you have root somehow (or use urpmi, sudo, or other utilities that give a normal user some subset of root privileges), you can't install / upgrade packages, edit configuration files, see all processes, and so forth. Even if you aren't aware of it, each process on a linux machine has an idea concerning what permissions it has--after all, if something is running as the nobody user, it doesn't have access to files owned by root and not readable / writeable / executable by others. And so is this kind of business: With linux, there is more control over who can actually see the shares--you have options to limit by IP (such that only specific computers on the network can even see the shares), by users (such that only specific users on the linux server can see the shares), by permission (such that only certain users or groups of users can edit the files, and other users or groups have read only privilege), or by a combination of the above (such that only certain users from certain computers can see the shares). Actually, this was stated more along the lines that these are things that can be (and should be) configured if you wanted to share files from your linux laptop to your windows PCs via samba, such that only PCs on your home lan would be able to browse the shares. snip These are all good points unless the one sharing the hard drive is ME. Who is going to delete the entire Windows directory? Me?? Well, as root I can do that anyway! So as a general statement, You are much better off only sharing directories on the drive applies only in some small LAN situations. It most likely does not apply to home situations where one or two mature, responsible, computer-literate adults share computers on a network. Actually, you'll find out that if you don't have NetBEUI or whatever other protocol you are using for your shares blocked at your firewall (which I gather from previous posts that you are trying to get configured), you leave yourself open to attacks that were discovered years ago. It is a lot easier to keep the thing backed up than to fool with permissions, shares, and passwords day in and day out--again, in the two-user situation. You're already fooling with shares and permissions, since you are sharing your hard drives and printers between the 2 computers or so that are in your network. Granted of course, that your permissions seem to be wide open, such that either user (yourself or your husband) can make whatever modifications they want, but that doesn't mean that they are not there--this would be equivalent to making a file mode 777 (read / write / execute by everyone on a linux system)--it doesn't mean that permissions aren't there, they are just wide open to allow execution, reading, and writing to a file by anyone. You incorrectly state that with TCP / IP file and printer sharing, your hard drive can be viewed by the outside world. Are you sure that's incorrect? Yes, I am sure. With TCP / IP file and printer sharing (if you have your network locked down), your shares aren't accessible by anyone else. (Unless of course you have a windows 9x share that has no password and don't have a firewall in place--in that case, you've left yourself open regardless of whether or not the sharing is done over TCP / IP or NetBEUI.) snip NetBEUI was never intended for large networks. In fact, I think there is a rather small limit on the number of computers that can be connected over NetBEUI. Actually, this isn't the case -- I've seen networks in the hundreds of computers that have
Re: [newbie] Use of Linux
A small LAN in Windows should be using the NetBEUI protocol, not TCP/IP. File and printer sharing is enabled *only* for NetBEUI. TCP/IP is *only* for your Internet connection and you do not have file and printer sharing enabled for TCP/IP. NetBIOS is not to be enabled for TCP/IP. So with no file and printer sharing for TCP/IP, your hard drive cannot be viewed by the outside world. There are problems with NetBEUI, especially so for larger networks, but also applicable for smaller networks in that it creates a lot of network traffic. I've seen studies (or heard of them) where NetBEUI was enabled, and accounted for somewhere between 60 and 70% of all network traffic. This is probably why, with win 98, 98se, NT, 2000, and ME, all shares go over some type of TCP / IP protocol (not NetBEUI), unless you manually enable netbeui. You incorrectly state that with TCP / IP file and printer sharing, your hard drive can be viewed by the outside world. If someone leaves their network that wide open they are begging for trouble. Anyways, with NT / 2000 (much less so in 98 / 98SE / ME), only those users which exist in either the login-domain or on the PC in question, can browse the shares available from a PC, let alone actually get access to them. This also leaves out the security risks of sharing an entire hard drive to begin with, especially under windows. You are much better off only sharing directories on the drive, then the whole thing (with the wrong permissions, someone could delete the entire Windows or winnt directory, which would leave the computer unuseable and almost certainly require either a re-install, or recopying the hard drive image back to the PC.) With linux, there is more control over who can actually see the shares--you have options to limit by IP (such that only specific computers on the network can even see the shares), by users (such that only specific users on the linux server can see the shares), by permission (such that only certain users or groups of users can edit the files, and other users or groups have read only privilege), or by a combination of the above (such that only certain users from certain computers can see the shares). For several years, I administered a small lan with 35 workstations running a mixture of linux / windows 95 / 98 / 98SE / NT / 2000. Before I left, I had turned off sharing of complete hard drives, or, if the share wasn't needed, by turning off sharing period (since the campus IT department wouldn't allow me to run a firewall). Even more surprising was the fact that when I left I had set up one of the most secure lans on the campus network. Other security problems, such as trojans and viruses, are due to user error, such as opening attachments and downloaded files without checking them first with one or more antivirus programs. A Windows system becomes much safer if Windows Script Host is disabled system wide, which is easily done and has no adverse consequences for a SOHO or home user. A much more efficient manner is to enable virus scanning at the mail server itself -- such that mail is checked as it comes in, although that doesn't obviate the need for workstation level virus software as well. Just my .02, Michael -- Michael Viron Registered Linux User #81978 Senior Systems Administration Consultant Web Spinners, University of West Florida
Re: [newbie] Use of Linux
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday 07 July 2001 12:43, thus spake Judith Miner: Not so! Please consider this from the perspective of the normal, standalone Windows user. We're not talking about large networks here, which Linux folks seem unable to comprehend many times. All I have ever dealt with are network of less than 100 nodes, and several were less than 10. That qualifies for small, yes? A small LAN in Windows should be using the NetBEUI protocol, not TCP/IP. File and printer sharing is enabled *only* for NetBEUI. TCP/IP is *only* for your Internet connection and you do not have file and printer sharing enabled for TCP/IP. NetBIOS is not to be enabled for TCP/IP. So with no file and printer sharing for TCP/IP, your hard drive cannot be viewed by the outside world. That's nice in theory, but I've never seen such a setup. Most *small* networks are set up in one of two ways: all protocols are installed and running (the Microsoft default -- NetBEUI, IPX/SPX, and TCP/IP all at once), or else someone has gone and removed everything except TCP/IP, so that is the only protocol being used. If I see all protocols in use, I will cut out all but TCP/IP if I can, because running multiple protocols is extremely inefficient on a PC, and it hurts overall network performance. Also, NetBEUI is a very chatty protocol, in that hosts are constantly announcing themselves to the network, and so even on a small network, performance can suffer because of heavy network traffic. If only TCP/IP is in use, then file/print sharing is being done over that protocol, and network shares *will* be visible to the Internet if no firewall or proxy is in place. Use a port scanning tool against a wide IP range on the Internet, and look for open ports 137 and 138, these are used by Windows file/print sharing (the SMB protocol, upon which Samba is based). You will be amazed, probably depressed, at the number of open hosts you find. An always-on broadband connection absolutely needs a software or hardware firewall, or both. I even use pmfirewall on my laptop, when I am using ppp to connect to my ISP. Just because I'm only connected for a relatively short time, doesn't mean I won't be randomly scanned and possibly attacked. Other security problems, such as trojans and viruses, are due to user error, such as opening attachments and downloaded files without checking them first with one or more antivirus programs. A Windows system becomes much safer if Windows Script Host is disabled system wide, which is easily done and has no adverse consequences for a SOHO or home user. Again, I have never seen Windows Scriopting Host disabled, *except* on the networks I have administered myself. Most people just don't know about this kind of stuff, even though it is extremely easy to do. Microsoft has set up terrible defaults for someone setting up a small network. They are easily changed and you don't have to know much to do it, but out of the box the defaults are very unsafe and Microsoft is to blame for that. --Judy Miner I must agree with you there. Microsoft's defaults are horrible. And even their documentation stinks -- their own help files only show you enough to set up a basic network running all three protocols! It takes outside reading and/or experience to learn the right way of doing things. Dave - -- Nihil tam munitum quod non expugnari pecunia possit. (No fortification is such that it cannot be subdued with money.) - - Marcus Tullius Cicero, 106-43 B.C. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE7R2CZOiMJhTaLf3MRAmsBAJ4g7eL9suwce8a+s4TjzsTd3Xcp2QCfe2Qq ITZU8YceDzXXbvU5LFdG3ek= =eWpZ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [newbie] Use of Linux
On Saturday 07 July 2001 12:43, thus spake Judith Miner: Not so! Please consider this from the perspective of the normal, standalone Windows user. We're not talking about large networks here, which Linux folks seem unable to comprehend many times. All I have ever dealt with are network of less than 100 nodes, and several were less than 10. That qualifies for small, yes? I see a major difference in the mindset here. Judith speaks of small as in stand alone or 2 or 3 computers as is my own home network I think one of the issures we are talking about security wise is the home user and how it is different from at the office network. That and how to tone things that aren't really necessary down some security wise at home for our own ease of use. A small LAN in Windows should be using the NetBEUI protocol, not TCP/IP. File and printer sharing is enabled *only* for NetBEUI. TCP/IP is *only* for your Internet connection and you do not have file and printer sharing enabled for TCP/IP. NetBIOS is not to be enabled for TCP/IP. So with no file and printer sharing for TCP/IP, your hard drive cannot be viewed by the outside world. That's nice in theory, but I've never seen such a setup. Most *small* networks are set up in one of two ways: all protocols are installed and running (the Microsoft default -- NetBEUI, IPX/SPX, and TCP/IP all at once), or else someone has gone and removed everything except TCP/IP, so that is the only protocol being used. On a home network it is not just a theory. That is exactly how my home network functions with the addition of a firewall provided by Zonealarm. I have no need to have file and printer sharing enabled for TCP/IP in my local area connection. Win 98 enables you to separately contol file and printer sharing for each protocol so it is completely practical there whether using a permanent internet connection or dialup. Now on my WIN 2K systems I can't disable file and printer sharing on TCP/IP if I'm accessing the internet via my ethernet card but when using a dialup it is very easy to do. You might be actually be able to have multiple Local area connections if you had multiple ethernet cards though...not sure how that would work out. If I see all protocols in use, I will cut out all but TCP/IP if I can, because running multiple protocols is extremely inefficient on a PC, and it hurts overall network performance. Also, NetBEUI is a very chatty protocol, in that hosts are constantly announcing themselves to the network, and so even on a small network, performance can suffer because of heavy network traffic. On my home network even though I wound up with 10/100 ethernet cards my hub is only 10T and I've never upgraded because it was always sufficient for my needs. By being chatty I assume you mean the part where under My Network Places that it has already searched and found the other computer and almost immediately snaps to the other computer without any delay. This is possibly less efficient but damn handy for me when I simply need to grab a file off the other computer in a hurry. My computers both are set to log on to the same user automatically from boot thus granting immediate file permissions from both computers. If I ever needed more speed I could always upgrade the hub. Microsoft has set up terrible defaults for someone setting up a small network. They are easily changed and you don't have to know much to do it, but out of the box the defaults are very unsafe and Microsoft is to blame for that. --Judy Miner I must agree with you there. Microsoft's defaults are horrible. And even their documentation stinks -- their own help files only show you enough to set up a basic network running all three protocols! It takes outside reading and/or experience to learn the right way of doing things. Ditto on the default settings being horrible! Tazmun
Re: [newbie] Use of Linux
Thank you, Michael, both for your information and for demonstrating so clearly my contention that Linux partisans in general *cannot* see issues from the perspective of the SOHO/home user.g The reason I speak up on this is that like it or not, Windows users ARE looking at Linux as an alternative. My impression is that many Linux advocates would like nothing better than to see Microsoft taken down a few notches and to see an end to the OS monopoly inflicted by Microsoft. There's not a snowball's chance in hell of this worthy goal happening, however, unless Linux develops a friendlier face that acknowledges the situation of single users and people with truly small networks. By that I mean a network of two or three computers, probably in a home, with one to four family members as users. You said: I administered a small lan with 35 workstations Ahem. 35 workstations is not really a small LAN. It is compared with 5000 workstations, but when I talk small LAN, I mean something like what I have: two computers joined by crossover cable. It's glorious--I can manage and use files on either computer and can use the LaserJet and the good color printer on the home office computer from the hall computer, and the crummy inkjet attached to the hall computer from the home office computer. The only people who would or could use one of these computers are my husband or I. He rarely uses the computer and would certainly not be downloading programs, installing anything, or messing with the system. That leaves one person--me--as root and user. Shares are irrelevant in this situation. So are permissions. And so is this kind of business: With linux, there is more control over who can actually see the shares--you have options to limit by IP (such that only specific computers on the network can even see the shares), by users (such that only specific users on the linux server can see the shares), by permission (such that only certain users or groups of users can edit the files, and other users or groups have read only privilege), or by a combination of the above (such that only certain users from certain computers can see the shares). I agree that all of this is great on a multiuser system, even one with, say, 10 users such as a smallish business, but on a two- or three-computer, one- or two-user home network, it's irrelevant and more of a bother than a feature. This also leaves out the security risks of sharing an entire hard drive to begin with, especially under windows. You are much better off only sharing directories on the drive, then the whole thing (with the wrong permissions, someone could delete the entire Windows or winnt directory, which would leave the computer unuseable and almost certainly require either a re-install, or recopying the hard drive image back to the PC.) These are all good points unless the one sharing the hard drive is ME. Who is going to delete the entire Windows directory? Me?? Well, as root I can do that anyway! So as a general statement, You are much better off only sharing directories on the drive applies only in some small LAN situations. It most likely does not apply to home situations where one or two mature, responsible, computer-literate adults share computers on a network. Anyway, SOHO and home computers should be backed up regularly, regardless of what the networking situation is. Could you stand to lose it? Do you want to start from scratch? If the answer is no, you must have a backup strategy and DO IT. It is a lot easier to keep the thing backed up than to fool with permissions, shares, and passwords day in and day out--again, in the two-user situation. You incorrectly state that with TCP / IP file and printer sharing, your hard drive can be viewed by the outside world. Are you sure that's incorrect? I was under the impression that if you had file sharing enabled under TCP/IP and had a cable modem, you were essentially on a LAN with everyone else on your cable line. It would seem that if they could access your machine, they could indeed share files with it. I am obviously no expert on networking, especially TCP/IP networking. The only LAN networking I have experience with is NetBEUI on a small two- or three-computer network, entirely self-contained in a home. I use TCP/IP only for Dial-Up Networking and it is not bound to any components and NetBios is not enabled. While this may seem to be a joke network to some Linuxies, it is exactly what we want and works perfectly for us. I dare say this is what a large number of two-computer households want in a network. We appreciate the value of heavy-duty Linux networking where it is needed, but in our situation it is overkill many times over. There are problems with NetBEUI, especially so for larger networks, but also applicable for smaller networks in that it creates a lot of network traffic. NetBEUI was never intended for large networks. In fact, I think there is a rather small limit on the number of computers that can
Re: [newbie] Use of Linux
