5 ms·

> > DSLR's approach to security is different . It is possible to run as root without causing a global disaster. > Is there any more information available on ho

> > DSLR's approach to security is different . It is possible to run as root without causing a global disaster. > Is there any more information available on how this is achieved? +1 to this remark, currently unanswered. Is the "NEVER RUN AS ROOT!" mantra from modern Linux practices, or has it been that way since the mid-90s? After nearly four years of using Fedoras, I'm getting better about remembering what operations require root privileges, but I'll still grumble every time I have to enter the root password to do something as trivial as mounting a flash drive on someone else's computer. (I can't remember, offhand, where that setting is/what it's called that lets normal users mount drives)

userbinator 12y ago
Is the "NEVER RUN AS ROOT!" mantra from modern Linux practices, or has it been that way since the mid-90s? I think that goes back all the way to Unix and its multiuser environment, where one admin's mistakes could affect everyone on the system - so people were naturally scared of root. On the other hand, on the earliest personal computer OSs, which were basically single-user (many don't even have the concept of a "user account"), that only user has full control like root but that wasn't really perceived with as much apprehension since the only thing a mistake affects is the sole user. With DSLR and all the other tiny Linux distros, I sense that the intention is these are to be used by a single user.
- Eiriksmal 12y ago
  Ah... That is very insightful, thank you. I continually forget the days of timesharing, etc. For my entire life (born during the Tiannamen Square riots), personal computers have typically hosted one user at a time.
  - aidenn0 12y ago
    That statment is actually true for the entire existence of personal computers... you might even say it's the definition of a PC. However, Unix didn't start on PCs, it started on minicomputers.
scardine 12y ago
Almost 20 years ago I typed "rm /lib" instead of "rm lib" by mistake. Kernel panic messages started to flash on the terminal and I felt butterflies on my stomach. It was a huge (at the time) Sun machine, took more than 12h to restore it. That is why I avoid running as root.
- chillingeffect 12y ago
  lol, we should have a thread about famous typos. The other late evening, I typed "sudo pip uninstall pip" instead of "sudo pip uninstall pil" Not that bad, but i was on an outdated distro (13.04) and I couldn't apt-get pip back. :< It was time to move to 13.10 anyway.
  - rglullis 12y ago
    what? `sudo apt-get install python-pip --reinstall` wouldn't work?
- jlarocco 12y ago
  Using Linux or OSX on a modern single user computer, the separation between root and non-root makes very little sense. I don't care if I "rm -Rf /bin" because I can reinstall all of it in less than an hour. It's an inconvenience, but hardly the end of the world. On the other hand, "rm $HOME/*" would be a huge pain in the ass, potentially losing personal data that I can't just "apt-get install _____" back. It does make sense for shared computers, but not many people running OSX and desktop Linux are running on shared computers.
  - marvy 12y ago
    that's what time machines are for

userbinator 12y ago

Is the "NEVER RUN AS ROOT!" mantra from modern Linux practices, or has it been that way since the mid-90s? I think that goes back all the way to Unix and its multiuser environment, where one admin's mistakes could affect everyone on the system - so people were naturally scared of root. On the other hand, on the earliest personal computer OSs, which were basically single-user (many don't even have the concept of a "user account"), that only user has full control like root but that wasn't really perceived with as much apprehension since the only thing a mistake affects is the sole user. With DSLR and all the other tiny Linux distros, I sense that the intention is these are to be used by a single user.

Eiriksmal 12y ago
Ah... That is very insightful, thank you. I continually forget the days of timesharing, etc. For my entire life (born during the Tiannamen Square riots), personal computers have typically hosted one user at a time.
- aidenn0 12y ago
  That statment is actually true for the entire existence of personal computers... you might even say it's the definition of a PC. However, Unix didn't start on PCs, it started on minicomputers.

scardine 12y ago

Almost 20 years ago I typed "rm /lib" instead of "rm lib" by mistake. Kernel panic messages started to flash on the terminal and I felt butterflies on my stomach. It was a huge (at the time) Sun machine, took more than 12h to restore it. That is why I avoid running as root.

chillingeffect 12y ago
lol, we should have a thread about famous typos. The other late evening, I typed "sudo pip uninstall pip" instead of "sudo pip uninstall pil" Not that bad, but i was on an outdated distro (13.04) and I couldn't apt-get pip back. :< It was time to move to 13.10 anyway.
- rglullis 12y ago
  what? `sudo apt-get install python-pip --reinstall` wouldn't work?
jlarocco 12y ago
Using Linux or OSX on a modern single user computer, the separation between root and non-root makes very little sense. I don't care if I "rm -Rf /bin" because I can reinstall all of it in less than an hour. It's an inconvenience, but hardly the end of the world. On the other hand, "rm $HOME/*" would be a huge pain in the ass, potentially losing personal data that I can't just "apt-get install _____" back. It does make sense for shared computers, but not many people running OSX and desktop Linux are running on shared computers.
- marvy 12y ago
  that's what time machines are for