Revive the "root" account

[jglen490]

Re: Revive the "root" account

Of course, the use of sudo or su like anything else in Linux is a choice, a blessing, and a curse all rolled up into one.

At first, I didn't like "sudo", for all the reasons mentioned - extra keystrokes and the like. However, "sudo" does give the user as much power as is needed to alter the core of the Linux installation as "su" does. The one very good aspect of "sudo" is that it only gives you that power for as long as you need it and as long as you limit the use of options like "sudo -s" you have less of a possibility of leaving your system open to unwanted problems. Have you ever done an "su" or "su -" and forgot to exit out? I have. Let's just say I was uncomfortable with the vulnerabilities that an uncontrolled "su" or "su -" present

If it really bothers you, there are options as noted above.

[kbunt]

Re: Revive the "root" account

I don't forget to exit the root shell or root, though. I don't like that Ubuntu thinks they figure you'll forget. That's a Microsoft mentality.

I think Ubuntu should offer both types of accounts if they're going to do that. For people who think they might forget and people who are certain they won't forget.

I also don't really understand kubicle's post. I don't think it should matter whether it's recommended or not. Switching to the 'su' method shouldn't be an issue or problem. But, that's just me... Other than that, there are things about Ubuntu I like but the sudo restriction is one I definitely DON'T like.

[jglen490]

Re: Revive the "root" account

The actual point is that "sudo" is the default setup for *buntu. It is possible to set *buntu up for "su" usage - it's not prohibited behavior, nor is it default behavior. It's just the way the system is Other distros have different defaults, including some that are outrageous - but that's just my opinion.

Congrats on NEVER forgetting to exit from root usage. That's a good discipline - not all of us are as good at it as you seem to be.

[claydoh]

Re: Revive the "root" account

Kubuntu will use sudo, and that's not about to change anytime soon. It's one of the things that defines *ubuntu.

As it is fairly easily changed, the whole idea of reviving 'root' is rather unnecessary.

[keyman]

Re: Revive the "root" account

Here again we talk about root access, and as I see it us who grew up in the unix plan and linux from 1994 where you neeed root access and depended on it, having to over come the windows thinking of "you cant know that".

i think it's time all linux user's grow up and take the power in hand and learn how to handel it. i don' t need kubuntu staff telling me what i can and can't do with my root account. that is very much a windows thing and as i read these post's all the new user's back the staff. so i say to them bay a book and read it.

also i wanted to say i only use root account and i never had a problem.
because i've been using linux since 1994 when it first came out.

Keyman

[flarson]

Re: Revive the "root" account

Great topic. As a longtime sysadmin and user of su and sudo I know that both are very useful and "BOTH ARE NEEDED". The difference here is the default behavior. The first thing I do on a Kubunto system is
"sudo -s" followed by passwd so I have an accessible root account for recovery purposes.

Kubuntu has added a great recover menu system, but even it brings you down to the need for a root password.

sudo is also needed to allow users to do some things and not others. It is also very useful in Kubuntu for getting root power in a GUI tool.

Bottom line? Kubuntu provides both to a knowledgeable user, which is better than old time where many were unaware of sudo, and a reasonable default for systems that are designed to be "new user friendly". I get exactly what I want. I love Linux.

[kubicle]

Re: Revive the "root" account

Here again we talk about root access, and as I see it us who grew up in the unix plan and linux from 1994 where you neeed root access and depended on it, having to over come the windows thinking of "you cant know that".

The unix systems I've seen in my time were never logged into as root routinely. Admins did it, when necessary, but never hanged around as root.

i don' t need kubuntu staff telling me what i can and can't do with my root account.

How did you come up with that...anyone who has used linux for 6 months (or knows how to google) can enable the root account in a matter of minutes. The recommendations are directed at general populace, not at you specifically.

also i wanted to say i only use root account and i never had a problem.

That may well be, but what works for you != works for everyone. I've seen a few systems wrecked by careless use of the root account. I've also met a few people who "only use root account" (some of them have done it for years), and none of them have ever been able to give a single valid reason or use case why it would be beneficial to do so.

You have the power and the freedom to run your system(s) as you see fit, and linux distributors have the power and freedom to offer their system defaults as they see fit.

[jankushka]

Re: Revive the "root" account

The unix systems I've seen in my time were never logged into as root routinely. Admins did it, when necessary, but never hanged around as root.

when i was one of them ("admins", i mean) we even used to have wrappers around "su".
anyone wanting to substitute user to root, had to enter a description of what they were doing it for.
"su -" would be fired only after the short form was filled in and logged.
it worked very well.

there is one reason why i unlock the root account on (my) ubuntu systems, though.
it has nothing to do with the argument of the op.
rather, it's got to do with security.
anyone booting an ubuntu system, off a standard grub setup, in single user mode, can get straight in as "root".
no password asked (obviously).
system owned.
home: no problems (hopefully).
office: problem.

m2cts

[kubicle]

Re: Revive the "root" account

anyone booting an ubuntu system, off a standard grub setup, in single user mode, can get straight in as "root".
no password asked (obviously).
system owned.
home: no problems (hopefully).
office: problem.

True, but there are problems with that approach as well.

1. Even if you have set a root password to "close" the recovery mode, anyone that can edit grub boot options can get a root shell >> system owned.
2. Even with a grub password, anyone that can access bios can boot from a liveMedia >> system owned.
3. Even with a bios password set, anyone with a screwdriver can disable the bios password >> system owned.
etc.

Root password doesn't really protect a computer in an open environment, the only real protection can come with encryption and limiting physical access to the hardware. Having a root password for the recovery mode can protect from unintentional access, but doesn't stop anyone who intends to get in as root.

EDIT: I'm not uniformly against unlocking the root password, provided that you know what you're doing and have a *real* reason for doing it (one reason could be that you wish to set sudo to ask for the root password instead of user's password). I can even sort of understand unlocking it just because one's used to it, but that's hardly a reason to suggest that everyone should do it...or that it should be a distro default.

[jankushka]

Re: Revive the "root" account

True, but there are problems with that approach as well.

...

Root password doesn't really protect a computer in an open environment, the only real protection can come with encryption and limiting physical access to the hardware. Having a root password for the recovery mode can protect from unintentional access, but doesn't stop anyone who intends to get in as root.

of course.
yeah.
totally agree.