| 1 |
On 08/04/16 15:20, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 03:44:06AM +0100, M. J. Everitt wrote: |
| 3 |
>> 3) I still believe there is merit in distinguishing between binaries |
| 4 |
>> that can/should be run as root, and those that can/should not. Those |
| 5 |
>> that run as root 100% of the time, or use VMs, don't really 'use' linux |
| 6 |
>> in the original sense of the OS .. |
| 7 |
> Here is more info about the split and why it exists. It turns out it hs |
| 8 |
> nothing to do with system admininistration or permissions. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2010-December/074114.html |
| 11 |
> http://www.osnews.com/story/25556/Understanding_the_bin_sbin_usr_bin_usr_sbin_Split/ |
| 12 |
> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3519952 |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> In short, this is all a historical artifact with justifications thought |
| 15 |
> up after the fact. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> William |
| 18 |
I'll come back to the links a bit later, but is policykit and its |
| 19 |
predecessor/derivatives now a mandatory part of a linux system? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Possibly crossing posts here, so apologies in advance .. ! :] |
Archives