Running the Desktop as Root: The Hypocrisy

I've noticed that whenever someone mentions running Linux as root, everyone warns them that it's a horrible security practice and that it could ruin their system.
At the same time, whenever someone asks about what distro to put on an old computer, there will always be at least one person who recommends Puppy Linux, which no ones objects to.
If running the desktop as root is so bad, why doesn't anyone complain about Puppy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by init1

I've noticed that whenever someone mentions running Linux as root, everyone warns them that it's a horrible security practice and that it could ruin their system.
At the same time, whenever someone asks about what distro to put on an old computer, there will always be at least one person who recommends Puppy Linux, which no ones objects to.
If running the desktop as root is so bad, why doesn't anyone complain about Puppy?

---

Actually this is one other reason I don't usually recommend Puppy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by init1

I've noticed that whenever someone mentions running Linux as root, everyone warns them that it's a horrible security practice and that it could ruin their system.
At the same time, whenever someone asks about what distro to put on an old computer, there will always be at least one person who recommends Puppy Linux, which no ones objects to.

---

Why? Because that is not how security works in Ubuntu: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=765414

Anyone advanced enough to understand such things, will not be asking questions on this forum.

Quote:

---

If running the desktop as root is so bad, why doesn't anyone complain about Puppy?

---

Running the desktop is not "bad", that is a silly concept. We are supporting Ubuntu's security practice, and enforcing instructions on doing things the right way in Ubuntu.

Why don't people normally complain about Puppy? Because it doesn't violate the policy.

Now, this title is a bit strong: "The Hypocrisy". Please be a bit more respectful. Where I come from, calling someone a hypocrit is an insult.

You can always add a regular user to a distro with root-by-default (usually live CDs).

Puppy is a niche distro, and is only really recommended to people who can't really run anything else.

For a machine that can only run Puppy, suggesting Puppy is a reasonable thing to do. The basis for the suggestion isn't the security model, but the hardware spec.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paqman

Puppy is a niche distro, and is only really recommended to people who can't really run anything else.

For a machine that can only run Puppy, suggesting Puppy is a reasonable thing to do. The basis for the suggestion isn't the security model, but the hardware spec.

---

I recommend SliTaz over Puppy. It can also run on ancient machines, but it has more sensible defaults (and a decent package manager).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LaRoza

Why? Because that is not how security works in Ubuntu: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=765414

Anyone advanced enough to understand such things, will not be asking questions on this forum.


Running the desktop is not "bad", that is a silly concept. We are supporting Ubuntu's security practice, and enforcing instructions on doing things the right way in Ubuntu.

Why don't people normally complain about Puppy? Because it doesn't violate the policy.

Now, this title is a bit strong: "The Hypocrisy". Please be a bit more respectful. Where I come from, calling someone a hypocrit is an insult.

---

Yes, but I wasn't talking about the official Ubuntu policy. I was addressing the fact that I aways hear complaints about root desktop, but never about Puppy. And as for the title, yeah I do see that it's a bit harsh. Sorry about that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by init1

Yes, but I wasn't talking about the official Ubuntu policy. I was addressing the fact that I aways hear complaints about root desktop, but never about Puppy. And as for the title, yeah I do see that it's a bit harsh. Sorry about that

---

Mainly because it is a bad idea for the most part, especially if it is the default account.

Debian's policy for example is contrasting to Ubuntu, yet is just as valid. Windows on the other hand...

Most people, like me, see Puppy as a live disk and last resort type of thing. The fact that it can run, and usually works, on such machines is why it it is recommended.