Mac users - be aware

In article , sid
wrote:

It doesn't matter what Apple call it, if you log on as root but you can't
actually do anything serious you're not root just some user with some
elevated privileges. The real root user is the one that *can* log on and
do serious stuff.

there is only one root user. there is no 'real root user' along with
other root users.

So if one logs on as root they can do anything?

what specifically do you want to do?

if the task you want to do is not blocked, then there is no issue.

on the other hand, if the task is writing malware to pwn the system,
then it will be blocked, as it should be.

that's the whole point.

You don't seem to be very
clear here. Can you as a user install software anywhere when logged in as
"root" or do you have to have special permission from Apple?

of course users can install software!

where in the world did you get the idea installing software would be
blocked??

and you don't need to be root to do that, which is a *really* bad idea
anyway.

And to prevent
further misunderstanding I mean the software obtained from Apple that
carries with it a special encrypted password that tells the computer that
real root privs are allowed.

there is no encrypted password from apple.

not only that, but whatever serious stuff you might want to do can
easily be done *without* needing to log in as root at all, which is a
bad idea anyway.

That has always been the case on a correctly administered system.

then why are you yapping about logging in as root above?

it's a very good thing and long overdue.

I haven't expressed an opinion either way I just wanted to know how it
worked. Now I know how it works, I wouldn't want it on my system, too
much like windows 10 and their must have "updates".

not a single thing you've said indicates you have any clue how it works.

If you don't understand something just ask for clarification.

yet you haven't done that.

you're making all sorts of incorrect assumptions and dismissing it as
bad even though it makes the system *significantly* more secure.

Of course you can quote me saying it's a bad idea?

then why did you say:
'I wouldn't want it on my system, too much like windows 10 and their
must have "updates".'

it's also nothing at all like win10.

Mayayana wrote:

| On most Linux systems root is no longer really root.
| One has to track down the "super user" identity,
| which is typically well hidden.
|
| Is it? which distros in particular are you refering to? That's not the
case
| on anything I've installed recently.
|

Suse and Mandrake/Mandriva (now defunct, I think)
are the ones I've mainly tried, because they support
the widest variety of software, combined with attractive
UIs. It's been awhile, so I don't remember details, but
I recall that root used to actually be root. (Thrst time I
tried it was Red Hat 4.) Then it changed, so that root
became fake root. I remember doing some rummaging to
find "superuser". It may not seem hidden to an old
hand, but for someone who suddenly realizes root is
a fake, there's a learning curve. Security through
obfuscation. It's the same with Windows. Getting real
Admin is not really difficult, but it's semi-secret. First
one has to know to look for it!

I think, from reading the above, that either you didn't install anything or
you paid so little attention that it all went pear shaped or you have a very
bad memory. Virtually nothing that you wrote either is or has been true.
I've used from Mandrake 7 in 2002 through Mandriva to Mageia 5 currently and
root has definitely never been in any way hidden of fake.

I found the Linux installers were similar. The last few
times I tried installing Linux it was getting increasingly
difficult to make choices like which partition to use. The
installer wanted to make those decisions for me.

Again completely untrue. Decisions about what to to with your disc
partitions have always been entirely up to you.

I haven't used Linux other than to get my bearings
once every few years and see if it's ready for prime time
yet. The last few attempts revealed a system that still
lacked critical things, yet was already beginning to get
locked down, as Windows is doing. To me that's the
worst of both worlds, so I haven't tried Linux again for
awhile.

Locked down how? You do know you are talking about free open source software
here where if something is disliked it doesn't have to be/get used. This
isn't MS or Apple foisting on the users what the Company wants the user to
have.

My imrpession has been that Ubuntu is even worse,
with ads and little control, but I've never actually tried
Ubuntu or any of its variants.

I don't know about current variants, the version of Kubuntu I tried a few
years ago wasn't, And Debian, which all the *buntus are derivatives of most
certainly is very traditional.

--
sid

In article , sid
wrote:

I haven't used Linux other than to get my bearings
once every few years and see if it's ready for prime time
yet. The last few attempts revealed a system that still
lacked critical things, yet was already beginning to get
locked down, as Windows is doing. To me that's the
worst of both worlds, so I haven't tried Linux again for
awhile.

Locked down how? You do know you are talking about free open source software
here where if something is disliked it doesn't have to be/get used. This
isn't MS or Apple foisting on the users what the Company wants the user to
have.

which isn't what ms or apple does.

On 8/9/2015 1:55 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

If you make it worth my time, in an enforceable manner, I will go back
an prove you wrong.

empty threats.

if i'm wrong, it should be easy to prove, yet you haven't done that.

you continually prove yourself wrong, as you did with the flash example.


Flash works very well with IOS.

--
PeterN

On 2015-08-09 19:19:25 +0000, PeterN said:

On 8/9/2015 1:55 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

If you make it worth my time, in an enforceable manner, I will go back
an prove you wrong.

empty threats.

if i'm wrong, it should be easy to prove, yet you haven't done that.

you continually prove yourself wrong, as you did with the flash example.

Flash works very well with IOS.