Dave wrote: All I have ever dealt with are network of less than 100 nodes, and several were less than 10. That qualifies for small, yes? No! (I'm rolling on the floor, laughing.) I'm talking about a two- or three-computer home network, the very sort of thing that millions (?) of home users have. Have you Linuxies ever heard of *HOME USERS*? vbg That's nice in theory, but I've never seen such a setup. Well, that's exactly what Steve Gibson advises and describes in great detail at grc.com, so since that site is well-known by non-clueless Windows users, I suspect there are plenty of home networks that are set up exactly that way. Also, on our CompuServe Windows Support Forum and other related forums, which have pretty heavy traffic and are open to non-members through Web browsers, that's exactly what is recommended for SOHO/home networks. I think you just haven't been looking in the right places.g Oh yes--that's how my two-computer network has been set up for a year and a half, which is how long I've had a network. Most *small* networks are set up in one of two ways: all protocols are installed and running (the Microsoft default -- NetBEUI, IPX/SPX, and TCP/IP all at once) Yes. They should send Bill Gates to jail for that. or else someone has gone and removed everything except TCP/IP, so that is the only protocol being used. Must have been a network administrator.g A regular user wouldn't have any idea what to remove. Usually some so-called tech at a store might tell them to use TCP/IP. These folks are very trusting of store personnel. If I see all protocols in use, I will cut out all but TCP/IP if I can, because running multiple protocols is extremely inefficient on a PC, and it hurts overall network performance. Also, NetBEUI is a very chatty protocol, in that hosts are constantly announcing themselves to the network, and so even on a small network, performance can suffer because of heavy network traffic. Don't get out much to home networks, do you? There is no network performance to hurt in a home network. What hurts performance is how fast your network card and hub are. Not much, though. Even 10 Base T is plenty fast for most home network use. Mine is 10/100 Base T and I can scarcely tell the difference between copying files on the local hard drive and copying them across the network. You don't get heavy network traffic on a two- or three-computer home network. Most of the time, there isn't any traffic at all. You will be amazed, probably depressed, at the number of open hosts you find. My Windows computer has no open ports. Would the same were true of my Linux computer. I'm trying to fix that, but being neither a network genius nor competent in Linux, I am having quite a struggle. Linux isn't helping me out. Again, I have never seen Windows Scriopting Host disabled, *except* on the networks I have administered myself. Most people just don't know about this kind of stuff, even though it is extremely easy to do. It's been disabled on my computers for some years now. Again, on the CompuServe forums I participate in, we've told people numerous times how to do this. I agree, most people don't know about this, but that's because they aren't interested in the workings of their system, or they don't realize the hazards of WSH, or they don't know where or what to ask. Since WSH is of no use to home users (who are also unlikely to know what WSH does or that they don't need it or even that it exists), Microsoft *should* have WSH disabled by default and leave it up to the user to decide whether to enable it. I did notice that Win 98SE makes WSH optional on a custom install, which is the only kind I ever do. I suspect it's probably enabled in a typical install. Shame on them! And even their documentation stinks -- their own help files only show you enough to set up a basic network running all three protocols! It takes outside reading and/or experience to learn the right way of doing things. I never looked at their help files when I was setting up the network. Gibson's site at grc.com is the place to go for information about setting up the network protocols safely--detailed yet understandable, and step by step. --Judy Miner
Re: [newbie] Use of Linux
Bless you, Tazmun! Someone else who understands what I'm talking about! I see a major difference in the mindset here. Judith speaks of small as in stand alone or 2 or 3 computers as is my own home network Precisely. The issues are not the same as they are in even a small office network. I wasn't even talking about a Linux home network. At this point, I don't intend to link my two computers over Linux. I'll keep my Windows network, but since there is no Linux on my laptop and probably never will be, there isn't much point to trying to set up a two-computer Linux network. Maybe I'll try it for the fun of it if I ever have too much time on my hands.g But it just occurred to me that there needs to be a simpler way to set up home networks in Linux--something along the lines of NetBEUI. That is, if Linux is to make real inroads on the home desktop. I sense a big split among Linux users (I hate terms like Linux communityg) between those who want the OS to become friendly enough to lure disgruntled SOHO/home users from Windows and those who want prospective users to do it their way or the highway. The reality is that Linux will never penetrate the SOHO/home market unless it bgecomes easier to manage and more accommodating to the needs and preferences of non-technical users. There is no reason a powerful OS can't have a friendly face. Thanks again for your comments. --Judy Miner
Re: [newbie] Use of Linux
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday 07 July 2001 20:15, thus spake Judith Miner: I sense a big split among Linux users (I hate terms like Linux communityg) between those who want the OS to become friendly enough to lure disgruntled SOHO/home users from Windows and those who want prospective users to do it their way or the highway. The reality is that Linux will never penetrate the SOHO/home market unless it bgecomes easier to manage and more accommodating to the needs and preferences of non-technical users. There is no reason a powerful OS can't have a friendly face. OK, now I think I see where you are coming from. And I agree, there are certainly two lines of thought when it comes to future Linux development and the idea of making Linux easier to use, so that it will become more attractive to current Windows users. Personally, I think the Linux market can support distributions which cater to both tastes. For myself, I like a fairly easy to use system for daily work, but one which allows me to get into the guts when I want to know what is going on. Mandrake has thus far filled this role superbly, and I hope it continues to do so. For those who want an even easier system, you might try Caldera. I ran it for almost a year (eDesktop 2.4), but eventually I decided that its options were somewhat limited for my tastes. However, it did make it easy for me to try out Linux in a day-to-day environment, on my laptop. Thanks again for your comments. --Judy Miner Thank you for an interesting discussion. Dave - -- Nihil tam munitum quod non expugnari pecunia possit. (No fortification is such that it cannot be subdued with money.) - - Marcus Tullius Cicero, 106-43 B.C. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE7R+5ROiMJhTaLf3MRApc5AJ9HAcFZTu5AaqtR4F3M9toZrGkxjACfbTuD c7Mjv5KB4bsQlWe/TqjcZQk= =YsRu -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Fw: [newbie] Use of Linux
On Thursday 05 July 2001 02:48, tazmun wrote: It is not perfect, but relaxation beyond that lets in the sort of nonsense you see in Windows all the time. Ok, I too am curious exactly what is meant here? I've had my computer in windows mode to all the sites I am aware of to check security and as far as I know it is secure as it is possible to be. My systems don't even allow file transfer on TCP/IP, they use another protocol for that so the TCP/IP is only for web access.My knowledge of hacking etc is very limited. It is implied that it is easier to hack a windows system then it is a Linux system...if this is so why and how? Well, for one, Windows 9x through to XP are all single-user systems, but that is not the big reason. Windows NT and Windows 2000 are very crackable _WHEN_ you put Microsoft applications on them though, running standalone, they are probably as secure as any immature unix. You see, when Windows 3.1 was fresh out, WordPerfect held 90% of the word-processor market. How did it come about that just a few years later, Word was king and WordPerfect was incompatible? When you have an operating system, you make Application Programming Interfaces or APIs that other software writers then use to make their programs work with your system. Microsoft did this. But for their own programs, they realized that they could use their special knowledge of their system (and it was truly theirs though the underlying DOS definitely was _not_.) to let Word run faster, more efficiently, and more feature-laden because it did not have to work through APIs for everything, it could _directly_ access the kernel. In linux or unix, a program that can _directly_ access the kernel is a kernel module. There are walls for everything else, and APIs for requesting and receiving kernel services. It would be a cardinal sin to write something that atempted to violate the walls between apps and system. Just as when X crashes, the keyboard is locked, the mouse won't move, chances are the kernel is fine and a telnet or webmin access or ssh into the machine will show it. WINE (Wine Is Not an Emulator) runs many programs for linux that were designed to run under windows. It does so by providing services through analogues of the Windows APIs. WordPerfect for linux uses WINE, and runs. Microsoft Office programs strangely do not appear to fully run under WINE though sometimes they will show some splash screens and graphics. OK so even IF you get by all the holes and erase the NSA key in your windows replacing it with one of your own, and change the third key as well so that cryptographic services run properly, and no one can load security software on your machine without your knowledge. And if you manage to stay away from sites that contain trojans in the downloads they offer, you are still subject to some horrid things. For example, you might receive a reply from a trusted source you just mailed. SCENARIO: I'll get back to you as soon as I can on the matter. In the mean time, take a look at this There sits an .xls file. Since your mail had nothing to do with numbers, you dump it. TOO LATE! It is a middleware exploit cruising one of the superhighways into the core of your system and it was borne by a variant of the KAK