On Wed, February 4, 2015 10:35 am, Scott Robbins wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 08:18:23AM -0800, Keith Keller wrote:
>> On 2015-02-04, James B. Byrne <byrnejb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> > One might question why *nix distributions insist on providing a known
>> > point of attack to begin with. Why does user 0 have to be called
>> > root? Why not beatlebailey, cinnamon or pasdecharge?
>>
>> That is more or less what OS X does. User 0 still exists, and it's
>> labelled as "root", but there is no way (unless the owner goes way out
>> of his way) to actually log in as root. The first account created is
>> given full sudo access, and can choose to grant sudo to subsequently
>> created users. (Users with sudo can still get a root shell, but that's
>> not the same as logging in as root.)
>>
>> I thought Ubuntu did this as well, but I haven't installed Ubuntu for
>> quite a while. Anyone know?
>
> Yes, I think they were one of the first ones to do it. I remember thinking
> at the time, ah, copying Apple.
>
Note: Ubuntu was first released in 2004. As a matter of fact Ubuntu is one
of the clones of Debian which was first released in 1993. Apple OS 10
(based on opendarwin) - the only one of Mac OSes "root - sudo" talk can be
relevant to was first shipped on their machines later than 2002 as I
recall (wikiedia is really vague on the date MacOS 10 was first shipped, I
have to rely on my memory). So, I would say, Ubuntu wasn't copying Apple,
they are just a clone of Debian. And Debian is older system than MacOS 10.
I'm not a historian, so someone probably will correct me, if I'm wrong here.
Just my $0.02
Valeri
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Valeri Galtsev
Sr System Administrator
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics
Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
University of Chicago
Phone: 773-702-4247
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
