On Wed 26 Apr 2017 at 15:26:36 (-0500), Richard Owlett wrote: > On 04/26/2017 10:02 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote: > >But did /sbin/ifconfig work? > > > > <chuckle> Had no reason to try. > Whenever I come across a command that *SHOULD* work, but does not, > the first diagnostic step is attempt to run the *IDENTICAL* command > as root. > In the *MAJORITY* of cases that it runs demonstrates that someone at > sometime decided to restrict some computer owners from using their > own computer in a reasonable manner.
Which merely begs the question. The meaning of "*should* work as non-root" is defined by your workaround. > Remember Linux borrows heavily from an OS designed in another era > for a another audience. I have yet to run across a case where any > distinction should be made between "user richard" and "user root". I > do not take that as necessary and sufficient conditions to abolish > questionable conventions. They might be occasionally valuable. That's a nice explanation of why I wrote last year a sentence that you didn't understand: The usefulness of many suggestions is limited, of course, by the OPs insistence that a horse and cart is driven through the unix security model merely because the OP never connects anything to the internet (which is insane). https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2016/11/msg00903.html I guess you were happier with DOS. > In the age of laptops, tablets, and so-called "smart phones" I think > the more relevant basic distinction would be between "physically > local user" and "physically external user". So how is anyone able to configure a computer for their naive family, say, to use. > Haven't yet figured out what to propose that wouldn't "throw baby > out with the bath water". The same answer, then, as I gave you for your proposed vague changes to the man pages. Cheers, David.
