Linked by Howard Fosdick on Mon 24th Jun 2013 03:00 UTC
Linux I volunteer as tech support for a small organization. For years we relied on Ubuntu on our desktops, but the users didn't like it when Ubuntu switched to the Unity interface. This article tells about our search for a replacement and why we decided on Xfce running atop Linux Mint.
Permalink for comment 565435
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Partition lock-down
by Laurence on Mon 24th Jun 2013 08:30 UTC in reply to "Partition lock-down"
Laurence
Member since:
2007-03-26

I also tried to replace my aging Ubuntu 9.09 development box with Mint 13 (and also found Xcfe being the best distro for my Atom 330 board) but... while installing, partitioning the HD for a system part, a swap part and a data part, the data part was unaccessible after install :

"You don't have the permission to access this part"

Come on guy, I'm the installer of this machine, I have root permission and I cannot access the data part of my local hard disk ? And you call this "security" ?

Wiped off Linux Mint, re installed Windows 2000 Pro SP4 with all the remaining patches, not a single problem ever since.

KISS !

Kochise


Actually it is security. We all know the chequered past Windows has had by letting everyone run everything as Administrator. And since we're talking about Linux post-install, there's absolutely no reason why you should be running as root any longer.

However by the sounds of it, the fact that you had installed and rebooted into Mint, and the fact that you only had one "data" partition, would mean that your user profiles were stored on that and loaded. Which means you do have permissions access to that disk. What it sounds like to me is that you were trying to access system areas of that partition which are secured against user access - and that's an absolute must for security (in fact, Windows now does this as well!)

It interesting to hear that you're still using Windows 2000 though. That's a fantastic OS in my opinion (in fact it's the only release of Windows that I've genuinely loved). But Windows 2000 isn't secure by default (the default user is administrator, telnet is enabled by default, etc). Granted all these things are easily fixable, but my point is that you're applying an old and insecure Windows paradigm (lets be honest, Windows security has come along way since Win2k) to Linux and then bitching when a different OS behaves differently. The fault here is entirely with you.

In fact this is one of the biggest causes of Linux FUD. For some reason, when Windows users switch to OS X, they expect OS X to behave differently and are ready to learn how to use their new OS. But when many Windows users install Linux for the 1st time, for some reason they expect Linux to behave like a drop in replacement for Windows - which is completely unreasonable and leads to many of the daft complaints like the aforementioned.

Edited 2013-06-24 08:32 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5