virus (Kagou antiKro$soft says, Not Today). Now what happens? Do you send out weird replies to email? Yes, fro a limited time. Meanwhile next time you are on the internet, this little program opens up and connects to an IRC server, and it goes to a hidden chat room using a secret key and reports to its master. It gives the secret, random port it has chosen for communication with your computer, its secret, randomly generated, name, perhaps accepts a message containing the SUB7 server, and waits for orders. And maybe a few days or years later, your ISP, if he's a good one, and believe me the big ones want to ignore this problem, comes to you and asks if he can inspect your programs because your computer was one of three thousand that participated in a Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack against the Bank of America, or some server offering free security software, or Or if you are really unlucky, you get a knock at your door from the FBI because your computer was a relay in a really BIG cybercrime. Up to now, Windows machines were available only with very limited socket capabilities. They can send huge, fragmented UDP packets and ICMP packets with malformations, but their ability to mangle TCP/IP packets and spoof IP addresses just wasn't there. Windows XP changes that. And the crackers and sociopathic juveniles of the world, who were limited to armies of cockroaches before now will find they command cockroaches with nuclear backpacks. And naturally, the folks using the net are saying thin is beautiful and equipping themselves with routers and small devices to handle firewalling. What is going to be
Re: [newbie] Use of Linux
Jose wrote: I wish that Apple would make a version of their software for the intel platform. Then the disappointed Windows users could go that way rather than try their hands on Linux. In other words, you wish we'd go away. Sorry--I've used a Mac and I don't care for the Mac. It insulates the system's underpinnings from the user too much for my taste. I find the Mac to be keyboard-unfriendly and too mouse-oriented. I also have no interest in buying thousands of dollars worth of software to replace what I have now. Steve Jobs is as obnoxious as Bill Gates. Macs are even more proprietary than Windows. I am not a disappointed Windows user, just someone who has had enough of Microsoft's arrogance. --Judy Miner
Re: [newbie] Use of Linux
civileme wrote: at install time, there is an option to give root no password. Then you can function as user, but if you need super-user, you just ask for the program and you don't get asked for the password. I don't understand this. If root has no password, is there any protection with regard to the Internet, or does the password protect only on one's own computer anyway, in which case the lack of a root password would not be a problem? In other words, does the fact that root has a password have anything to do with Internet security? Can root change from password to no password *after* installation? I wouldn't want to install again if I can avoid it. This would still force me as user to run the superuser file manager and superuser terminal, would it not? That's one of the annoying things--opening a different file manager because the one I'm using doesn't show the whole system, so I have to launch another file manager as super user just to see all the files and directories on MY OWN system!! My impression is that having no password for root would not change this situation, but this is obviously a guess on my part. This works well under 3 conditions: 1. You are really the only user. In my case, yes. The only other person in the house is my husband, who rarely uses the computer and most certainly wouldn't use the Linux side of it.g Visiting grandchildren are not allowed to use the computer, nor is anyone else. 2. You are the only user allowed to ssh into the machine What is ssh? Since I'm the only user, I must be the only one allowed to ssh into the machine, but I have no idea what that means--secure something, I'd guess. 3. You configure Webmin to run from the local loopback only. What is Webmin? What is a local loopback? How do I configure Webmin? It is not perfect, but relaxation beyond that lets in the sort of nonsense you see in Windows all the time. Not on my computers! --Judy Miner
Re: [newbie] Use of Linux
Michael wrote: It is possible to have a user that has root-like privileges -- Try going to your user manager of choice and changing the uid / gid (user and group ids) to 0. If you do so, the account will become a root user. What would be the advantages of doing that rather than simply logging in as root myself? Remember, I'm the only user. I assume the root-like user could make changes like root could. Another option is to make the user a part of the wheel group, which will give you at least some root capabilities as a user. Same questions. What is the point or advantage compared with my simply logging in as root for the whole session? I'm not arguing or disagreeing, just trying to understand the difference between being a user with root privileges and being root. Why would I need to give *myself* root privileges? I already have them. --Judy Miner
Re: [newbie] Use of Linux
I don't understand this. If root has no password, is there any protection with regard to the Internet, or does the password protect Not having a password on root is a very bad idea. I suggest if the option still exists on Mandrake, that it be removed. First, root can do anything it wants. Therefore *once you've gotten into a system* and have logged in as root, you can really screw things up. The security is twofold - the remote computer has to be able to allow remote logins, and be password protected. So, if the remote computer doesn't offer telnet/ssh, then it might not matter if the system doesn't have a root password. Even then, it would be not a very nice thing to have. password would not be a problem? In other words, does the fact that root has a password have anything to do with Internet security? Can root Well it's part of internet security - but of course, the fact that I could remotely login as root in the first place is more of an insecure thing than the fact root doesn't have a password. Under normal circumstances, (/etc/securetty controls this) root is not permitted to log in anywhere except the physical console. So, anyone logging in from outside would need to know both a regular user account and its password. Then if he gets in, he just su's to root. And we're back to no security if root doesn't have a password. as super user just to see all the files and directories on MY OWN system!! My impression is that having no password for root would not Unless execute permission is turned off on some system directories, a regular user should be able to see everything with a 'normal' file manager. Whether of course you can do anything with the files themselves is another issue. Personally, I don't bother running 'super user' file managers. Instead, I have an xterm (or konsole, rxvt, etc.) running, where I've started it with 'xterm -font 10x20 -e su - root '. This lets me just tab over when I need to do something as root. At any other time, I'm just 'dfox'. rarely uses the computer and most certainly wouldn't use the Linux side of it.g Visiting grandchildren are not allowed to use the computer, boo hoo :) What is ssh? Since I'm the only user, I must be the only one allowed to ssh into the machine, but I have no idea what that means--secure something, I'd guess. 'ssh' is secure shell. It's analogous to telnet/rlogin, but far more secure. What is Webmin? What is a local loopback? How do I configure Webmin? webmin is a web-based administrative tool. Configuring it to only run on 127.0.0.1 (the local loopback) is what's at issue, I would think. But I've never used webmin. --Judy Miner David E. Fox Thanks for letting me [EMAIL PROTECTED]change magnetic patterns [EMAIL PROTECTED] on your hard disk. ---
Fw: [newbie] Use of Linux
It is not perfect, but relaxation beyond that lets in the sort of nonsense you see in Windows all the time. Ok, I too am curious exactly what is meant here? I've had my computer in windows mode to all the sites I am aware of to check security and as far as I know it is secure as it is possible to be. My systems don't even allow file transfer on TCP/IP, they use another protocol for that so the TCP/IP is only for web access.My knowledge of hacking etc is very limited. It is implied that it is easier to hack a windows system then it is a Linux system...if this is so why and how?
Re: [newbie] Use of Linux
Yes it is alot easier to hack a windows machine than a windows machine. If you have a high speed internet access and you share your hard drive with your local network it can be viewed from the outside world. This is through windows file and print sharing. The only way this could happen in Linux is if you use samba. But there are also other problems like IP fragmentation problems with diffeent versions of windows. in the end windows is a hell of alot easier than Linux to hack NOTE: I do not find remote connection to someones shares hacking. if you are worried about the share thing in windows just find out your ip address and do a net view \\ip address and it will tell you Brandon Caudle - Original Message - From: tazmun [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Newbie [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 10:48 PM Subject: Fw: [newbie] Use of Linux It is not perfect, but relaxation beyond that lets in the sort of nonsense you see in Windows all the time. Ok, I too am curious exactly what is meant here? I've had my computer in windows mode to all the sites I am aware of to check security and as far as I know it is secure as it is possible to be. My systems don't even allow file transfer on TCP/IP, they use another protocol for that so the TCP/IP is only for web access.My knowledge of hacking etc is very limited. It is implied that it is easier to hack a windows system then it is a Linux system...if this is so why and how?
