Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!sunybcs!ugfailau
From: ugfailau@sunybcs.uucp (Fai Lau)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Why does "root" worn everything?
Message-ID: <9269@sunybcs.UUCP>
Date: 14 Mar 88 05:02:02 GMT
References: <5209@uwmcsd1.UUCP>
Sender: nobody@sunybcs.UUCP
Reply-To: ugfailau@sunybcs.UUCP (Fai Lau)
Distribution: na
Organization: SUNY/Buffalo Computer Science
Lines: 45

In article <5209@uwmcsd1.UUCP> jgd@csd1.milw.wisc.edu (John G Dobnick,EMS E380,5727,) writes:
>[Is the line eater an endangered species?]
>
  .........
>Why does "root" seem to "own" everything?  Why is almost *all* installed
>software (at least that which is supplied *with* the stock system) installed
>by "root"? [I think these are really two statements of the same question.]
>
	Well, root owns everything because there has to be an user
that owns everything. Since root owns everything, why not work
with root for the convenience? Also root privilege can be assigned
to any other user other then root.

>Given the security risks of running as root (*NO* protection at all),
>I would think that most system maintenance work (like software installation)
>would be done under as userid that is "protected".  It is *easy* to screw up,
>and if you screw up as root ...
>
	It IS risky. Therefore some systems only allow hard wired terminals
in a secure location where root can be logged on. Also, on most (if
not all) systems there are back up run regularly. It saves the system
from a disk crash or two, not to mention root screw ups.

>I would think that a "library" (or "bin") login would exist for the purpose
>of installing and maintaining software.  The second timesharing system I
  ......
>
	Well, sure. But that doesn't mean root can't get to it.
You need root to create the directory, right? Anything root creates,
root owns. Anything root creates creates, root owns.

>Subsidiary questions.  Is this organization historical?   Is it just laziness
>on the part of the [original/intermediate/recent] developers/distributors
>of UNIX?  Is this situation going to be addressed?  Is the situation different
>between the System V and Berkeley species of UNIX?  (We use the bsd variant,
>if that is really relevant to this issue.)
>
	Well, you can call it a tradition. So that some UNIX hackers
working with a new system wouldn't get confused 8-). System V and Berkeley's
are pretty much the same in terms of directory organization. And yes,
anyone who has the root privilege can wreck havoc with the system.

Fai Lau
SUNY at Buffalo (The Arctic Wonderland)
UU: ..{rutgers,ames}!sunybcs!ugfailau
BI: ugfailau@sunybcs INT: ugfailau@joey.cs.buffalo.EDU