Linux.com

Maarek Stele

Maarek Stele

  • Linux.com Member
  • Posts: 9
  • Member Since: 13 May 09
  • Last Logged In: 04 Jan 11

Latest Posts

Posted by
Topic
Post Preview
Posted
  • Maarek Stele
    Rosewill RNX-G1 not reconnecting after rebbot
    I purchased a Rosewill RNX-G1 from newegg since it works with most major Distros without driver installation, but the issue with Ubuntu is that after a reboot, the device will not reconnect. Sometimes I have to force a network restart on the device to get it running again. Is this a bug in 10.04 of Ubuntu or should I just switch to another distro for the time being until 10.10 is released?
    Link to this post 09 Sep 10

    I purchased a Rosewill RNX-G1 from newegg since it works with most major Distros without driver installation, but the issue with Ubuntu is that after a reboot, the device will not reconnect. Sometimes I have to force a network restart on the device to get it running again. Is this a bug in 10.04 of Ubuntu or should I just switch to another distro for the time being until 10.10 is released?

  • Maarek Stele
    RE: Whats the best OS for us
    [b]marc wrote:[/b] [quote]I fail to see the usefulness in sudo as "su" does exactly the same (as far as I know). Would you point me to something that "sudo" does that is different from "su"?[/quote] That's your perspective of being an admin for the system. If my boss said we are using DISTRO X (that uses root), I won't mind one bit. To me, The su/root option is like CAPS LOCK, once you have it on and start typing, you need to delete what you typed to correct the problem, and can be fatal in some cases. For example, while viewing a system file as su/root, you might type something or hit a key deleting a line withing vi. sure, you can always q! out, but you might type w first out of habit and permanently change the file. The sudo option, or lack of it allows you to view the file as an admin and not worry about making any changes. Even with root in systems typing su will switch over to the root user. I guess my point is that you cannot login as root itself on a system that strongly emphasizes on sudoers unless you set a password for root. Root is present & active, just check the process list. Root is running the system, sudoers just help maintain it.
    Link to this post 03 Jun 10

    marc wrote:

    I fail to see the usefulness in sudo as "su" does exactly the same (as far as I know). Would you point me to something that "sudo" does that is different from "su"?

    That's your perspective of being an admin for the system. If my boss said we are using DISTRO X (that uses root), I won't mind one bit. To me, The su/root option is like CAPS LOCK, once you have it on and start typing, you need to delete what you typed to correct the problem, and can be fatal in some cases. For example, while viewing a system file as su/root, you might type something or hit a key deleting a line withing vi. sure, you can always q! out, but you might type w first out of habit and permanently change the file. The sudo option, or lack of it allows you to view the file as an admin and not worry about making any changes.

    Even with root in systems typing su will switch over to the root user. I guess my point is that you cannot login as root itself on a system that strongly emphasizes on sudoers unless you set a password for root. Root is present & active, just check the process list. Root is running the system, sudoers just help maintain it.

  • Maarek Stele
    RE: Whats the best OS for us
    sudo can only be used by an admin level user. Standard users do not have permission to use the sudo command unless permitted via their own password. Also, if you have a poor password, then it's your own fault. Also, su again, only for the admin user to temporary activate the root user for multiple commands. Once the terminal session ends, so does that option. Sudo allows flexibilty for standard users. Because you can edit he sudo file for that user and make them a "power user" rather then an admin who is capable of venturing everywhere on the system. The sudo option also tracks the user since you won't share the root account with anyone else for security purposes. the initial user is the admin which has access to the sudo command. All subsequent users do not have access to sudo unless granted by the admin. It's all about perception http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/karmic/en/man8/sudo.8.html Frankly if you are used to root, then use that. years ago I've used Slackware on older 486 computers. To me I'm rather pleased with Ubuntu's progress over the years.
    Link to this post 03 Jun 10

    sudo can only be used by an admin level user. Standard users do not have permission to use the sudo command unless permitted via their own password. Also, if you have a poor password, then it's your own fault. Also, su again, only for the admin user to temporary activate the root user for multiple commands. Once the terminal session ends, so does that option.

    Sudo allows flexibilty for standard users. Because you can edit he sudo file for that user and make them a "power user" rather then an admin who is capable of venturing everywhere on the system. The sudo option also tracks the user since you won't share the root account with anyone else for security purposes. the initial user is the admin which has access to the sudo command. All subsequent users do not have access to sudo unless granted by the admin. It's all about perception

    http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/karmic/en/man8/sudo.8.html

    Frankly if you are used to root, then use that. years ago I've used Slackware on older 486 computers. To me I'm rather pleased with Ubuntu's progress over the years.