Re: Fw: [newbie] Use of Linux
Jennifer, Thanks for the response, and the secret ;-) I wonder if it (the secret) works with the roles reversed? (Yeah, I think it would -- however, there's some of us that don't enjoy doing what works -- though that's probably true with the roles reversed also ;-) Randy Kramer jennifer wrote: One thing thing thats great about logging in as a regular user and SUING when you have to is that you really begin to understand the inner-workings of that system. personally, being an all to trusting Admin in a NT environment, I feel too comfortable with the rights. You don't know exactly what you can do and the user can't, which foroges the purpose of security in a network. I certainly wouldn't want to be responsible for setting up a critical system share only to give everyone and their alter-ego permissions to it. (I hate being called to the office...I had enough in high school) smiles In any event, forgive me if this point has already been made, I honestly did not read through the entire thread before responding. But if your purpose is for a insecure user friendly internet machine, stay with windows...no harm done. But if you want to get intmate enough with the system to adminster its every move, learn how it works and manipulate it. (apologies for the last comment...I think I just gave out one of womens biggest secrets on how to control men) smiles
Fw: [newbie] Use of Linux
- Original Message - From: tazmun [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Matt Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 1:33 PM Subject: Re: [newbie] Use of Linux My primary OS at this point it Win 2k, but dual booting with MD 8 on one of my systems. But even on my Win system I operate 100 % of the time as a user with administrative priviledges. I suppose this is somewhat risky but is worth the aggravation to me. I have it set so I don't even have to log in...it just goes right to my desktop from boot. MD will do this for a user but not sure about root. One of Win 2k's best points other then NT security is the included backup program which I have learned to use religiously and often. I'm not even sure how to start backing up Linux yet. But even if I blow the entire OS up in Windoze and have to reload the initial OS which I find unlikely I can have it back to it's present state in a few minutes using the backup program on another harddrive. I should use a tape drive but the hard drive is so fast it's hard to beat. Linux loads fast and easy initially from what I've seen. The point I'm making is wouldn't it be easier to just figure out how to backup the system properly and find or have the experts design a program that will do this similiarly to win 2K and be able to relax a bit on being logged in as root. This program may already exist for all I know. One of the things I find a bit confusing is I wish the file managers would show you what directories are mounted on what drive. I made a extra linux partition on my last install trying to have some backup and mounted the home directory on it. But now I'm confused because there are 2 home directories it appears. One under /root and one under / and I'm not even sure which one I have mounted on the separate partition now! Tazmun - Original Message - From: Matt Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: C.Heaven [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 11:19 AM Subject: Re: [newbie] Use of Linux hey - being a relative linux newbie i also once switched to the always logging in as root method. i figured the same, im the only user and i am always logging in as su to do stuff anyhow so... well, after once having to ctrl alt backspace out of xwindows and subsequently loosing my whole linux install, and then later suffering ap owerloss and again losing my whole system both while logged in as root i realized the wisdom of logging in as user and then becoming su when i need to. actually between using alt f2 to run any program you want as root and the fact that mandrake 8.0 is much better at recognizing when you need to be root and prompting you for the password it isn't that much of a burden. speaking of mac, i'm curious, how does osx handle this (anyone know?) i can imagine them wanting to be as user simple as possible (ie. for software installs etc) but still maintaining the *nix system. matt --- C.Heaven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On June 30, 2001 02:43 pm, you wrote: SNIP After getting mightily annoyed at having to run su in a console or run Super User file managers or give my root password time after time in order to run Mandrake Control Center or other root-only utilities, I now log in all the time as root. Before the geekoids on the list warn me of my impending eternal damnation,g let me explain my reasoning: I am the sole user. I am thus both root and judy (the only user). If I want to do something that will affect the all-important system files, I'm going to do it whether I'm logged in as user or root. So working as user does nothing but make me jump through more hoops to do what I'm going to do anyway. Why not avoid the hassle and work as root all the time? One password per session and no consoles for su-ing, I can unmount my Zip disks at will, I can deal with all files in all file managers, I can edit what I need to, I can install programs without problems. See, these security features can't stay the way they are if Linux is to attract even the Mac's share of the desktop market. Home business and consumer users will react the way I did and just get fed up and abandon Linux if they have to go through these endless permissions, logins, and passwords to manage their systems. In a home system, you're constantly installing or upgrading software or making changes to your display or your hardware. Any consumer GUI has to accommodate such usage, which is nothing at all like what a larger network requires. begin sarcastic comment Perhaps you should forward your comments to Microsoft in order to save their impending doom on the desktop due to implementing the very same super user concept in their NT based operating systems. end sarcastic comment
Fw: [newbie] Use of Linux
- Original Message - From: tazmun [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jose Mirles [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 2:06 AM Subject: Re: [newbie] Use of Linux Then I think somewhere you missing the point. We know what it was originally intended for, but the modern Linux in my opinion is aimed at doing exactly that...being a single users primary OS. Nothing ever stays the same. If it does, it dies, I believe that to be universal law. If not for that law I wouldn't be trying so hard to figure out Linux because actually I'm a happy camper with Win 2K. But for how long will that be adequate? I'm guessing that I may be able to coast there until 2004 or 2005 at the longest. The base OS is greatbut Microsoft will not be happy leaving that alone so everyone of their updates is suspect to adding similiar technology that went into XP. IE 6 was a perfect example of that. Actually, it is not well said. Unix was never meant to be a single user's OS. It was then and now meant to be a networking OS. Thus the reason for the security features.
Fw: [newbie] Use of Linux
I suppose burden is in the eye of the beholder. I find constant typing of the root password to be annoying in the extreme and results in a fair amount of lost time if you have to do this several times in a few hours. Especially when it is a really goofy file name with dozens of agravating numbers and underscores altenating with dashes.ag!!! I couple of clicks would be so heavenlylol. Tazmun
Re: [newbie] Use of Linux
On Mon, 2 Jul 2001 02:05, C.Heaven wrote: On June 30, 2001 02:43 pm, you wrote: SNIP After getting mightily annoyed at having to run su in a console or run Super User file managers or give my root password time after time in order to run Mandrake Control Center or other root-only utilities, I now log in all the time as root. Before the geekoids on the list warn me of my impending eternal damnation,g let me explain my reasoning: I am the sole user. I am thus both root and judy (the only user). If I want to do something that will affect the all-important system files, I'm going to do it whether I'm logged in as user or root. So working as user does nothing but make me jump through more hoops to do what I'm going to do anyway. Why not avoid the hassle and work as root all the time? One password per session and no consoles for su-ing, I can unmount my Zip disks at will, I can deal with all files in all file managers, I can edit what I need to, I can install programs without problems. See, these security features can't stay the way they are if Linux is to attract even the Mac's share of the desktop market. Home business and consumer users will react the way I did and just get fed up and abandon Linux if they have to go through these endless permissions, logins, and passwords to manage their systems. In a home system, you're constantly installing or upgrading software or making changes to your display or your hardware. Any consumer GUI has to accommodate such usage, which is nothing at all like what a larger network requires. begin sarcastic comment Perhaps you should forward your comments to Microsoft in order to save their impending doom on the desktop due to implementing the very same super user concept in their NT based operating systems. end sarcastic comment Restricted super user authority is a hallmark of *NIX, and is one of the primary reasons it is so stable. Microsoft recognized this when they went to work on NT, and carried on w/ the practice thorugh Win2k. Regardless of the crap coming w/ XP one major advancement is the same multi-user/permission based concept. The bottom line is that the majority of PC users who claim to be proficient know jack, and need to be protected from themselves more than anything else. This is one of the primary reasons our company deploys Win2k on the desktop - to stop users from trashing their systems, and then requiring us to fix their mistakes. We promote the very same practice to home users in order to prevent kids, or other family members from installing some piece of hellware that guts Windows. Don't hold your breath waiting for Linux distributors to remove su, and permission based file structures. Not only would such a distro be non POSIX compliant, no self respecting *NIX vendor would abuse such a time proven and effective model. If this concept had of been implemented in the 9x line of products (even though the underlying technology is absolute junk) I can hardly imagine how astronomical the world wide productivity gains would have been over the past seven years - compared to what has actually transpired. Considering you just started using *NIX I guess it isn't fair to expect you to fully understand, and respect the benefits of POSIX. However, I will bet a dime to a dollar that if you continue using *NIX, and don't respect it's structure you will end up w/ an unstable operating system just like Win 9x. SNIP Regards, SpeedMan Having a separate root user also enhances network (including Internet) security. If a cracker manages to enter your system as a normal user, (s)he will have to also gain rot access in order to actually do any damage. Before you give the common response why would anyone hack into my computer?, let me inform you that most crackers do mot crack into machines to steal your information. Most crackers will use your computer as a staging ground to issue denial of service attacks against other computers, using automated trojan horses like the WinDOS SubSeven trojan. These crackers crack into literally hundreds of home computers and leave their small barely detectable trojan. They can then command all these computers to attack a specific target -- all at once. The sheer volume of data sent from these computers to this one site can be enough to bring it down. This is the main reason why Internet security is everyone's responsibility. If you find that typing a simple password is so annoying, take a look at kdesu and sudo. The former is integrated via KDE and can be configured via the KDE Control Centre. It can be set so that once the root password is given to run a specific application within a specific user's account, it will not have to be typed again for a predetermined amount of time. It can be called via desktop and menu icons (e.g. kdesu kpackage). Sudo can give temporary limited root privileges to a user. The amount of
