Re: debian-user-digest Digest V2002 #715
On Thursday 01 August 2002 5:19 am,
debian-user-digest-request@lists.debian.org wrote:
> debian-user-digest Digest Volume 2002 : Issue 715
>
> Today's Topics:
> Re: Rejig apt Config Now That Woody [ Nick <nick@glimmer.demon.co.uk> ]
> Shutdown: vgchange --can't deactive [ "Q. Gong" <q.gong@tue.nl> ]
> Re: Mutt/Tin/GNUMACS v. gnus/GNUMACS [ marshal@h9.dion.ne.jp ]
> Re: Root login in graphical envirome [ Leo Spalteholz
> <leo@thewoodpecker.c ] Re: [DEB-USER] Re: [DEB-USER] Holida [ Paul M
> Foster <paulf@quillandmouse. ] Re: *** I BADLY WANT OUT !!!!!!!!!** [ Nick
> <nick@glimmer.demon.co.uk> ] Re: Root login in graphical envirome [ Chris
> Kenrick <chrisk@aurema.com> ] Intel PRO100 [ Mark
> Zvolanek <Mark.Zvolanek@asx.co ] Re: [DEB-USER] Re: *** I BADLY WANT [
> Paul M Foster <paulf@quillandmouse. ] Linux at work for a corporate deskto
> [ Michael James <mcjames@optonline.co ] Re: [DEB-USER] Re: *** I BADLY WANT
> [ Patrick Wiseman <pwiseman@mindsprin ] Re: Root login in graphical
> envirome [ Crispin Wellington <crispin@aeonlin ] Re: Root login in
> graphical envirome [ Crispin Wellington <crispin@aeonlin ] Re: How to
> build an apt-repository f [ Oohara Yuuma <oohara@libra.interq.o ] Re: Root
> login in graphical envirome [ Crispin Wellington <crispin@aeonlin ] Re:
> Can't start Evolution in Sid [ James D Strandboge <jstrand1@roches ]
> Re: Linux at work for a corporate de [ "Michael P. Soulier" <msoulier@stor
> ] Re: Linux at work for a corporate de [ Ron Johnson
> <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> ] Re: Root login in graphical envirome [ Kirk
> Strauser <kirk@strauser.com> ]
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 08:12:24PM -0500, Richard Cobbe wrote:
> > > I've given users explicit instructions and had them execute them. No
> > > go. I show up, query them on exactly what they did, and it sounds
> > > right. Then I sit down at their terminal and do what I told them to do,
> > > and it _works_.
> >
> > Ya know, I get this sort of stuff a lot at work, because I'm the resident
> > expert on a lot of the tools we use, like CVS (though not including any
> > sort of listserv system). While I often suspect user error in situations
> > like this, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and say that
> > the software package may, in fact, be buggy. Only when I can see exactly
> > what they did, in a command history or something, do I conclusively
> > attribute the problem to user error. (Especially because the command
> > history makes it much easier to explain to them the right way: ``No, that
> > won't work, because....'')
> >
> > Not all users are stupid.
>
> Agreed. However, I always test my instructions first, and usually pilot
> them locally before exporting them to users. Another posters alluded to
> a "significant number" of users who can't follow the instructions. It's
> a small but dedicated fraction of users. I often also find that these
> same users are the ones who 1) understand the least about computers, and
> 2) have the most difficulty in understanding and communicating in basic
> English (and they are native English speakers).
>
> I only suspect buggy software when 1) it isn't an established package or
> long-used version; 2) its behavior is bizarre compared to my experience
> with the package or similar software; and/or 3) it behaves incorrectly
> when _I_ operate it.
>
> Paul
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 07:45:02PM -0700, Leo Spalteholz wrote:
> > >I've pretty novice with X stuff, though, so I'd love to hear a secure
> > > way of running GUI apps as root that Just Works (tm).
> >
> > I just use kdesu appname. Of course only for those on KDE.. Secure?
> > No idea. Just Works? Yeah! And if it isn't secure I don't care either.
> >
> > and now to veer off topic slightly for a rant on something I've been
> > wondering about
> > <rant>
> > I'm on the verge of just (OMG! wait for the blasphemy) logging in as
> > root for daily use. I type in my root password about 50 times a day
> > just to execute a command or edit some config file. Yes I realize that
> > if someone exploits a hole in your software the risk is much greater if
> > you're running as root; but how big is this risk? I've been running MS
> > Windows, not downloading security patches or running a virus scanner or
> > a firewall, for the last 8 years and have never had even the slightest
> > security problem. And yet if anyone suggests running linux as root,
> > everyone goes apeshit and calls them nuts. So how secure is linux when
> > running as root on a desktop box? (no services like ftp/ssh/apache etc
> > running) If its as secure or more secure than MS Windows then I dont
> > see a problem with running as root on a DESKTOP machine. If its less
> > secure, why the hell is it?
