Re: No antivirus?
From: Crashdamage (03z1krd7_at_nospam.invalid)
Date: 02/02/04
- Next message: gil: "Re: installing on a K6 500 problems...help!"
- Previous message: 00:00:00Hg: "Re: The rise and fall of linux"
- In reply to: athol: "Re: No antivirus?"
- Next in thread: athol: "Re: No antivirus?"
- Reply: athol: "Re: No antivirus?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 04:08:34 GMT
On 2 Feb 2004 02:05:58 GMT, athol <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> Crashdamage <03z1krd7@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> On 1 Feb 2004 02:50:03 GMT, athol <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>> It also makes userland programs incorporating "refuse to run as root" code
>>> helpful. If normal programs refuse to run as root, they'll start to think
>>> that they should create a user account. :-)
>>> I'd really like to see all programs that are intended to be used by normal
>>> users include "refuse to run as root" code...
>> Yeah, but I'd go along with that only if it could be bypassed with a
>> password, set during installation. Running a program as root might
>> still be useful sometimes for troubleshooting.
> If a program doesn't require any root privileges, then it should
> be compiled and tested by a user, not root. Installation of the
> program files into directories that require root is the only part
> of the process that needs root...
Yeah, OK, but if a program runs as root but not a user, it's an easy
clue to permissions problems. In business stiutations, or if you have
kids, you might want to do program configuration as root and run only,
no changes allowed, by users.
-- Registered Linux user #266531
- Next message: gil: "Re: installing on a K6 500 problems...help!"
- Previous message: 00:00:00Hg: "Re: The rise and fall of linux"
- In reply to: athol: "Re: No antivirus?"
- Next in thread: athol: "Re: No antivirus?"
- Reply: athol: "Re: No antivirus?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
