Ubuntu - Page 3

jds · 06-03-2009, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmugMug

Mutilated1

Why the butthurt? No need to get hostile. You like Ubuntu, I don't. I don't use RedHat everyday, but when I do, it's on a network security level. That means I need full root access to lock down/securely configure the system. All I'm saying is that I feel like Ubuntu is a Linux OS for the Windows user. It's always in self preservation mode.

I think that's exactly the point. Doing anything on ubuntu (I'm on kubuntu Hardy) as root is pretty simple:

Code:

jskaggs@blaster:~$ sudo su -
root@blaster:~# whoami
root
root@blaster:~# pwd
/root
root@blaster:~# rm -rf /*

ok, the last line's a joke.

Honestly, I've had no problems living as a non-superuser on my own machine for the most part. Between shell stuff and occasionally starting apps via kdesu, I've never been locked out of anything. Sure, /home/root is unpopulated. Never been a problem for me.

z987k · 06-03-2009, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmugMug

This may come off as a little bit snobbish, but after using RedHat for so long, Ubuntu just doesn't do it for me. I'll still take it over Solaris, but that isn't saying a whole lot (enter potential Solaris advocates). I like having full root access and you just can't do it with Ubuntu. Superuser is not the same as root. It's great for a novice Linux user since it protects you from potentially wrecking the OS, but it just has a nerfed and sterile feel to it.

Then again, if I'm using a Linux/Unix OS, I'm rarely using the GUI and Ubuntu seems to have been developed around it. To each his own.

FWIW - Vista is a piece of crap transitional OS. I highly recommend not using it, unless you loved the way ME worked.

So do you just as root the whole time... like just login as root then?

I'm having a hard time thinking of what you would need full time root for.

**cd2448** · 06-03-2009, 08:50 PM

i had ubuntu on our 6 year old big desktop PC for a while. the install was awesome, it recognised everything on there and everything worked nicely.

got rid of it because SWMBO claimed it crashed more often than windows XP and i think she was right - could have been driver issues with the hardware being so old - and also because it didn't like acting as a server for media files to my xbox downstairs. i wanted to set up one of those mental media center extender things but got frustrated and just canned the lot.

i'd definitely try it again. might look into these netbooks etc. that i think would be ideal for ubuntu or DSL.

**Mutilated1** · 06-03-2009, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmugMug

Mutilated1

Why the butthurt? No need to get hostile. You like Ubuntu, I don't. I don't use RedHat everyday, but when I do, it's on a network security level. That means I need full root access to lock down/securely configure the system. All I'm saying is that I feel like Ubuntu is a Linux OS for the Windows user. It's always in self preservation mode.

I'm not butthurt or hostile.

In many ways Ubuntu is a Linux distro thats geared towards Windows type users. Ease of instal and relatively little required configuration for example.

Not having a root user account is not really one of those reasons.

Fact of the matter is you can have a root user account in Ubuntu if you want to, just like you can just as easily run your Red Hat systems without one. Statements like "you can't have root access in Ubuntu" are just wrong.

Just like the idea that you have to have full root access to lock down and securely configure the system is just wrong. Just not true. Its not true in Ubuntu and its not true in Red Hat either.

Use whichever you like, its no skin off my nose either way.

**mmb** · 06-04-2009, 03:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmugMug

This may come off as a little bit snobbish, but after using RedHat for so long, Ubuntu just doesn't do it for me. I'll still take it over Solaris, but that isn't saying a whole lot (enter potential Solaris advocates). I like having full root access and you just can't do it with Ubuntu. Superuser is not the same as root. It's great for a novice Linux user since it protects you from potentially wrecking the OS, but it just has a nerfed and sterile feel to it.

Not to be a dick, but you've been using your boxen wrong if you have to login as root to do tasks. RedHat always has supported robust sudo usage. Otherwise, you've not had proper security procedures established on your servers.

With a farm of 20+ boxen and a few "assistant" admins, I would have been lost without sudolog and a proper sudoers file.

SmugMug · 06-04-2009, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mmb

Not to be a dick, but you've been using your boxen wrong if you have to login as root to do tasks. RedHat always has supported robust sudo usage. Otherwise, you've not had proper security procedures established on your servers.

With a farm of 20+ boxen and a few "assistant" admins, I would have been lost without sudolog and a proper sudoers file.

To clarify, anytime I am on a RedHat machine I HAVE to log on as root. I do not use RH as a primary work OS. You said

Quote:

Otherwise, you've not had proper security procedures established on your servers.

That is precisely why I have to logon as root. I have to configure the OS to run securely for the primary users/groups according to specific information assurance standards. We have a lot of security tools/software that are used for this work and they cannot be run on a user or superuser account. Regardless, think of me and what I do as you will. I have my own 1st hand experience with both OSs and I simply prefer RH to Ubuntu because it's what I know best and performs the tasks I need it to better.