  • Maarek Stele
    RE: Whats the best OS for us
    [b]marc wrote:[/b] [quote][b]Maarek Stele wrote:[/b] Also, Ubuntu uses the SUDO option (rootless) commands to prevent hackers from attempting to break in the system. root is present but deactivated. Never reactivate it.[/quote] Why so?[/quote] First reason as I've seen online and from my server logs, root is the primary account automated scripts try to break in through. Before adding additional security measures to block these scripts and free up bandwidth, my server logs were in the 10s of thousands with these types of hits. Sure I'm using SSH which Greatly slows down the automation of the attack, but the whole findings end up annoying, I would trace hits from Guatemala, China, Russia, Middle East, and even parts of the US. And that's about it. Nothing more I can do in return without repercussions. The Second part of not activating the root user is simple. If you want to be in the command line as "the" admin, just type [b]su[/b]. you'll be at a # sign after the password and you won't need the sudo option for the server maintenance you are preforming.
    Link to this post 02 Jun 10

    marc wrote:

    [b]Maarek Stele wrote:[/b]

    Also, Ubuntu uses the SUDO option (rootless) commands to prevent hackers from attempting to break in the system. root is present but deactivated. Never reactivate it.

    Why so?[/quote]
    First reason as I've seen online and from my server logs, root is the primary account automated scripts try to break in through. Before adding additional security measures to block these scripts and free up bandwidth, my server logs were in the 10s of thousands with these types of hits. Sure I'm using SSH which Greatly slows down the automation of the attack, but the whole findings end up annoying, I would trace hits from Guatemala, China, Russia, Middle East, and even parts of the US. And that's about it. Nothing more I can do in return without repercussions.

    The Second part of not activating the root user is simple. If you want to be in the command line as "the" admin, just type su. you'll be at a # sign after the password and you won't need the sudo option for the server maintenance you are preforming.

  • Maarek Stele
    RE: Whats the best OS for us
    I agree with GoinEasy9, Ubuntu is the easiest to install on any computer, even with the latest hardware. Mint, is another flavor of Ubuntu with a flashy GUI that they've modified while Ubuntu keeps theirs simple. Also, Ubuntu uses the SUDO option (rootless) commands to prevent hackers from attempting to break in the system. root is present but deactivated. Never reactivate it.
    Link to this post 02 Jun 10

    I agree with GoinEasy9, Ubuntu is the easiest to install on any computer, even with the latest hardware. Mint, is another flavor of Ubuntu with a flashy GUI that they've modified while Ubuntu keeps theirs simple.

    Also, Ubuntu uses the SUDO option (rootless) commands to prevent hackers from attempting to break in the system. root is present but deactivated. Never reactivate it.

  • Maarek Stele
    RE: Installing Linux without a distribution
    It is possible, but you would need to download and compile the source on your own. Put it this way, you are making your own distribution. The boot system will need to know what to load. I would say, start with Slackware and find out where people have ventured off or downloaded files to load their own version on Linux.
    Link to this post 02 Jun 10

    It is possible, but you would need to download and compile the source on your own. Put it this way, you are making your own distribution. The boot system will need to know what to load.

    I would say, start with Slackware and find out where people have ventured off or downloaded files to load their own version on Linux.

  • Maarek Stele
    What Distro is Google using?
    Employees have a choice of a MAC (mostly for image designing, movies, and sound) or Linux. Development would highly be a Linux machine for the server applications and the 100% customization of the OS to fit their needs especially for security. First thought for Linux, DBM or RPM? Next, KDE or GNOME? And finally, Intel or AMD? It's not software, but people do have a preference.
    Link to this post 02 Jun 10

    Employees have a choice of a MAC (mostly for image designing, movies, and sound) or Linux. Development would highly be a Linux machine for the server applications and the 100% customization of the OS to fit their needs especially for security.

    First thought for Linux, DBM or RPM?

    Next, KDE or GNOME?

    And finally, Intel or AMD? It's not software, but people do have a preference.

  • Maarek Stele
    RE: hi all
    [img]http://www.buddy-icons.info/img/smile/2037.gif[/img] contract yourself to local businesses and see if they need some IT work done.
    Link to this post 02 Jul 09

    contract yourself to local businesses and see if they need some IT work done.

  • Maarek Stele
    RE: Switching desktop environments(not what you think)
    The answer would be to boot from a LIVE CD/DVD. That would run the KDE environment without installing anything.
    Link to this post 02 Jul 09

    The answer would be to boot from a LIVE CD/DVD. That would run the KDE environment without installing anything.

Who we are ?

The Linux Foundation is a non-profit consortium dedicated to the growth of Linux.

More About the foundation...

Frequent Questions

Join / Linux Training / Board