RE: Annoyance -- Linux requires one to become an instant systems

> From: "R. Bruce" <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Date: 27 Sep 2003 19:15:46 -0700
> Subject: [Annoyances] Annoyance -- Linux requires one to become an instant systems
> administrator
> Reply-To: [email protected]

>  "Windows is a luxuriously appointed prison cell.  Linux is an
> unassembled log cabin kit."  RB

>  What I find most annoying about Linux is that it requires an
> individual who wants to *use* Linux to immediately become a systems
> administrator.  That is to say, there doesn't seem to be a
> straightforward toehold from which one can begin *using* Linux without
> first learning a variety of bewildering and complex CLI-based tools and
> commands.  (Moreover, I'm mildly amused that many of the responses to
> annoyances submitted to this forum are answered by extremely
> administrator-intensive "solutions.")

Most of the "newer" distributions shouldn't require you to use the CLI almost ever.  RH8 included.  You may have to switch to administrator now and then, but when those times come up, these distros (RH8 included) just pop up a graphical login screen.  For instance, a lot of the people in here have said to edit the xinetd.conf file to turn off and on services.  And yes, they did mention command line ways of doing that.  However, that does not preclude the fact that RedHat incldudes and graphical (and VERY straightforward... even compared to Windows) tool (called Services no less) to do that.  Just because these people don't use it or people are not aware of it, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.  I use it all the time and always marvel at how clean it is.  Doing the same thing in Windows or even a Mac gives me a headache.

However, the simple fact is that many times the CLI route is faster/more efficient and/or powerful.  Don't believe me?  Read the excellent (and free) essay titled "In the Beginning Was the Command Line" by Neal Stephenson.  You can download a copy from his website http://www.cryptonomicon.com.  I could rehash the argument here... but I will suffice it to say (after over 8 years of tech support and system administration that he is right.

>  I'm luckier than most: I'd been a UNIX user (BSD 4.2) back in the mid
> '80s and so had some idea what I was looking at.  I knew, for example,
> what the vi editor was, what "man" did, how to use chmod, and so on.

> Even so, I today remain constantly annoyed by single-user Linux
> system's overly complex file and program permissions administration. My
> initial attempts to find a *straightforward* solution to the permissions
> problem remain unsuccessful to the extent that after 8 months of using
> Linux (RH8), I still almost always log on as root simply so I can use my
> single-user system without constantly *administering* (there's that word
> again) various file and program access permission levels.

Any modern Windows system (NT/2000/XP) has the exact same issues, BUT since Microsoft isn't overly concerned with security and doesn't want people to see the proper behavior of a secure system as "broken" the systems often put common users accounts in the administrator group.    If you removed user accounts from the Administrator (or PowerUser... aka sudo) groups, you would get the EXACT SAME BEHAVIOR.

I'm not kidding either.  Go home and remove your account from the administrator group on an your XP system (for instance).  now try to install a program.  It either chokes OR it pops up a window asking if you would like to install the program under another account (ie "administer the system").

I totally understand why Microsoft does this.  It does make things easier on the user and doesn't require MS to educate them (which is VERY hard and expensive to do) about security and their computer.


> I'm no fan of Microsoft, believe me.  But that fact remains I was
> able, without training or a third party book, able to quickly install
> Windows and create a *user* account that didn't constantly confront me
> with file and program access-level "error" messages.  In other words, I
> didn't constantly have to type in an Administrator-cum-root level
> password simply to use my computer.  I simply *can not* say that my
> *user* experience with Linux was anywhere near as straightforward or
> pleasant, at least initially.

See above.

You can get a similar effect in Linux by adding your user account to the root group.  This would allow you to do 90% or what you are annoyed with.  It is also 100% less secure.  I personally don't mind the administration of a secure system, so I don't do that.  But the point is... you could.


> Cheers,
> Ricardo


Jim Jones

* All opinions are my own and not associated with anyone else or any other institution.  No one else would want them anyway*