Fedora 12 thoughts

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Aaron Toponce

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 5:54:40 PM11/30/09
to oa...@googlegroups.com
Any thoughts on the decision from the Fedora team to allow installing packages and software on the system without root privileges? Good? Bad? Who cares? Personally, I don't like it. Isn't this what got Windows in trouble virus-wise to begin with? Or am I misinterpreting this?
-- 
. O .   O . O   . . O   O . .   . O .
. . O   . O O   O . O   . O O   . . O
O O O   . O .   . O O   O O .   O O O
signature.asc

Stuart Jansen

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 5:58:40 PM11/30/09
to oa...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 15:54 -0700, Aaron Toponce wrote:
> Any thoughts on the decision from the Fedora team to allow installing
> packages and software on the system without root privileges? Good?
> Bad? Who cares? Personally, I don't like it. Isn't this what got
> Windows in trouble virus-wise to begin with? Or am I misinterpreting
> this?

Who cares anymore? It no longer does.

--
"XML is like violence: if it doesn't solve your problem, you aren't
using enough of it." - Chris Maden

Aaron Toponce

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 6:10:48 PM11/30/09
to oa...@googlegroups.com
Stuart Jansen wrote:
> Who cares anymore? It no longer does.
>

Why?

signature.asc

Ben Preston

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 6:15:31 PM11/30/09
to oa...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Aaron Toponce <aaron....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Stuart Jansen wrote:
>> Who cares anymore? It no longer does.
>>
>
> Why?
>


http://lwn.net/Articles/362986/

--

Ben

Aaron Toponce

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 6:30:16 PM11/30/09
to oa...@googlegroups.com
Ben Preston wrote:
> http://lwn.net/Articles/362986

So, only packages that are signed by Red Hat will allow installation
without root privileges? I guess that makes sense if you trust Red Hat,
or at least the one signing the packages. If the packages come from
anywhere else, however, they will require root? And if you're logged
into a local (I'm also assuming remote) console, it requires root as
well? And Fedora is the only one doing this? Interesting.

signature.asc

Ben Preston

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 6:31:38 PM11/30/09
to oa...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 4:30 PM, Aaron Toponce <aaron....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ben Preston wrote:
>> http://lwn.net/Articles/362986
>


They abandoned the idea, from everything I've heard.

--

Ben

Stuart Jansen

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 6:32:33 PM11/30/09
to oa...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 16:30 -0700, Aaron Toponce wrote:
> Ben Preston wrote:
> > http://lwn.net/Articles/362986
>
> So, only packages that are signed by Red Hat will allow installation
> without root privileges? I guess that makes sense if you trust Red Hat,
> or at least the one signing the packages. If the packages come from
> anywhere else, however, they will require root? And if you're logged
> into a local (I'm also assuming remote) console, it requires root as
> well? And Fedora is the only one doing this? Interesting.

No, you're still stuck in the past. What you're describing is the
controversial, dead behavior. Fedora 12 now always requires the root
password in order to install any package.

Aaron Toponce

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 6:51:48 PM11/30/09
to oa...@googlegroups.com
Stuart Jansen wrote:
> No, you're still stuck in the past. What you're describing is the
> controversial, dead behavior. Fedora 12 now always requires the root
> password in order to install any package

Hmm. Okay. fair enough. I thought I had read everything on it. I guess
not. Interesting nonetheless.

signature.asc
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages