Setup woes

Derek Broughton news at
Wed Nov 28 16:54:58 UTC 2007

Bill Vance wrote:

> Derek Broughton (news at had this to say on 11/27/07 at
> 10:35:

No, I didn't.  Please try to keep the attributions straight.

>>You don't *have* to follow all things the Ubuntu way, if you don't want
> Which brings up something I've been noticing.  I've gone through running
> an Amiga dos UUCP site with a Unix style shell, to three upgrades of
> Caldera
> Linux, to one of SUSE, and now Kubuntu.  While the past systems, (and
> Kubuntu as well), all had a bit of a learning curve, this is the first
> time I've got the feeling of, "We're not going to let you do this, just
> because we don't like it that way, so there!" 

There's no paternalism going on here.  It's _really_ easy to enable a root
prompt.  It is, in my own opinion, a Really Bad Idea, but Ubuntu in no way
prevents you from doing stupid things.  Ubuntu doesn't say "you can't do
this", it simply doesn't enable a root account because it isn't necessary
and it's a security hole.

> Then I noticed that the system tends to lose 
> track of who is doing what when one of the available shells is being run
> by "root".  In other words, you can't do a really long, complex, 
> job of some sort as root, and take an occaisional email break, (or
> whatever), in another shell
> as, "user", without things getting a little kinky.  I'll refrain from
> trying to deduce which is caused by which, (maybe it's something else,
> entirely).

Could you give some examples?  I just don't understand what you're
suggesting - whether using "su" or "sudo", "the system" keeps track of "who
is doing what" perfectly well - certainly no worse than any other linux. 
Additionally, with sudo, it logs that...  (btw, both su and sudo exist on
RedHat-based systems, and as far as I can see are identical to Ubuntu's).

More information about the kubuntu-users mailing list