Why doesn't Linux have this feature?

System Integrity Protection is a feature in OSX (MacOS) that is designed with the intend of restricting root user's capabilities and privileges in the host system to the extend that would allow any command performed as it (or a program ran as it) to be unable to damage critical system components that are essential for its basic functioning while still allowing to perform virtuallu most of the administrative tasks under the sun. While enabled by default, it can be easily disabled by the system administrator if deemed too restrictive through a separate recovery environment that is present in OSX. Currently, Linux systems do not have a user-friendly ans hassle-free way of doing this although, I don't see any reason whatsoever why this shouldn't be a standard or at least an opt-in option for most Linux desktop systems (especially so-called atomic ones) that strive to provide seemless and user-friendly experience to the less tech-savvy users. Its either everything (complete root access that can potentially damage the system) or nothing (regular user access that can not damage base system, but heavily restricts the user's capability to perform administrative tasks). I don't see the reason why there shouldn't be the third "pseudoroot" user (if you are into definitionUSING and prefer to argue that root should have absolutely unrestricted permissions by definition of itself ofc) that would be able to manage non-critical system components freely with few exceptions (that are cherrypicked to not let it compromise the system in a way that would disrupt the boot/startup process, e.g. delete some important system files) Being able to perform administrative tasks, such as device and package management without the risk of your base system being destroyed or damaged in a way that would require a complete wipe and reinstallation is a very valid usecase and that is what many users complain about. "System gets cluttered overtime, it gets slower".

Is bluetooth critical? What about wifi? What about the XOrg? Who decides? You can do most meaningful configuration as a regular user anyways. I think most beginner-friendly distros just try to have you do everything as a regular user.

Because Linux development is a mess? I'm guessing Mac OS being proprietary and Apple being unwilling to share makes it difficult to quickly implement these features.

macOS is explicitly designed to appeal to the masses and is made so idiot proof that I actually had difficulty disabling system protection on my vm, linux is made to be a minimal server os they are two very different projects with different goals in mind. You could achieve what you are describing with a selinux policy and a custom semi privileged user but no one has written something like this as of yet because it simply doesn't make sense. The whole idea of running a barebones linux distro in the first place is to have complete control over your system. Immutable distros, flatpak, snap, and other userspace sandboxes are made to bridge the gap between power users and the technically illiterate. There is a problem though, users who fall somewhere in the middle will come to realize quite quickly that linux does not have a middle ground. In my opinion until linux becomes mainstream this will never become the case, users in this category follow guides and watch youtube videos to rice their desktops adding rainmeter widgets and such, and, since tutorials are sparse these users are either condemned to the user sandbox forever or forced try their luck with the terminal. As someone else wrote, who can say what is and isnt system critical? Although I use x11 without a compositor and found a pr to fix gtk for window managers not using one, it was never merged because some snarky redhat employee replied, 'who isn't using a compositor in {current year}'. Now obviously a compositor isn't system critical but you get the idea, the linux ecosystem is fragmented and if something like this were included in systemd defining what is and isnt critical for a sudoer, it would only further escalate tensions.

This photo makes me depressed :(

>>82586 First off, using slang meme terms like "technically illiterate" paints a pretty food picture of your attitide towards those Linux users. Second, >The whole idea of running a barebones linux distro in the first place is to have complete control over your system Which you absolutely do, since, like I said, the feature is entirely OPTIONAL and can be easily disabled with a flag. Should be set up during the installation process. >it simply doesn't make sense It does, since what most normal users want is for system to be seemless and "just work" without the need to set up. I believe setting up the system should be an OPTION, not a REQUIREMENT. Most people either don't want or don't have time for this or they have better things to do. For example, one can want to edit a video or compose a musical track without spending hours googling and editing configs to make programs needed for completion of those tasks work >who can say what is and isnt system critical It would be variable from-distto-to-distro, what easily falls under the category is files needed to boot the base system to a command-line environment from whixh you then can create a user (under root) and install a DE. For user-friendlyness-focused disttos you can display a message prompting to download and install a DE right away. Since most users use wi-fi and blutooth, they should also be included.

>I don't see any reason whatsoever why this shouldn't be a standard or at least an opt-in option for most Linux desktop systems Because it's useless. If it can overwrite binaries, it can steal your passwords, banking info and confidential files. "System integrity" doesn't mean anything in this context. If you are concerned about rootkits, verified boot on linux has been a thing for quite a while already.

>>82589 Its about ease of use, not threat protection

>>82588 What i said wasn't a 'meme term', anyone whos entire workflow consists of webapps and packaged web apps like spotify or discord are technically illiterate. There is no shame in that, they could be extremely successful in other aspects of life, they just do not understand how their computer works under the hood, hence the term illiterate (as in unread) instead of say retarded, a term which is reserved for someone like you. >Someone wants to edit a video... Open the gnome software manager on a mainstream distro, search video editor, and install kdenlive. How does this relate to having a linux port of SIP?

>>82591 To be able to run a script or a random command without prior technical knowledge of what it does. For system to do the work of controlling for what you probably shouldn't touch to not mess up yout installation for you. Also, for programs that perform administrative tasks that require elevated permissions to not be able to mess up the system while retaining all the privileges needer for basic operation. The feature ensures that system can always be reset to a vanilla state without the need to reinstall it completely (kinda like on android). Its more convenient to just press the button instead of going through all the creating bootable media...

>>82592 What you are looking for is an immutable distro like fedora silverblue inwhich the inner workings of the system are read only and, I believe, any changes made are reset upon reboot. >To be able to run a script or a random command without prior technical knowledge of what it does Windows users run exes with admin permissions all the time without any knowledge of how they work, the reason this will not work in practice is that the script writer will just tell you to disable 'sip' before running. Sending you a virus is as simple as running 'echo malware > .bash_profile' and this can be exploited on macos aswell. Another simple exploit is fetching a malicious binary and appending that directory to your path to overwrite a popular application. You can then say, "well a sip port will block write access to your bashrc, profile, and xinitrc and it can stop applications from exporting a path", but where does this end? If you truly do not understand any of the suspicious bash script you just downloaded, let chatgpt explain it to you or read the comments. Practice the same digital literacy you would practice running applications on a windows device or, in macos fashion, stick to the appstore.

>>82595 They are not truly immutable. There are tons of loopholes for how root user can damage the system, which are not present in OSX. For example: 1) writing to a device file of your hard drive (which doesn't work on OSX, I tested it). 2) readonly partitions can be remounted in r/w by root user Again, the goal is to be able to administrate your PC in a safe foolproof way so as not to guarantee the system integrity and stability. An EASY way to protect your PC from yourself (if you are lazy) and not from malicious actors

>>82585 Apple before Security Integrity Protection used level 1 of securelevel from the BSD parts of MacOS

>why isn't root restricted by default on linux like it is on mad os? because the average linux user isn't as stupid as the average mac user.

dalit system31 frigate gantew install j*wbooontooooo

Because it's stupid? Don't run stuff as root if you don't want to break your system, it's that easy. Distros can give more permissions to the user with SUID programs or sudo permissions if needed.

>>82586 We don't exactly have a "pseudoroot" user but we can protect files much better than MacOS with SELinux, it's not nearly as retard proof as SIP but it gets the job done

>>82579 > with the intend of restricting root user's capabilities and privileges in the host system I think I found your answer

>>82605 Like I said, its not as user-friendly

>>82606 Like I said, its supposed to be an opt-in feature set up during the installation process + there should be an easy way of disabling it anytime. If its a choise then it only expands the freedom and control you have on your system, not restricts it, despite how counterintuitive it might sound with regards to the current state of consciousness of the Linux community on thr surface. Having a choise to turn on a sorta "forcefield" to make system incapable of being destroyed from within itself is a feature that makes the procesess of reinstallation and resetup (program data, settings and files) unnecessary and would save a lot of trouble for countless users.

>>82608 What about AppArmor? It's supposed to be more user friendly.

lmao at suggesting this is a feature. This is a megacorp trying to lock people out of their computers, turning Macs into iPhones. Today it's optional, tomorrow it's mandatory and there's DRM and kernel spyware on your Mac in a ring you can't access, a few years later you can't run arbitrary code anymore. Same path that Windows is on. For full retards and companies who manage retard employees this might be a good fit, for a Lainon it's an anti-feature. I've never personally met anyone who deleted /bin or system32, but if a Linux user somehow rm -rf /* , they'll reinstall and restore backups. System files aren't even the important bit because an OS is easy to restore, loss of user data is a much more serious issue. This is why nobody bothers adding more root user layers, there is no use case. Want to do dumb soykaf, use a VM or a container or have the USB installer handy. Mac users didn't ask for it either, it's pushed on them for dubious reasons to their demise. >Linux systems do not have a user-friendly ans hassle-free way of doing this Doing what exactly? User-friendly way to lock your own ass out of your own OS? Where does the retard proofing end, will it not let you delete more than 100 files from Documents either? "Are you sure you would like to delete all these files? We noticed they're not stored in systemd-cloud, let us upload these for safekeeping in case you need them again :)" Developing bootable magic repair like the one in Windows installer would be a better solution, but might as well do a normal reinstall at that point.

Cuz its dumb >>82611 100% this. OP is asking to both be a root user and not be a root user at the same time

Probably because System Integrity Protection is what I'm convinced to be backdoor-level spyware. I had to disabled that mess in order to regain more control over my Mac that I should have had to start with. Apple has been cracking down on what a user can and cannot do with a Mac they OWN since System Integrity Protection was included with the release of Mac OS X 10.11 El Capitan in 2015 and its been spiraling downward ever since. Funny since 2015 is also the year that Microsoft cracked down HARD on user control, privacy, and usability with Windows 10.

>>82611 *Sigh* well, as expected, merely suggesting to adopt the good aspect of the technology used in other devices is enough to paint a picture of an evil corporate boogieman trying to take away Linux community's freedoms in their heads. >Today it's optional, tomorrow it's mandatory and there's DRM and kernel spyware on your Mac in a ring you can't access, a few years later you can't run arbitrary code anymore The fix here is to not do that, while only adopting the underlying technology. Have you thought about only taking good part of it and not implementing all the DRM loking out bullc? Which is to be able to run code under the third underprivileged "preudoroot" user for programs or commands that you do not fully trust and too lazy to review code of. Nobody's locking you out, since, again, for the god knows what time, you are free to turn it off any minute, its entirely optional. Not having such an option is a greater restriction on your freedom. >no usecase Since atomic desktops are a thing, there is certainly at least a niche of people who don't want their system to get mixed with all the crap they do and "just work" no matter what they do or run on their computer

>>82613 If you are into that (definitionusing) then I have already explained that I personally am not and that I am fine with calling it "preudoroot" instead of "root" if you are convinced that only a truly omnipotent user-entity can be called "root" in the system

>>82611 >user friedly Linux more user-friendly for MacOS users, than windows. Specially in GNOME.

>>82617 And earlier in thread it was ignored this is based off of something from BSD.

>paint a picture of an evil corporate boogieman trying to take away Linux community's freedoms Would if they could. On all other platforms it's not a bogeyman, it's reality. Check out Android and iOS, the only OS most people use, can't have root on your own device, can't even run your own code anymore, iOS doesn't have "side"loading (AKA normal loading) and it's being phased out on Android too. Look at Windows and macOS being slowly guided into the same rut. "Secure" Boot, "T"PM, "System Integrity" Protection, MS Pluton, ARM "Trust"Zone, Apple App Store, Google Play Services, all to restrict the cattle's thin clients that don't even work without remote services anyway, to squeeze a buck out of them. >run code under the third underprivileged "preudoroot" user for programs or commands that you do not fully trust and too lazy to review code of If you run malware as any user, especially the main unprivileged user with all the loot and persistence opportunities, it's over. Malware as root or pseudoroot (whatever the fuarrrk that'd be), it's triple over. >Not having such an option is a greater restriction on your freedom. I'm running commands as root all day err day and feel perfectly free. Feel even more free now, appreciating the zero headaches about your proposed overengineered bloat nanny service blocking legit operations on half the computers by default like PowerShell's bullshit on Windows. Replacement of simple userland tools by systemd cancer is also technically optional, but there are fewer and fewer distros left that work without it. Try getting a job where you can ignore the peculiarities of systemd's 20 random services. >atomic desktops >"just work" no matter what they do or run on their computer NixOS, Terraform, Ansible and similar are the ones that need a restricted root the least, because it's so fast and effortless to get a fully configured system up from scratch based on declarative configs. Also all they do is inflate your config file into a bunch of shell commands, it's nice but nothing too special compared to normal distros where you run the same commands manually. I still don't get it, tell me about specific use cases. I never messed up a system beyond repair even though I do cowboy soykaf sometimes, I can't imagine what the value proposition is. For example, do people really delete their /etc or whatever? Who does that? Noobs don't touch a root shell, advanced users are not that dumb or will auto restore a server in 10 minutes. Who's messing around a lot as root anyway, most people run apt install whatever or systemd enable --now some.service . Anyone more advanced will not need hand holding. If you need to test something complex as root that might wreck the system, do it in a VM, do it in a container, a solved problem. Tell me how this restricted root would work exactly, what the requirements are. Users are normally restricted by not getting admin, root. They can get root for exact commands like apt upgrade . What would your halfway-root account do differently? How would it differ from a normal user account in technical terms?

