Re: Multiplicity of accounts; was, "Can't create folder on empty partition ..."
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 2:50 PM, <peasthope@shaw.ca> wrote:
> * From: Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com>
> * Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2013 02:39:26 +0900
>> ... your personal
>> computer needs at least an admin user (besides root) and a personal
>> user for general tasks and a personal user for bank access, etc.
>
> What about Puppy Linux with only a root account?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puppy_Linux
> After installing Firefox I was able to access my bank account from there.
Uhm, if you really want to, you can do that with any Unix-like OS. On
MSWindows XP, the corollary was standard operating procedure, surfing
the net as the primary admin user. And that includes your bank
account.
The question is why you would want to. That SOP was the primary path
of ingress and the primary cause of the proliferation of 'bot nets.
And accessing your bank logged in as the same user that you use to
surf random sites is one of the primary causes of leaked bank account
numbers and passwords.
>> When a computer or a network is used for community tasks and projects,
>> that task or project needs a user id and a resources assigned to it.
>
> I didn't try to run a wiki server but if one is installed on a Puppy
> Linux, wouldn't that allow several people to edit a document?
What does Puppy have to do with anything?
And what does using permissions improperly to allow several people to
edit a document have to do with anything?
I'm sorry to be rude, but I'm in a bad mood today. So I'm not going to
try to carefully explain to you why you don't want your son or your
best friend to log in as root on the machine you use for work, or why
you don't want all your users having full access to every document on
your system. Surely you can understand the problem if you think about
it from the frame of mind that even your close family or your best
friend is going to do things you wish they hadn't.
--
Joel Rees
Be careful where you see conspiracy.
Look first in your own heart.
Reply to: