Ubuntu & Linspire
manchicken at notsosoft.net
Fri Feb 9 12:42:47 UTC 2007
I set a root password and sudo still works fine. I think you may be
experiencing another issue entirely. Even after you set the root password
you're supposed to still use your own password for sudo/gksu/kdesu. You
should make sure you're not experiencing uncommon technical difficulties
before you hold it against Kubuntu ^_^
On Thursday 08 February 2007 22:41, Scott Mazur wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 12:26:07 +1100, Daniel Pittman wrote
> > Joe Hart <j.hart at orange.nl> writes:
> > > Jonathan Jesse wrote:
> > >> Wow, lots of broad statements there.... I always thought the beauty
> > >> of Ubuntu was that all the command line stuff, the "hardcore", is
> > >> still there and one can use it if he/she wants to or if one is closer
> > >> to a "newbie" then he/she can use the graphical options to
> > >> change/update/configure their system.
> > >
> > > Well, yes and no. Take a look at this:
> > >
> > > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelCustomBuild
> > >
> > > They explain (sort of) how to do it right after they say it will void
> > > any contract you have for support. All "hardcore" users know that
> > > compiling your own kernel is the best way to tune your system to your
> > > own hardware.
> > All "hardcore" users are damned fools, apparently. This is, not
> > least, because there is no statistically significant measurable
> > difference between a generic kernel and one that you "tune ... to your
> > own
> > hardware."
> > > Why do I need floppy support, parallel port, serial port, bluetooth,
> > > pcmcia, etc. if my computer doesn't have, or use them?
> > Do you /really/ miss the 77MB of disk space they consume?
> > Do you actually know that is the one and only resource they consume?
> > > Why is there a 'restricted modules' in the first place?
> > Licensing reasons. "Hardcore" users, of course, don't care for that
> > law and disregard it. Companies lack that luxury.
> > > Sudo/Root?
> > Good security practice? Is it that hard for a "hardcore" user to run
> > 'sudo passwd root' -- I mean, seriously.
> > These are the "hardcore!" They know how to use the command line,
> > and it isn't like Ubuntu prevents you setting a root password -- or
> > even blinks if you do.
> I agree (or have no opinion) about everything you've said up to this point.
> It's true Kubuntu doesn't prevent you from setting a root password (I've
> done so myself, becuase that's just the kind of user I am). But it's not
> true there are no consequences to this. Every (and I mean EVERY)
> configurable option in KDE that needs admin rights prompts for a password.
> Out of the box that's fine (whether you agree it should be any old user
> password or root only). But once you set a root password none of the KDE
> password prompts work. Regardless of the password you type in (root or
> user) it's wrong and does not authenticate. So by setting a root password
> you are forced to login as root to make admin changes for ever more. And
> it's damned annoying being prompted for a password in KDE when you know
> darned well it's not going to work. It shouldn't have to be that way.
> Everyone should set a root password just to understand how mucked this
> action makes your system before commenting on how 'trivial sudo is'. That
> by and far is my biggest grudge against Kubuntu, and yes weighted against
> the things I like about Kubuntu, so far things balance out.
> > > Wacom devices in xorg.conf?
> > I guess "hardcore" users don't own Wacom tablets, but they do own USB
> > mice, right?
> > I infer this because you whine about Wacom tablets being configured
> > to work "out of the box" but we don't hear complaints that xorg.conf
> > contains definitions for USB mice...
> You don't hear complaints about definitions for USB mice because they don't
> generate warnings about missing devices everytime you start an application
> in X. When they do, advice is given to fix the config, not 'ignore the
> error'. I want to be clear about something: Developers spend time making
> code work. They don't spend time making writing (let alone testing)
> 'exception' events to ensure they've cleaned up properly. What you see as
> a harmless X error that means nothing and should just as well be sent to
> the NULL bucket, I see as a hole in the code (in this case X, which is a
> big part of the system to have a hole in). Maybe the guy who wrote the
> code to check for missing devices (like Wacom tablets) cleaned up when the
> code hits the error. Or maybe he felt his job was done by dumping the
> error message in the first place and thinking that any idiot would correct
> the Xconfig before trying to continue. Maybe he generated the error
> message in the first place because he knew he didn't have time to properly
> ignore it. You tell a user to ignore it and some time later program XYZ
> fails because X was left in an unknown state after a failed Wacom device
> check. Only now you've got no idea why program XYZ failed and so begins
> the 'your code is broken' finger pointing game. It's a fact. Developers
> don't spend time handling errors. Ignoring the messages that was given is
> just plain bad advice. Encouraging it is irresponsible.
> Registered Linux user #395249, http://counter.li.org
> Nothing goes to waste when Little Fish are near!
~ Man-Chicken <><
(A)bort, (R)etry, (I)nfluence with large hammer.
The number of the beast - vi vi vi
More information about the kubuntu-users