Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!


don't root | 12 comments | Create New Account
Click here to return to the 'don't root' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
don't root
Authored by: nichrome on Jun 13, '02 07:00:51PM
There's no point in enabling the root user for hacks like this. You can just as well type this into the Terminal to get System Prefs to open with super user privs: sudo open /Applications/System Preferences.app/ Give your own admin password when prompted to do so. Enabling root can and should be considered harmful.

[ Reply to This | # ]
Errrrr... no
Authored by: Anonymous on Jun 14, '02 12:16:53AM

You can't do that!

There was a massive security hole arising from being able to do that which Apple closed last year.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Errrrr... no
Authored by: nichrome on Jun 14, '02 04:45:58PM

Ok. So you want to take advantage of a feature that would lead to an even more massive security hole (ie. root)? Seeing as sudo is crippled, I suggest using TinkerTool like the other comments suggest.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Errrrr... no
Authored by: Anonymous on Jun 15, '02 10:19:24PM

Root is a security hole!? LOL. Some of the Mac OS 9 users on here are quite funny.

Root is no more of a security hole than the Commander-in-Chief is a security hole in the US military.

If someone can run applications as root when they're not supposed to be able to, *THAT* is a security hole. If legitimate users can mess up their computer when logged in as root that is incompetence not a security hole.



[ Reply to This | # ]
troll
Authored by: nichrome on Jun 16, '02 05:11:26PM

Firstly, I have been running OS X prior to its public release, so this is no OS 9 user talk. Secondly, root is not a security hole per se, but when combined with a user who likens it to Mac OS 9's single user mode (ie. the ONLY usage mode), it could be (and would be) destructive. The user in combination with root is a security and file system integrity issue. That's exactly why root is disabled by default. Also, assuming that BSD's various known security issues haven't been brought over to Darwin is just plain naive.



[ Reply to This | # ]
troll
Authored by: Anonymous on Jun 17, '02 08:19:55AM

I agree with everything you've said there. In particular, the part of your post that said 'root is not a security hole'. Cheers.



[ Reply to This | # ]
tinker tool /// but there's more
Authored by: mahakk on Jun 14, '02 01:55:56AM

tinker tool lets you specify which keyboard layout you'd like to use at login.

but there's also a glitch where the keyboard-menu shows up after each login, forcing you to deselect the us-layout (in most cases) in the system preferences.
this happens if you've defined apps for startup after login which don't have language resources for your language. the workaround - at least for bundled apps (mostly cocoa, some carbon) is this: ctrl-click on the app, select "show package contents" navigate to

contents->resources->english.lproj

and simply duplicate this folder and rename it to "german.lproj" (or whatever your language is). this doesn't do any harm as far as i know - ;) - but keeps the flag from appearing.
this also has the nice side-effect described in two hints at this site of localizing the apple menu and some dialogs inside these apps...
hth



[ Reply to This | # ]
tinker tool /// but there's more
Authored by: ruebenschuss on Jun 14, '02 05:36:06AM

Thank you for that hint about getting rid of the us keyboard layout !!!!!

I have been trying to fix this problem for a long time now and couldn't make it. There were no hints about this before.
The silly thing about it is that it happens randomly on my machine...

Anyway, thanks again,
Joachim



[ Reply to This | # ]
Fixing the layout changes at startup
Authored by: wallybear on Mar 29, '04 11:55:25AM

You can also try JAW SetKbd (donationware), you can find it at:

http://www.jaw.it

It just set the keyboard layout at startup to the one you prefer.



[ Reply to This | # ]