Re: Fw: [newbie] Use of Linux
tazmun wrote: I suppose burden is in the eye of the beholder. I find constant typing of the root password to be annoying in the extreme and results in a fair amount of lost time if you have to do this several times in a few hours. Especially when it is a really goofy file name with dozens of agravating numbers and underscores altenating with dashes.ag!!! I couple of clicks would be so heavenlylol. Tazmun The long files are well - way t lng. I found that once I have typed the name in, I use my arrow keys to show the same command and file name. And, when dealing with .bin file installations, you just have to type in ./myfile rather than ./mylongfilename Roman Registered Linux User #179293 Email Powered By Tux Email Utility
Re: Fw: [newbie] Use of Linux
On Monday 02 July 2001 09:39, you wrote: Hi, I learned this little trick right here. If you are typing a long file name, just type in the first three or four letters, then hit the Esc key twice. Autocomplete fills in the rest. If there are two or more files with the same name up to a point (ie: different versions) the autocomplete will fill in the name to the point where you have to make a choice between the different files. This list is a real learning experience! Regards, Bill W. The long files are well - way t lng. I found that once I have typed the name in, I use my arrow keys to show the same command and file name. And, when dealing with .bin file installations, you just have to type in ./myfile rather than ./mylongfilename Roman Registered Linux User #179293 Email Powered By Tux Email Utility
Re: [newbie] Use of Linux
On Mon, 2 Jul 2001 06:13, Judith Miner wrote: Speedman wrote: Restricted super user authority is a hallmark of *NIX, and is one of the primary reasons it is so stable. [snip] We promote the very same practice to home users in order to prevent kids, or other family members from installing some piece of hellware that guts Windows. I fully appreciate restricted authority in multiuser situations. One of the first things I noticed when I started using Linux was how great this would be where you share a computer with other family members. One of the problems Windows 9x users constantly face is how to keep their PCs safe from their children's experiments. Or a family member does not exercise due caution with installing downloaded programs of uncertain origin or opens e-mail attachments without proper checking and the whole system winds up infected. In a multiuser family environment, I would certainly want root restricted to the *real* root (still me). You make some good points here. But my situation is totally different. There are no other users, no children, no other family members using the computer. Why should I, the sole user, have to jump through hoops that are intended solely for the multiuser situation? People seem to forget that the Internet is a network as well. Internet security is amongst the most important types of security that are required. Fine, your son/daughter/mother/father/dog/cat can't damage your system, but what about all the skilful crackers out there just itching to break into a new system? Don't hold your breath waiting for Linux distributors to remove su, and permission based file structures. I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. One of the obvious benefits of Linux is that you have more choices about how you set up your system. The goal of Linux-on-the-desktop should be to increase choices, not remove them. I wouldn't want any console- or command-line aficionado to lose one bit of this power. But if Linux advocates are serious about promoting Linux as an OS suitable for mainstream, non-networked desktop users, certain things have to change. I think a single user should have the *option* of setting up his or her system so that access to root's reserved functions are easy in some way other than always logging in as root. Once again, this can be done with a combination of user permissions and tools like kdesu and sudo. Anyway, this time proven and effective model is already compromised on the desktop because any standalone sole user can do exactly what I have done--log in as root routinely. Now things are exactly as they are in Win 98SE, except my Internet access seems to be considerably less safe. Your internet access less safe in GNU/Linux than in Windows? Give me a break! Try using tools like InteractiveBastille to fortify your system. It may not be the most user-friendly thing around, but it does what it is supposed to do. Security cannot be sugar-coated too much, otherwise it wouldn't be secure at all. If this concept had of been implemented in the 9x line of products (even though the underlying technology is absolute junk) I can hardly imagine how astronomical the world wide productivity gains would have been over the past seven years - compared to what has actually transpired. The 9x line of products was never designed to be a safe system and cannot be made so. Granted, Microsoft never made this crystal clear, but how incompetent would an IT person be who didn't know this? Networked business users should have been using the much safer NT or W2K, which *does* protect the vital core from user-induced disasters. For sole home users, though, the security features do NOT increase the system's reliability because the sole user can always do whatever root or administrator are allowed to do, including trashing the thing entirely. The main point (among many others) of typing in a root password for a single user system is to prevent *accidental* errors from occurring. It also forces one to actually *think* about what they're doing, whereas otherwise (as a normal user) they do not have to worry about this, and so can just get back to work. The need to log into root should be rare -- the vast majority of tasks can be done as a user. The main reason for logging in as root is to (un)install RPMs. If you use userdrake to add yourself to the urpmi group you can securely add rpms with urpmi and remove them with urpme -- all as a normal user. I will bet a dime to a dollar that if you continue using *NIX, and don't respect it's structure you will end up w/ an unstable operating system just like Win 9x. What makes you think I have an unstable Win 9x system? I would never put up with such a thing. My Win 95b laptop is rock-solid and will go months between crashes. My 98SE desktop is not as stable, mostly because of some applications I run that are buggy. I know what they are but I want what they
Re: Fw: [newbie] Use of Linux
i can't resist this one. to add further to John's response, why are you having to su so much? the only time i have to su is to install programs. i just tried this, i can su type in a password in 4 seconds. you do this so often that it results in a fair amount of lost time? i'm sure i'm not the only one who would be curious to know what you are doing to that computer. Day One: I hate M$. I think I'll try Linux. Day Two: This crap sucks. It isn't Windows. Windows is not Linux, Linux is not Windows. Decide which you want use it. On Monday 02 July 2001 02:19 am, you wrote: I suppose burden is in the eye of the beholder. I find constant typing of the root password to be annoying in the extreme and results in a fair amount of lost time if you have to do this several times in a few hours. Then maybe you should trash that really annoying computer, go out and buy a typewrite and a wordprocessor and a copy machine, and go back to the days of hardcopy only,typewriter ribbon. It sounds like whoever wrote the above paragraph is just one lazy SOB, and is really grasping for ANY excuse to bitch about Linux. Sheesh...I bet you think havin' to go take a piss is a real shame too...you actually have to 'walk' somewhere. John Berger
Re: Fw: [newbie] Use of Linux
I can't resist either -- sorry! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i can't resist this one. to add further to John's response, why are you having to su so much? the only time i have to su is to install programs. i just tried this, i can su type in a password in 4 seconds. you do this so often that it results in a fair amount of lost time? i'm sure i'm not the only one who would be curious to know what you are doing to that computer. For me (and I'm not the original poster), the four seconds does not account for all the lost time or inconvenience. Usually I first try something as user. Then I realize (when it doesn't work) that I should have been root. Then I su to root. Then I try to remember the commands I typed before, and I can't use command history to scroll back to them -- they're in the user account command history. At first, I couldn't even cut and paste them from the user to the root command line (now I keep two konsoles open and I can cut and paste one command at a time, and I suspect there is something better I can learn to do in the future). If I haven't completely lost my train of thought by now, I do soon. I'm (conservatively counting) on about day 120 into my Linux sojourn, and my coworkers used to be amazed (at least sometimes) by what I could do at the dos command line. And yes, a lot of my time so far has been spent trying to get programs installed and running, so I needed to be root. Day One: I hate M$. I think I'll try Linux. Day Two: This crap sucks. It isn't Windows. Windows is not Linux, Linux is not Windows. Decide which you want use it. No -- try to get the best of both worlds, and try to go beyond the best of both worlds if possible! Randy Kramer
Re: Fw: [newbie] Use of Linux
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i can't resist this one. to add further to John's response, why are you having to su so much? the only time i have to su is to install programs. i just tried this, i can su type in a password in 4 seconds. you do this so often that it results in a fair amount of lost time? i'm sure i'm not the only one who would be curious to know what you are doing to that computer... Yeah what he said! PS Maybe you should use a shorter psswd. ShalomOut Chal Registered Linux user #217118
Re: Fw: [newbie] Use of Linux
Randy Kramer wrote: I can't resist either -- sorry! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i can't resist this one. to add further to John's response, why are you having to su so much? the only time i have to su is to install programs. i just tried this, i can su type in a password in 4 seconds. you do this so often that it results in a fair amount of lost time? i'm sure i'm not the only one who would be curious to know what you are doing to that computer. For me (and I'm not the original poster), the four seconds does not account for all the lost time or inconvenience. Usually I first try something as user. Then I realize (when it doesn't work) that I should have been root. Then I su to root. Then I try to remember the commands I typed before, and I can't use command history to scroll back to them -- they're in the user account command history. At first, I couldn't even cut and paste them from the user to the root command line (now I keep two konsoles open and I can cut and paste one command at a time, and I suspect there is something better I can learn to do in the future). If I haven't completely lost my train of thought by now, I do soon. I'm (conservatively counting) on about day 120 into my Linux sojourn, and my coworkers used to be amazed (at least sometimes) by what I could do at the dos command line. And yes, a lot of my time so far has been spent trying to get programs installed and running, so I needed to be root. Day One: I hate M$. I think I'll try Linux. Day Two: This crap sucks. It isn't Windows. Windows is not Linux, Linux is not Windows. Decide which you want use it. No -- try to get the best of both worlds, and try to go beyond the best of both worlds if possible! Randy Kramer One thing thing thats great about logging in as a regular user and SUING when you have to is that you really begin to understand the inner-workings of that system. personally, being an all to trusting Admin in a NT environment, I feel too comfortable with the rights. You don't know exactly what you can do and the user can't, which foroges the purpose of security in a network. I certainly wouldn't want to be responsible for setting up a critical system share only to give everyone and their alter-ego permissions to it. (I hate being called to the office...I had enough in high school) smiles In any event, forgive me if this point has already been made, I honestly did not read through the entire thread before responding. But if your purpose is for a insecure user friendly internet machine, stay with windows...no harm done. But if you want to get intmate enough with the system to adminster its every move, learn how it works and manipulate it. (apologies for the last comment...I think I just gave out one of womens biggest secrets on how to control men) smiles