> > </rant>
>
> Security is one aspect, but if you run as root all day every day, sooner
> or later you'll do something accidentally that will do a lot of damage.
> Eg, you might do rm -Rf * from the root directory (thinking you were in
> /tmp). No big drama if you do it as a user[1]. As root, your system is
> hosed.
>
> My advice is to do whatever works for you, providing you keep your
> "admin" and normal type activities separate. sudo might be a good
> choice, since you don't have to type in the password if you use it
> within the timeout (uh oh, here comes the sudo is good vs sudo is evil
> flame fest :) ). Alternatively, keep a root login on one of your
> virtual consoles, and switch to it whenever you need to do admin stuff.
> Just make sure you switch back when you are finished.
>
> Incidentally, it is more dangerous running as root on Unix than on
> Windows. With the Unix root user, anything goes. There is nothing it
> can't delete/ruin/whatever. On the more multi-user flavours of Windows,
> even the Adminstrator user can't do certain things. In other words,
> being able to run Windows as Administrator all the time without
> consequence doesn't follow on to running as root under Unix all the
> time.
>
> - Chris
>
> [1] Well, your home directory will be hosed, but that's what backups are
> for, right? :)
> On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 04:05:03AM +0100, Nick wrote:
> > On Thu, 1 Aug 2002 10:05:55 +0930, Tom Cook wrote:
> > >On 0, Nick <nick@glimmer.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > >> On Wed, 31 Jul 2002 21:04:33 -0300, you wrote:
> > >> >1) I sent and BLANK e-mail to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
> > >> > with the subject: unsubscribe
> > >>
> > >> WRONG.
> > >>
> > >> You need to send an email with NO SUBJECT, BUT WITH A MESSAGE BODY
> > >> containing the single word "unsubscribe".
> > >>
> > >> OK ?
> > >
> > >Huh? In direct contradiction to the bit of advice at the end of each
> > >email?
> >
> > Good point ! It does say that.
> >
> > So I just checked the "Welcome" mails I get every time I subscribe to
> > this list (I unsubscribe & resubscribe fairly regularly - I just can't
> > cope with the volume all the time).
> >
> > On 21st.May my welcome mail said :
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this list, send "unsubscribe" in the
> > message body
> > (the subject should be blank) to:
> > <listname>-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> > and you will be removed.
> >
> > whereas on 31st.July the welcome mail said :
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this list, send "unsubscribe" in the
> > message subject
> > to:
> > <listname>-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> > and you will be removed after your confirmation reply has
> > been received.
> >
> > So something has silently changed ... hmmm ...
> >
> > Be that as it may, *whenever* I subscribe or unsubscribe from Debian
> > lists, I always play safe and send a mail with just the command word
> > in *both* the subject line *and* the message body.
> >
> > Works for me :)
> >
> > Good luck.
> >
> > [PS: I make sure there is _nothing_ else in the message body -
> > especially no signature - some mailing list packages get confused by
> > such stuff.]
>
> Excellent analysis.
>
> I just sent a "which paulf@quillandmouse.com" command to:
>
> majordomo@lists.debian.org
>
> I got back a response that confirms this list is running on majordomo.
> That being the case (and assuming no one has massively hacked the
> program), it is correct to send majordomo commands in the _body_ of
> emails, _not_ the subject. Majordomo for the most part ignores the
> subjects of emails.
>
> So the instructions at the bottom of these emails (and the "help" email
> you get from the listserv, and the intro email you get when signing up)
> are wrong.
>
> List admin, are you listening?
>
> BTW, with majordomo commands, if you put the word "end" on a line by
> itself after whatever command you're issuing (like "unsubscribe"), you
> can have all the signatures you want below that. The word "end"
> signifies to majordomo that nothing below it is a command, and it will
> ignore anything there.
>
> Paul
> On 31/07/02 Michael James did speaketh:
> > Hi ...
> >
> > I have been wondering if I am really out there as a Linux user. I have
> > been dragging 2 laptops around, 1 Linux, 1 Windows for a couple months.
> > Has anyone made the final leap, and dropped the windows machines? I am
> > talking about the standard corporate stuff ... email, etc.
> >
> > I was hoping to give it a go with the Evolution/Exchange connector, but
> > we aren't at E2k yet.
> >
> > Just wondering what the feeling was.
>
> I don't use windows at all, and I work daily in a large corporation. I
> piss off people regularly because they can't schedule meetings with me via
> MS Lookout!. The real problem is not any lacking on the part of Linux or
> its apps (although there is some of that). The real problem is the
> corporate mentality of considering winblows and its apps as a standard.
> They're not.
> Someone sends me MS office, I send it back and request pdf, or I open
> it in OpenOffice and sent that back to make a point. You may not be able to
> do this, but most of this nonsense involves retraining the people around
> you to play with others.
>
> Mike
Reply to: