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 565470
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Partition lock-down
by Laurence on Mon 24th Jun 2013 13:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Partition lock-down"
Laurence
Member since:
2007-03-26

The system partition (32 GB ext3) had the system installed on it, the swap partition (4 GB swap) and the data partition (200 GB fat32) had nothing on it, it was just purposed to store... guess it : data !

Is that the default auto partitioning? I'm more miffed why there's a FAT32 partition. That's just wrong. If it's a Linux only set up, then it should be running ext3 or ext4. If it's to be shared with Windows, then it should be ext3 (there are ext2&3 drivers for Windows) or NTFS. FAT32 should NEVER be used to store "data". So if that's a Mint default, I'm very disappointed.


When I wanted to open/copy files on the DATA partition, Linux Mint shouted at me that I don't had enough privilege (as root !) to access it. And it's an offline ARM cross development PC.


As I've already pointed out. You wouldn't have been root. Mint (like Ubuntu) doesn't assign a password to root so you cannot even log in as root. Thus you'd have been a regular user.

Security ? Paranoia !

That's what they all say until their computers are infected with all sorts of crap...

It's Linux, the malwares and security holes aren't supposed to mirror Windows' ! So what's the point ?

That doesn't even make sense. You're complaining about security features. ACLs and other access permissions are not malware.

If Linux cannot hide its "secutiry" behind the hood and had to put your nose into configurations files to "feel the power of the security by restrictive accesses" then I'm gonna quit immediately.

How would you suggest we secure computers without user access controls? It's my day job to implement security procedures, specialising with Linux and UNIX (I'm not making that up either!) and I can't think of a better foundation to begin with. At some point in the stack, you're going to need to know who's using the computer and whether they're allowed to access that subsystem. And whichever way you try to implement that, you ultimately end up with a list of users and permissions.

This is why your arguments about computer security really don't make any sense. Granted, in this particular instance the workstation is intended to be kept offline. But since you're the one arguing about noob-friendliness, it makes infinitely more sense to assume that all the Mint desktops are going to be connected to the internet than have all the security turned off by default and expect those users to turn them on manually (but don't take my word for it, let's just look at Windows 95 through to Me and how well it's security model worked).

Reply Parent Score: 5