Re: [newbie] Use of Linux
On Saturday 30 June 2001 18:43, Judith Miner wrote: Since there is so many risks of constantly using a root account, how in the world are you supposed to get work done without being logged in as root?? I am a new user and am looking for a desktop alternative to Windows. I have no interest in consoles, command lines, writing scripts, compiling kernels, etc. I just want a solid system supporting a complete, useful, and reasonably intuitive GUI that lets me do what I need to do and want to do. I am the sole user of my home/home office computer. My husband on rare occasions might write an e-mail on the Windows side of the computer, but he would have to be hog-tied to get him into the Mandrake 8 side. After getting mightily annoyed at having to run su in a console or run Super User file managers or give my root password time after time in order to run Mandrake Control Center or other root-only utilities, I now log in all the time as root. Before the geekoids on the list warn me of my impending eternal damnation,g let me explain my reasoning: I am the sole user. I am thus both root and judy (the only user). If I want to do something that will affect the all-important system files, I'm going to do it whether I'm logged in as user or root. So working as user does nothing but make me jump through more hoops to do what I'm going to do anyway. Why not avoid the hassle and work as root all the time? One password per session and no consoles for su-ing, I can unmount my Zip disks at will, I can deal with all files in all file managers, I can edit what I need to, I can install programs without problems. See, these security features can't stay the way they are if Linux is to attract even the Mac's share of the desktop market. Home business and consumer users will react the way I did and just get fed up and abandon Linux if they have to go through these endless permissions, logins, and passwords to manage their systems. In a home system, you're constantly installing or upgrading software or making changes to your display or your hardware. Any consumer GUI has to accommodate such usage, which is nothing at all like what a larger network requires. It seems to me that something could be incorporated into Linux desktops to make them friendlier to SOHO and home users while maintaining some system safety. For example, have a super user login that allows the equivalent of root access, but throws up a warning message when the root/user is about to make a change ordinarily reserved for root--something like You are about to change system files, which could have bad consequences. Okay? Cancel? --Judy Miner Well at install time, there is an option to give root no password. Then you can function as user, but if you need super-user, you just ask for the program and you don't get asked for the password. This works well under 3 conditions: 1. You are really the only user. 2. You are the only user allowed to ssh into the machine 3. You configure Webmin to run from the local loopback only. It is not perfect, but relaxation beyond that lets in the sort of nonsense you see in Windows all the time. Civileme There are other ways of skirting this issue for multiple users, like sudo, but this should work better for you than being logged in as root all the time. Specifically you do not want to log in as root when you are using the internet.
Re: Fw: [newbie] Use of Linux
Bill Winegarden wrote: On Monday 02 July 2001 09:39, you wrote: Hi, I learned this little trick right here. If you are typing a long file name, just type in the first three or four letters, then hit the Esc key twice. Autocomplete fills in the rest. If there are two or more files with the same name up to a point (ie: different versions) the autocomplete will fill in the name to the point where you have to make a choice between the different files. This list is a real learning experience! Regards, Bill W. The long files are well - way t lng. I found that once I have typed the name in, I use my arrow keys to show the same command and file name. And, when dealing with .bin file installations, you just have to type in ./myfile rather than ./mylongfilename Roman Registered Linux User #179293 Email Powered By Tux Email Utility Oh yeah. In fact, it will show you every combination that it knows. This is why I find this language so powerful. A number of people do not like text but GUI. Little do they know, when the GUI dies, you still have text. I'm still learning. Roman
Re: [newbie] Use of Linux
Since there is so many risks of constantly using a root account, how in the world are you supposed to get work done without being logged in as root?? I am a new user and am looking for a desktop alternative to Windows. I have no interest in consoles, command lines, writing scripts, compiling kernels, etc. I just want a solid system supporting a complete, useful, and reasonably intuitive GUI that lets me do what I need to do and want to do. I am the sole user of my home/home office computer. My husband on rare occasions might write an e-mail on the Windows side of the computer, but he would have to be hog-tied to get him into the Mandrake 8 side. After getting mightily annoyed at having to run su in a console or run Super User file managers or give my root password time after time in order to run Mandrake Control Center or other root-only utilities, I now log in all the time as root. Before the geekoids on the list warn me of my impending eternal damnation,g let me explain my reasoning: I am the sole user. I am thus both root and judy (the only user). If I want to do something that will affect the all-important system files, I'm going to do it whether I'm logged in as user or root. So working as user does nothing but make me jump through more hoops to do what I'm going to do anyway. Why not avoid the hassle and work as root all the time? One password per session and no consoles for su-ing, I can unmount my Zip disks at will, I can deal with all files in all file managers, I can edit what I need to, I can install programs without problems. See, these security features can't stay the way they are if Linux is to attract even the Mac's share of the desktop market. Home business and consumer users will react the way I did and just get fed up and abandon Linux if they have to go through these endless permissions, logins, and passwords to manage their systems. In a home system, you're constantly installing or upgrading software or making changes to your display or your hardware. Any consumer GUI has to accommodate such usage, which is nothing at all like what a larger network requires. It seems to me that something could be incorporated into Linux desktops to make them friendlier to SOHO and home users while maintaining some system safety. For example, have a super user login that allows the equivalent of root access, but throws up a warning message when the root/user is about to make a change ordinarily reserved for root--something like You are about to change system files, which could have bad consequences. Okay? Cancel? --Judy Miner
Re: [newbie] Use of Linux
On June 30, 2001 02:43 pm, you wrote: SNIP After getting mightily annoyed at having to run su in a console or run Super User file managers or give my root password time after time in order to run Mandrake Control Center or other root-only utilities, I now log in all the time as root. Before the geekoids on the list warn me of my impending eternal damnation,g let me explain my reasoning: I am the sole user. I am thus both root and judy (the only user). If I want to do something that will affect the all-important system files, I'm going to do it whether I'm logged in as user or root. So working as user does nothing but make me jump through more hoops to do what I'm going to do anyway. Why not avoid the hassle and work as root all the time? One password per session and no consoles for su-ing, I can unmount my Zip disks at will, I can deal with all files in all file managers, I can edit what I need to, I can install programs without problems. See, these security features can't stay the way they are if Linux is to attract even the Mac's share of the desktop market. Home business and consumer users will react the way I did and just get fed up and abandon Linux if they have to go through these endless permissions, logins, and passwords to manage their systems. In a home system, you're constantly installing or upgrading software or making changes to your display or your hardware. Any consumer GUI has to accommodate such usage, which is nothing at all like what a larger network requires. begin sarcastic comment Perhaps you should forward your comments to Microsoft in order to save their impending doom on the desktop due to implementing the very same super user concept in their NT based operating systems. end sarcastic comment Restricted super user authority is a hallmark of *NIX, and is one of the primary reasons it is so stable. Microsoft recognized this when they went to work on NT, and carried on w/ the practice thorugh Win2k. Regardless of the crap coming w/ XP one major advancement is the same multi-user/permission based concept. The bottom line is that the majority of PC users who claim to be proficient know jack, and need to be protected from themselves more than anything else. This is one of the primary reasons our company deploys Win2k on the desktop - to stop users from trashing their systems, and then requiring us to fix their mistakes. We promote the very same practice to home users in order to prevent kids, or other family members from installing some piece of hellware that guts Windows. Don't hold your breath waiting for Linux distributors to remove su, and permission based file structures. Not only would such a distro be non POSIX compliant, no self respecting *NIX vendor would abuse such a time proven and effective model. If this concept had of been implemented in the 9x line of products (even though the underlying technology is absolute junk) I can hardly imagine how astronomical the world wide productivity gains would have been over the past seven years - compared to what has actually transpired. Considering you just started using *NIX I guess it isn't fair to expect you to fully understand, and respect the benefits of POSIX. However, I will bet a dime to a dollar that if you continue using *NIX, and don't respect it's structure you will end up w/ an unstable operating system just like Win 9x. SNIP Regards, SpeedMan
Re: [newbie] Use of Linux
Thanks, Matt, for describing the perils of routinely working as root. well, after once having to ctrl alt backspace out of xwindows and subsequently loosing my whole linux install, and then later suffering ap owerloss and again losing my whole system both while logged in as root i realized the wisdom of logging in as user and then becoming su when i need to. I do have a UPS so should have time to shut down in orderly fashion if I lost power, but even the potential of hosing the system gives me pause. I do expect to work as user once I get the system functioning fully. For now, just about everything requires me to be root, so I can't see the point of messing with su throughout my session. Plus, su requires a console and I avoid--and intend to continue avoiding--consoles whenever possible. I expect the GUI to insulate me from consoles and command lines. Obviously, it's not there yet. actually between using alt f2 to run any program you want as root I haven't found that Alt-F2 let me run programs as root. If the program requires root privileges, invoking and typing in Alt-F2 when logged in as user has done nothing at all, in my limited experience. Is there some magic command modification I just don't know about? the fact that mandrake 8.0 is much better at recognizing when you need to be root and prompting you for the password it isn't that much of a burden. I suppose burden is in the eye of the beholder. I find constant typing of the root password to be annoying in the extreme and results in a fair amount of lost time if you have to do this several times in a few hours. --Judy M.
Re: [newbie] Use of Linux
I am interested to know, how many of you, actually use a non-root account to get work done. Since there is so many risks of constantly using a root account, how in the world are you supposed to get work done without being logged in as root?? I think that this depends a lot on the work that one does on a linux machine. I program (C), write reports (Abiword), create webpages (Quanta and vi), work with spreadsheets (Gnumeric), play a bit with graphics (Gimp), etc. I also write plenty of scripts, but none of them have given me trouble so far. Perhaps you could tell us an example that bothers you? Paul
Re: [newbie] Use of Linux
I agree with Paul. It all depends on what you do with your Linux box. Myself, I'm an admin amongst many other things. I write scripts, I test software, as well as fixing other things that don't require root access, or another kind of access. Even when I'm doing something that does require root access, I may edit the file as another user, then as root go in and paste in my edits, or quickly su to root, do what I have to do and then log off as root. But I'm the kind of person that does 80% or more of his work via the console. I'm just not a GUI kinda man! (lol) I use Enlightenment as my windows manager, and I have currently ahve 108 desktops that use. On of which has about 8 xterms sitting there waiting for me to log back in as root and do something. When I'm done I log out (For security issues) and then go back to what else I was doing. I do play some basic games like tetris and lbreakout, but other then that it's mainly work in xterms all over the place. But I don't find it a problem with su'ing to root to then finish something or do some work. Then again I type very fast and it's just another short command for me to rattle off with no problem, and even less amount of time. tdh -- T. Holmes - UNIXTECHS.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Real Men Us Vi! Uptime: 8:31AM up 8 days, 22:24, 11 users, load averages: 0.04, 0.03, 0.00 | I am interested to know, how many of you, actually use a non-root account to | get work done. Since there is so many risks of constantly using a root | account, how in the world are you supposed to get work done without being | logged in as root?? | | I think that this depends a lot on the work that one does on a linux machine. | I program (C), write reports (Abiword), create webpages (Quanta and vi), | work with spreadsheets (Gnumeric), play a bit with graphics (Gimp), etc. | I also write plenty of scripts, but none of them have given me trouble so | far. | Perhaps you could tell us an example that bothers you? | Paul | | --
Re: [newbie] Use of Linux
Tim wrote: Even when I'm doing something that does require root access, I may edit the file as another user, then as root go in and paste in my edits, or quickly su to root, do what I have to do and then log off as root. That latter is how I manage my box also. There's a bunch of xterms open on each virtual desktop, so I can always quickly su, do the root thing, and exit out of there. But I'm the kind of person that does 80% or more of his work via the console. I'm just not a GUI kinda man! (lol) My GUI needs are also very basic. I am lost without a prompt ;) I even start things like quanta and gimp from xterms... Much faster than all the mouse action. Paul
RE: [newbie] Use of Linux
I try really, really hard to do things under my account but inevitably I have su'd to root within 3 to 5 minutes... I think it's just a problem with me not knowing how to setup my access properly. -Original Message- From: Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 7:23 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [newbie] Use of Linux I am interested to know, how many of you, actually use a non-root account to get work done. Since there is so many risks of constantly using a root account, how in the world are you supposed to get work done without being logged in as root?? I think that this depends a lot on the work that one does on a linux machine. I program (C), write reports (Abiword), create webpages (Quanta and vi), work with spreadsheets (Gnumeric), play a bit with graphics (Gimp), etc. I also write plenty of scripts, but none of them have given me trouble so far. Perhaps you could tell us an example that bothers you? Paul
RE: [newbie] Use of Linux
I try really, really hard to do things under my account but inevitably I have su'd to root within 3 to 5 minutes... I think it's just a problem with me not knowing how to setup my access properly. What are all these pressing things then, that you constantly need root access for? If I have to run su more than 5 times a day I feel that I have done something wrong... Paul
RE: [newbie] Use of Linux
I'm spending most of my time installing the system, installing RPMs, and configuring files I can't figure out how to install an RPM as myself, is that possible? -Original Message- From: Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 9:08 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [newbie] Use of Linux I try really, really hard to do things under my account but inevitably I have su'd to root within 3 to 5 minutes... I think it's just a problem with me not knowing how to setup my access properly. What are all these pressing things then, that you constantly need root access for? If I have to run su more than 5 times a day I feel that I have done something wrong... Paul
Re: [newbie] Use of Linux
It was Fri, 29 Jun 2001 09:38:39 -0500 when Mark Johnson wrote: I'm spending most of my time installing the system, installing RPMs, and configuring files I can't figure out how to install an RPM as myself, is that possible? This is also security related. Root is the only one on a system allowed to write to the RPM database etc. But take heart, as soon as most of the system is set up and running, you should not be needing that anymore. Unless you like playing around with things... Paul -- It's in process: So wrapped up in red tape that the situation is almost hopeless. http://nlpagan.net - Registered Linux User 174403 Linux Mandrake 8.0 - Sylpheed 0.4.99 ** http://www.care2.com - when you care **
Re: [newbie] Use of Linux
Mandrake has urpmi and urpme. If you add your user to the urpmi group you will be able to (un)install RPMs without logging in as root. There is also sudo, which can be configures to allow a user to access any root task you wish. I personaly see these as a bit of a security risk, so I just su for a short moment to (un)install my RPM. On Sat, 30 Jun 2001 00:38, Mark Johnson wrote: I'm spending most of my time installing the system, installing RPMs, and configuring files I can't figure out how to install an RPM as myself, is that possible? -Original Message- From: Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 9:08 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [newbie] Use of Linux I try really, really hard to do things under my account but inevitably I have su'd to root within 3 to 5 minutes... I think it's just a problem with me not knowing how to setup my access properly. What are all these pressing things then, that you constantly need root access for? If I have to run su more than 5 times a day I feel that I have done something wrong... Paul -- Sridhar Dhanapalan. There are two major products that come from Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence. -- Jeremy S. Anderson
