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 565484
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Partition lock-down
by Kochise on Mon 24th Jun 2013 15:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Partition lock-down"
Kochise
Member since:
2006-03-03

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.

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.

See my answer in another comment above...

"Security ? Paranoia !

That's what they all say until their computers are infected with all sorts of crap...
"
Malwares ? On Linux ? Babylon toolbar ? McAfee anti-virus ? ...

"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.
"
Access permissions ? So with Linux Mint, when I install the system, instead to lock things, I have to unlock them ? How convenient.

How would you suggest we secure computers without user access controls?

Preventing the user to access the computer to prevent him making mistakes is sure quite a strange behavior. An operating system turned into a denying access system, that doesn't makes sense. I'm sure there is other ways to "protect" the system. Firewalls, etc, but not locking down the computer.

And whichever way you try to implement that, you ultimately end up with a list of users and permissions.

Sure, when you start having more than one registered user. But when there is only ONE f--king account, why the need to lock EVERYTHING when an access password would be enough ?

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).

Like I said, preventing the user to access the computer, then the internet, for the sake of "safety" is a pure non-sense, especially on Linux. I don't see what are the threats to the system. Active X ? Sony's root-kits ? IE exploits ? SWF trojans ? Come on...

Kochise

Edited 2013-06-24 15:25 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2