Now you are just being provocatively silly. ;-)

--
Regards,

Savageduck

| Locked down how? You do know you are talking about free open source
software
| here where if something is disliked it doesn't have to be/get used. This
| isn't MS or Apple foisting on the users what the Company wants the user to
| have.
|

Sure. Firefox is also OSS. They've gradually been
removing options to satisfy their overlord, Google.
(Now Yahoo.) Even just having a setting for javascript
now requires an extension. The cookies settings are
hidden by default, with 3rd-party cookies (by definition
spyware) being enabled by default. Do you suppose
Mozilla's doing that because it's what people asked for?
A lot of people are not happy with Mozilla's actions in
recent years, as they make over $100 million/year
almost exclusively from an advertising company. Of course
people could start their own fork of Firefox. I may as
well state that pointless disclaimer before you do.

Android is also a version of Linux. That doesn't make
it necessarily clean or unrestricted software.

Chrome is OSS based. It's also spyware made by Google.

Simply being OSS doesn't mean very much for the average
person. It only means that anyone who's capable can edit
and recompile the code for themselves. By that definition
my pickup truck is also "open source". I can rebuild the
engine at will, any time I like. All I need is the time, tools
and knowhow.

| My impression has been that Ubuntu is even worse,
| with ads and little control, but I've never actually tried
| Ubuntu or any of its variants.
|
| I don't know about current variants, the version of Kubuntu I tried a few
| years ago wasn't, And Debian, which all the *buntus are derivatives of
most
| certainly is very traditional.
|

I had no trouble finding this link:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/1...and-data-leaks

I don't dispute most criticisms of Windows and Mac.
There are plenty of problems to go around. But if
you're going to be a fanatic defender of *any* system
you lose credibility. You only needed a quick search and
a look at the first few links to check my statement
about ads on Ubuntu.

On 8/9/2015 3:55 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-08-09 19:19:25 +0000, PeterN said:

On 8/9/2015 1:55 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

If you make it worth my time, in an enforceable manner, I will go back
an prove you wrong.

empty threats.

if i'm wrong, it should be easy to prove, yet you haven't done that.

you continually prove yourself wrong, as you did with the flash example.

Flash works very well with IOS.

Now you are just being provocatively silly. ;-)


Moi? ;-)

--
PeterN

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

Android is also a version of Linux. That doesn't make
it necessarily clean or unrestricted software.

nope.

android is not a version of linux and apps do not use linux apis.

android is built on top of a linux kernel. android apps are written in
java using android apis and run in a virtual machine (originally
dalvik, now art).

http://source.android.com/devices/tech/dalvik/

Chrome is OSS based. It's also spyware made by Google.

chrome is not spyware.

Simply being OSS doesn't mean very much for the average
person. It only means that anyone who's capable can edit
and recompile the code for themselves. By that definition
my pickup truck is also "open source". I can rebuild the
engine at will, any time I like. All I need is the time, tools
and knowhow.

average people don't want to recompile software or fix cars. they want
to get work done or go somewhere.

nospam wrote:

In article , sid
wrote:

It doesn't matter what Apple call it, if you log on as root but you
can't actually do anything serious you're not root just some user with
some elevated privileges. The real root user is the one that *can* log
on and do serious stuff.

there is only one root user. there is no 'real root user' along with
other root users.

So if one logs on as root they can do anything?

what specifically do you want to do?

What has that got to do with my question?

if the task you want to do is not blocked, then there is no issue.

So that's a no then. Why not just say that.

on the other hand, if the task is writing malware to pwn the system,
then it will be blocked, as it should be.

So there is no middle ground then, you're either a dumb user or a nefarious
cracker out to conquer the world.

that's the whole point.

How much malware is out there in the wild for OSX? You know stuff that
actually gets into the system not user installed browser hijackers.

You don't seem to be very
clear here. Can you as a user install software anywhere when logged in as
"root" or do you have to have special permission from Apple?

of course users can install software!

That doesn't answer my question does it?

where in the world did you get the idea installing software would be
blocked??

Where in the world did you get the idea that I thought installing software
would be blocked. Why are you making ridiculous assumptions about what I
think when I've written no such thing.

and you don't need to be root to do that, which is a *really* bad idea
anyway.

So can users who are not root willy nilly install what ever they like over
OSX then?

And to prevent
further misunderstanding I mean the software obtained from Apple that
carries with it a special encrypted password that tells the computer that
real root privs are allowed.

there is no encrypted password from apple.

It'll be very easy to crack if it's not encrypted.

not only that, but whatever serious stuff you might want to do can
easily be done *without* needing to log in as root at all, which is a
bad idea anyway.

That has always been the case on a correctly administered system.

then why are you yapping about logging in as root above?

You started it, I've just asked some questions about what you said.

it's a very good thing and long overdue.

I haven't expressed an opinion either way I just wanted to know how it
worked. Now I know how it works, I wouldn't want it on my system, too
much like windows 10 and their must have "updates".

not a single thing you've said indicates you have any clue how it
works.

If you don't understand something just ask for clarification.

yet you haven't done that.

I understand what's happening, despite the lack of serious threats Apple is
moving you over to a black box scenario on the pretext of your own security.
Not dissimilar to modern western governments placing more and more
restrictions on their own citizens in the interest of "security"

you're making all sorts of incorrect assumptions and dismissing it as
bad even though it makes the system *significantly* more secure.

Of course you can quote me saying it's a bad idea?

then why did you say:
'I wouldn't want it on my system, too much like windows 10 and their
must have "updates".'

So once again you are assuming things about what I think without me having
written them. Isn't that one of your pet grievances with other people here?

--
sid

On 2015-08-09 20:16:11 +0000, sid said:

How much malware is out there in the wild for OSX? You know stuff that
actually gets into the system not user installed browser hijackers.

None.


--
Regards,

Savageduck