Re: [LINUX_Newbies] Re: Why windows gets more malware than Unix ,Linux and Mac?

And some distros use sudo and some let you run as root by either logging in
as root or changing to root temporarily. I believe that su actually means
substitute user and not switch user as previously said. Then there is Fedora
which has su and su -. If you run as su then you cannot affect system wide
changes. For that you need su - which means su - root. In many distros then
su is understood as root, but the su - is the traditional Unix way. You can
actually type su - bob to run as user bob. Then there is gksu and kdesu. It
all makes for an interesting experience.

Roy

Using Kubuntu 10.10, 64-bit
Location: Canada

On 20 February 2011 15:12, Rob <sun408b@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> >OSX has multiple levels of user permissions. Think of the OS as a >tree.
> The "root" is, well, the roots of the tree. Some actions can >only be taken
> at the "root" level. The root user has complete root >access.
>
> You mean the system kernel? Linux,Mac and Unix has this but not windows.
>
> >There is only one "root" user and this user does not exist by >default.
> Every "admin" user has access to root powers, but only >indirectly and only
> if the root does not exist. For the root to >exist, you have to "enable" it.
> Think of the root user a potential >single point of ultimate authority. Once
> the root user is enabled, >the root can override anything and nothing can
> override the root.
>
> Why does windows not use this but Linux,Mac and Unix do?
>
> >Most users don't know about the root user because normal use of the >OSX
> does not require root access. Even "power users" never resort >to enabling
> or logging in as a root user. There is a command-line >function ("sudo")
> that provides "super-user" access at the command >line without enabling the
> root user.
>
> Is this some thing Linux,Mac and Unix set up to make it more secure this
> way than windows that is full admin by default.
>
> >In roughly 15 years administering Macs, I have logged in as root >twice to
> "crack" an admin user on systems where the admin password >was lost. Even in
> those cases I'm not sure that operating as the >root user was necessary. ;)
>
> Do you not need a passward for root ?
>
> >I believe there are two reasons to enable the root. One is to >secure the
> system at the deepest level. The other is to operate >directly on the OS
> itself with total authority without resorting to >work arounds such as the
> sudo command.
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------------------

To unsubscribe from this list, please email LINUX_Newbies-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com & you will be removed.Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LINUX_Newbies/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LINUX_Newbies/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
LINUX_Newbies-digest@yahoogroups.com
LINUX_Newbies-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
LINUX_Newbies-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/