![]() ![]() How could we explain to our customers that we introduced software from “somewhere else” on the systems they used? When something went wrong, who to sue? I remember that sudo emerged as a product of some university and was rejected by us because it wasn’t covered by the support and responsibility (it is much about security) of HP, SUN, IBM, etc. When I talk about “old Unix school”, I mean things like HP-UX, SUN-OS/Solaris, AIX, … Moreover, in the mostly installation, you can choose whether to create a root user or whether the first user created during the installation will be an administrator. Nevertheless, I found the openSUSE approach strange to require a root password after issuing the sudo command, because I’m so used to it that sudo, like Windows, requires the user’s password in most distributions. I myself prefer the root role if I need explicit privileges to perform a system-wide operation. If you are a member of the old Unix school, you will probably remember the controversy in the Debian community about the introduction of sudo years ago, how much resentment it caused at the time. I assume the approach you have seen in other distributions, is more to the taste of former MS Windows users, where there is no real division (until some years ago even no one at all) between administrator and user and above that, there is in fact only one user where Unix/Linux accommodates a multi-user environment. Different roles even if the same person is executing both functions. ![]() I am from old school Unix and I am very much aware of the builtin division between root and users and the inherent security it offers. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |