Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #16526 > unrolled thread

what the hell?

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc

Contents

  what the hell? HGW <hw@...> - 2015-12-24 08:36 +1100
    Re: what the hell? Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2015-12-23 22:46 +0100
    Re: what the hell? Jens Stuckelberger <Jens_Stuckelberger@nowhere.net> - 2015-12-23 23:58 +0000
    Re: what the hell? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-12-24 00:28 +0000
      Re: what the hell? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-12-24 11:43 +0000
        Re: what the hell? "D. Lowe" <d.lowe@openmailbox.org> - 2015-12-24 11:57 +0000
          Re: what the hell? "D. Lowe" <d.lowe@openmailbox.org> - 2015-12-24 12:00 +0000
            Re: what the hell? Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2015-12-24 08:01 -0600
            Re: what the hell? "Carlos E.R." <cer@invalid.es> - 2015-12-24 15:02 +0100
              Re: what the hell? Andreas Kohlbach <decem15.8.ankman@spamgourmet.net> - 2015-12-24 17:19 -0500
                Re: what the hell? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-01-05 12:36 +0100
                  Re: what the hell? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 18:46 +0000
        Re: what the hell? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-12-24 12:22 +0000
        Re: what the hell? Kara M'bola <maxupixu@in.val.it> - 2015-12-24 12:23 +0000
          Re: what the hell? "john@wexfordpress.com" <john@wexfordpress.com> - 2016-01-05 10:53 -0800
            Re: what the hell? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 19:16 +0000
              Re: what the hell? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-01-06 00:40 +0100
                Re: what the hell? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-06 03:13 +0000
        Re: what the hell? Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2015-12-24 13:52 +0100
          Re: what the hell? Andreas Kohlbach <decem15.8.ankman@spamgourmet.net> - 2015-12-24 17:23 -0500
        Re: what the hell? "Carlos E.R." <cer@invalid.es> - 2015-12-24 15:05 +0100
          Re: what the hell? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-12-24 14:24 +0000
            Re: what the hell? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-01-05 12:38 +0100
          Re: what the hell? Andreas Kohlbach <decem15.8.ankman@spamgourmet.net> - 2015-12-24 17:28 -0500
            Re: what the hell? William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-12-25 16:51 +0000
        Re: what the hell? ray carter <ray@zianet.com> - 2015-12-24 15:23 +0000
        Re: what the hell? Jens Stuckelberger <Jens_Stuckelberger@nowhere.net> - 2015-12-24 16:52 +0000
          Re: what the hell? Doug Laidlaw <doug@douglaidlaw.net> - 2015-12-25 04:16 +1100
        Re: what the hell? Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> - 2015-12-24 09:35 -0800
        Re: what the hell? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-12-24 18:23 +0000
        Re: what the hell? Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> - 2015-12-24 23:20 +0000
          Re: what the hell? Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2015-12-24 15:27 -0800
          Re: what the hell? HGW <hw@...> - 2015-12-25 12:18 +1100
            Re: what the hell? Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> - 2015-12-24 17:29 -0800
            Re: what the hell? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2015-12-25 02:39 +0000
              Re: what the hell? HGW <hw@...> - 2015-12-25 15:54 +1100
                Re: what the hell? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-12-25 09:41 +0000
                  Re: what the hell? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-12-25 11:18 +0000
                Re: what the hell? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2015-12-25 16:16 +0000
                  Re: what the hell? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-12-25 19:35 +0000
                    Re: what the hell? Kara M'bola <maxupixu@in.val.it> - 2015-12-25 19:48 +0000
                      Re: what the hell? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-12-25 21:02 +0000
                        Re: what the hell? Kara M'bola <maxupixu@in.val.it> - 2015-12-25 21:47 +0000
                        Re: what the hell? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-12-25 15:43 -0600
                        Re: what the hell? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-12-26 10:42 +0000
                    Re: what the hell? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2015-12-25 21:08 +0000
                      Re: what the hell? pureheart@pacbell.net - 2015-12-30 09:23 -0800
                    Re: what the hell? Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2015-12-25 15:22 -0600
                      Re: what the hell? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2015-12-25 21:50 +0000
                      Re: what the hell? Chick Tower <c.tower@deadspam.com> - 2015-12-27 03:50 +0000
                    Re: what the hell? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-12-25 21:00 -0500
                      Re: what the hell? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-12-26 03:55 +0000
                        Re: what the hell? Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> - 2015-12-25 20:52 -0800
                          Re: what the hell? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-12-26 10:01 -0600
                            Re: what the hell? Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> - 2015-12-26 11:41 -0800
                        Re: what the hell? Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2015-12-26 00:16 -0600
                          Re: what the hell? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-12-26 10:47 +0000
                            Re: what the hell? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-12-26 13:40 -0500
                              Re: what the hell? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-12-26 19:38 +0000
                                Re: what the hell? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-12-26 16:27 -0500
                        Re: what the hell? Kara M'bola <maxupixu@in.val.it> - 2015-12-26 11:40 +0000
                        Re: what the hell? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-12-26 13:32 -0500
                          Re: what the hell? HGW <HG@...> - 2015-12-27 00:41 +0000
                        Re: what the hell? Chick Tower <c.tower@deadspam.com> - 2015-12-27 20:24 +0000
                          Re: what the hell? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-12-27 15:36 -0600
                        Re: what the hell? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-01-05 12:54 +0100
                          Re: what the hell? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-01-05 08:01 -0600
                            Re: what the hell? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-05 14:29 +0000
                    Re: what the hell? Chick Tower <c.tower@deadspam.com> - 2015-12-27 03:50 +0000
            Re: what the hell? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-12-25 10:06 +0000
              Re: what the hell? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-12-25 11:22 +0000
                Re: what the hell? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-12-25 16:03 +0000
                  Re: what the hell? HGW <HG@...> - 2015-12-27 00:41 +0000
                    Re: what the hell? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-12-27 00:47 +0000
          Re: what the hell? HGW <hw@...> - 2015-12-25 12:20 +1100
    Re: what the hell? "john@wexfordpress.com" <john@wexfordpress.com> - 2016-01-05 10:43 -0800
      Re: what the hell? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2016-01-05 19:50 +0000

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#16526 — what the hell?

What does this mean?
'requested operation requires superuser privilege'

How the hell am I supposed to do anything with terminal when this comes up?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#16527

On Wednesday 23 Dec 2015 22:36,  conveyed the following to 
comp.os.linux.misc...

> What does this mean?
> 'requested operation requires superuser privilege'
> 
> How the hell am I supposed to do anything with terminal when this
> comes up?

It means that you're trying to execute a command which requires root 
privileges.  Depending on your distribution, you may want to look at...

  $ man su

... and/or...

  $ man sudo

In the latter case — Ubuntu, Mint and derivatives disable the use of 
/bin/su for obtaining root privileges ─ you may also want to read...

  $ man sudoers

You can exit the man page viewer ─ commonly, this is /usr/bin/less ─ by 
pressing "q".  You can page up and down through the man page with the 
arrow keys and/or PgUp/PgDn.  You can search for strings by typing "/" 
followed by a keyword, and you can get navigational help by pressing 
"?".

-- 
= Aragorn =

         http://www.linuxcounter.net - registrant #223157

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16529

On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 08:36:20 +1100, HGW wrote:

> What does this mean?
> 'requested operation requires superuser privilege'
> 
> How the hell am I supposed to do anything with terminal when this comes
> up?

	This is there to make sure that you don't shoot yourself in the 
foot in the heat of the moment. Acquire superuser privileges and then 
proceed to blowing your foot up at your heart's content - at least, you 
will be an informed blow-up-your-footer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16530

On 2015-12-23, HGW <hw@> wrote:
> What does this mean?
> 'requested operation requires superuser privilege'
>
> How the hell am I supposed to do anything with terminal when this comes up?
>

Since you do not tell us what you were trying to do, we cannot help you.
What it means is that only root can carry out the "requested operation",
whatever it was. Use sudo, or su and try again.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16531

On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 00:28:42 +0000, William Unruh wrote:

> On 2015-12-23, HGW <hw@> wrote:
>> What does this mean?
>> 'requested operation requires superuser privilege'
>>
>> How the hell am I supposed to do anything with terminal when this comes
>> up?
>>
>>
> Since you do not tell us what you were trying to do, we cannot help you.

I was doing exactly what some expert told me to do. I copied the command 
that was supposed to install a package.

> What it means is that only root can carry out the "requested operation",
> whatever it was. Use sudo, or su and try again.

Why doesn't Linux get rid of such unnecessary complications?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16532

On 2015-12-24, Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 00:28:42 +0000, William Unruh wrote:
>
>> On 2015-12-23, HGW <hw@> wrote:
>>> What does this mean?
>>> 'requested operation requires superuser privilege'
>>>
>>> How the hell am I supposed to do anything with terminal when this comes
>>> up?
>>>
>>>
>> Since you do not tell us what you were trying to do, we cannot help you.
>
> I was doing exactly what some expert told me to do. I copied the command 
> that was supposed to install a package.
>
>> What it means is that only root can carry out the "requested operation",
>> whatever it was. Use sudo, or su and try again.
>
> Why doesn't Linux get rid of such unnecessary complications?

uuuh, complications?  It's almost the same as the UAC in
Windows?  

Installing new software with packagemanagers is something
that only a system administrator is allowed to do.  Anyway,
you can sudo (even without password).  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16533

On 2015-12-24, D. Lowe <d.lowe@openmailbox.org> wrote:
>> Why doesn't Linux get rid of such unnecessary complications?
>
> uuuh, complications?  It's almost the same as the UAC in
> Windows?  

even OS X has the same feature.  I wonder which operating
system you are used to... 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16537

At Thu, 24 Dec 2015 12:00:04 -0000 (UTC) "D. Lowe" <d.lowe@openmailbox.org> wrote:

> 
> On 2015-12-24, D. Lowe <d.lowe@openmailbox.org> wrote:
> >> Why doesn't Linux get rid of such unnecessary complications?
> >
> > uuuh, complications?  It's almost the same as the UAC in
> > Windows?  
> 
> even OS X has the same feature.  I wonder which operating
> system you are used to... 

Probably the OP is thinking of MS-DOS, 'Clasic' MacOS (pre MacOSX), etc. ALL
Modern O/S's (Linux, MS-Windows 2K, XP, etc., MacOSX) and require Adminstrator
/ root access to do certain things, like install software, since they all
implement some level of 'user priviledge separation'.MS-Windows is generally
somewhat loose (partitularly the 'Home' editions) and often the 'default'
login is the Adminstrator -- that is, the 'Home' version of MS-Windows by
default is set up to create the main user *as* the Adminstrator and is pretty
much the logical equivilant of logging in as 'root', so one can get away
*without* the likes of sudo or su. Under the hood the logic is still there.  
It is just that users don't have to deal with the logic.


>             

-- 
Robert Heller             -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software        -- Custom Software Services
http://www.deepsoft.com/  -- Linux Administration Services
heller@deepsoft.com       -- Webhosting Services
             

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16538

On 2015-12-24 13:00, D. Lowe wrote:
> On 2015-12-24, D. Lowe <d.lowe@openmailbox.org> wrote:
>>> Why doesn't Linux get rid of such unnecessary complications?
>>
>> uuuh, complications?  It's almost the same as the UAC in
>> Windows?  
> 
> even OS X has the same feature.  I wonder which operating
> system you are used to... 

And Windows, too.
People do not often notice because they are running as administrators
all the time :-(

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16546

Carlos E.R. wrote on 24. December 2015:
>
> On 2015-12-24 13:00, D. Lowe wrote:
>> On 2015-12-24, D. Lowe <d.lowe@openmailbox.org> wrote:
>>>> Why doesn't Linux get rid of such unnecessary complications?

You can choose to use the computer as root. With all the disadvantages it
has. You likely already do this on Windows.

>>> uuuh, complications?  It's almost the same as the UAC in
>>> Windows?  
>> 
>> even OS X has the same feature.  I wonder which operating
>> system you are used to... 
>
> And Windows, too.
> People do not often notice because they are running as administrators
> all the time :-(

That's why viruses can infect the whole system. If users would work
without admin permissions only the user account would be infected
(assuming no privilege escalation involved).
-- 
Andreas

I use a Unix based operating system, which means I get laid almost as often
as I have to reboot my computer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16670

On 2015-12-24 23:19, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> Carlos E.R. wrote on 24. December 2015:


>>> even OS X has the same feature.  I wonder which operating
>>> system you are used to... 
>>
>> And Windows, too.
>> People do not often notice because they are running as administrators
>> all the time :-(
> 
> That's why viruses can infect the whole system. If users would work
> without admin permissions only the user account would be infected
> (assuming no privilege escalation involved).

Quite true.

Unfortunately, I have found several windows programs that fail as user,
but also when "run as admin" under a plain user account, with weird
messages that baffle the support people. By chance I tried the same
program after log in as admin, and it worked! Thus I always use Windows
as plain user, but sometimes I have to use it as admin for those pesky
programs.

Ie, if it fails, then I try login as admin. Which is a nuisance, Windows
does not support two simultaneous logins as Linux desktop does
(ctrl-alt-f7..f8)

Let me see... from memory, the Samsung program to backup Android phones,
when doing upgrades. Why does it need admin powers I can't imagine... to
access the usb driver in weird ways, perhaps.


-- 
Cheers,
       Carlos E.R.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16684

On 2016-01-05, Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@invalid.es> wrote:

> On 2015-12-24 23:19, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>
>> Carlos E.R. wrote on 24. December 2015:
>>
>>> People do not often notice because they are running as administrators
>>> all the time :-(
>> 
>> That's why viruses can infect the whole system. If users would work
>> without admin permissions only the user account would be infected
>> (assuming no privilege escalation involved).
>
> Quite true.
>
> Unfortunately, I have found several windows programs that fail as user,
> but also when "run as admin" under a plain user account, with weird
> messages that baffle the support people. By chance I tried the same
> program after log in as admin, and it worked! Thus I always use Windows
> as plain user, but sometimes I have to use it as admin for those pesky
> programs.
>
> Ie, if it fails, then I try login as admin. Which is a nuisance, Windows
> does not support two simultaneous logins as Linux desktop does
> (ctrl-alt-f7..f8)

https://xkcd.com/149/

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16534

On 24/12/15 11:43, Henry Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 00:28:42 +0000, William Unruh wrote:
>
>> What it means is that only root can carry out the "requested operation",
>> whatever it was. Use sudo, or su and try again.
>
> Why doesn't Linux get rid of such unnecessary complications?
>

One billion Microsoft botnets answers your question.



-- 
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly 
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential 
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations 
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with 
what it actually is.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16535

2015-12-24, Henry Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 00:28:42 +0000, William Unruh wrote:
>
>> What it means is that only root can carry out the "requested operation",
>> whatever it was. Use sudo, or su and try again.
>
> Why doesn't Linux get rid of such unnecessary complications?

Those who do not understand MS Windows are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.

-- 
:q!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16685

On Thursday, December 24, 2015 at 7:26:30 AM UTC-5, Kara M'bola wrote:
> 2015-12-24, Henry Wilson wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 00:28:42 +0000, William Unruh wrote:
> >
> >> What it means is that only root can carry out the "requested operation",
> >> whatever it was. Use sudo, or su and try again.
> >
> > Why doesn't Linux get rid of such unnecessary complications?
> 
> Those who do not understand MS Windows are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
> 
> -- 
> :q!
 Linux is a modernized version of Unix which was created at Bell Labs a long long time ago. Windows came much later and adopted some features of Unix. At our annual Christmas party a somewhat savvy lady peeked over my shoulder and thought I was using the commend line in Windows. But Windows users have been brainwashed to avoid the command line. I understand Windows just like I understand the Yugo automobile. But understanding and buying are two different things.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16688

On 2016-01-05, john@wexfordpress.com <john@wexfordpress.com> wrote:

> Linux is a modernized version of Unix which was created at Bell Labs a
> long long time ago. Windows came much later and adopted some features of Unix.

And a lot more "features" (read: warts) from MS-DOS, which in turn inherited
a lot of things from CP/M that were no longer necessary (e.g. that damned 0x1a
EOF byte).

> At our annual Christmas party a somewhat savvy lady peeked over my shoulder
> and thought I was using the commend line in Windows. But Windows users have
> been brainwashed to avoid the command line.

Heck, they're being brainwashed to avoid the keyboard entirely.

> I understand Windows just like I understand the Yugo automobile.
> But understanding and buying are two different things.

"You cannot possibly hate anything until you grok it completely."
  -- Heinlein: Stranger in a Strange Land

I have to use Windows for work.  But to do this I run XP under VirtualBox
on my Linux machines.  I know, I know, XP has been declared "end of life"
according to the dictates of planned obsolescence - but IMHO it's where
Windows reached the peak of what usability it may have, and things have
been going downhill ever since.  As for security concerns, when I'm running
at home it's on a wired network behind a firewall, and when my laptop
isn't plugged into that network, it's still safe because VirtualBox
can't bridge wifi adapters so it's isolated from the big bad Internet.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16692

On 2016-01-05 20:16, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> And a lot more "features" (read: warts) from MS-DOS, which in turn inherited
> a lot of things from CP/M that were no longer necessary (e.g. that damned 0x1a
> EOF byte).

It allows cute tricks :-)

We created data files (binaries) that had a line (or paragraph) of plain
text at the very start of the file, then EOF, then the real data section.

When doing "type somedatafile.dat" it would display that text and stop
(no garbage printed), explaining what the file was and what to do with it.

I learnt that trick from others.

I also used that text section for verification in the code that I was
accessing the proper data file of the correct version.

-- 
Cheers,
       Carlos E.R.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16693

On 2016-01-05, Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@invalid.es> wrote:

> On 2016-01-05 20:16, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> And a lot more "features" (read: warts) from MS-DOS, which in turn inherited
>> a lot of things from CP/M that were no longer necessary (e.g. that damned
>> 0x1a EOF byte).
>
> It allows cute tricks :-)
>
> We created data files (binaries) that had a line (or paragraph) of plain
> text at the very start of the file, then EOF, then the real data section.
>
> When doing "type somedatafile.dat" it would display that text and stop
> (no garbage printed), explaining what the file was and what to do with it.
>
> I learnt that trick from others.
>
> I also used that text section for verification in the code that I was
> accessing the proper data file of the correct version.

Unfortunately, cute tricks often bite you down the road.  I've suffered
a lot of data loss when a hex 1A crept into data files.  Rather than
resorting to cute tricks, Unix provides utilities that let you do things
properly.

A bug in MS-DOS, around version 3.0, left the 0x1a byte intact when
appending output, e.g. as in "dir >>foo".  We didn't appreciate the
incomplete logs customers were sending us.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16536

On Thursday 24 Dec 2015 12:43, Henry Wilson conveyed the following to 
comp.os.linux.misc...

> On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 00:28:42 +0000, William Unruh wrote:
> 
>> On 2015-12-23, HGW <hw@> wrote:
>>> What does this mean?
>>> 'requested operation requires superuser privilege'
>>>
>>> How the hell am I supposed to do anything with terminal when this
>>> comes up?
>>>
>>>
>> Since you do not tell us what you were trying to do, we cannot help
>> you.
> 
> I was doing exactly what some expert told me to do. I copied the
> command that was supposed to install a package.

Installing or removing software is a system administration task, so it 
requires root privileges.

>> What it means is that only root can carry out the "requested
>> operation", whatever it was. Use sudo, or su and try again.
> 
> Why doesn't Linux get rid of such unnecessary complications?

Because GNU/Linux, like all POSIX operating systems, is a true multiuser 
platform, with security built-in from the start.  If you want a single-
user operating system, try Windows 95 or pre-OS X Mac OS.

-- 
= Aragorn =

         http://www.linuxcounter.net - registrant #223157

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16547

Aragorn wrote on 24. December 2015:
>
> On Thursday 24 Dec 2015 12:43, Henry Wilson conveyed the following to 
> comp.os.linux.misc...
>
>> I was doing exactly what some expert told me to do. I copied the
>> command that was supposed to install a package.
>
> Installing or removing software is a system administration task, so it 
> requires root privileges.

Yep.

Now imagine the user (not admin) has activated a virus. Working as user,
the virus has to ask that the user types the root password so it can
infect the system. If you was root, like users usually are in Windows,
the virus does not need to ask. It just infects the system without the user
knowing it.
-- 
Andreas

I use a Unix based operating system, which means I get laid almost as often
as I have to reboot my computer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc

csiph-web