>>82625 Yeah my WiFi router was affected by the state of hypergamy femoids that want war drive with antenna for thr state aka big brother jfl landwhales in $CURRENT_YEAR https://gizmodo.com/what-the-google-street-view-wi-fi-decision-actually-mea-1332161134 https://www.theregister.com/2010/10/22/google_acknowledges_street_views_wifi_data_contained_emails_urls_passwords/ https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/how-will-fcc-s-google-street-view-fine-shape-data-rules

One thing I've learned over time is the amount of bullshit Linux fanboys are willing to spam and their obsessive hatred of Windows and Mac. Its one thing to say you don't like these systems or that they violate user privacy, but loonix retards are convinced that Windows and Mac OS are bad operating systems that are wholly inferior to Linux and therefore anything new that Mac OS brings is irrelevant and stupid. A Mactard could say 1 + 1 = 2 and a Linux nigger will come up with a witty come back. This being the main reason that nothing from these are incorporated into Linux. Its like expecting the KKK to mix hip hop tracks.

yeah I agree with fishlips >>82636 that MacOS is decent, well atleast better then the c*cked windows type soykaf thats gets you blacklisted by the patriarchy If I were to uses MacOS I would pay for littlesnitch (like opensnitch just not opensource) so dont get mogged by filthy scrubz or dumb foids n shiet

>>82599 >>82624 We don't have system integrity protection on any BSD. >>82637 You see this here. This is what brain damage looks like.

>Currently, Linux systems do not have a user-friendly ans hassle-free way of doing this although, I don't see any reason whatsoever why this shouldn't be a standard or at least an opt-in option for most Linux desktop systems (especially so-called atomic ones) that strive to provide seemless and user-friendly experience to the less tech-savvy users. Its either everything (complete root access that can potentially damage the system) or nothing t see the reason why there shouldn't be the third "pseudoroot" user (if you are into definitionUSING and prefer to argue that root should have absolutely unrestricted permissions by definition of itself ofc) that would be able to manage non-critical system components freely with few exceptions (that are cherrypicked to not let it compromise the system in a way that would disrupt the boot/startup process, e.g. delete some important system files) All unix-likes do though and there is no need for a separate user because it's possible to create groups that are able to run the commands and modify the files you want. For package managing you could enable it in a limited form through a sudo command whitelist. For the personal computer usecase I don't think that such restrictions provide any ease of use advantage, they are nice when you lend your computer but they don't make it easier to use, why would they? >Being able to perform administrative tasks, such as device and package management without the risk of your base system being destroyed or damaged in a way that would require a complete wipe and reinstallation is a very valid usecase and that is what many users complain about. "System gets cluttered overtime, it gets slower". With physical access there are a myriad of ways to destroy and damage a system that have no software solution, there is no way around having to be careful with your computer to not damage it.

>>82629 How is Google's wardriving relevant here? >>82636 >>82637 Thanks for proving >>82625 correct by addressing none of the arguments and questions, instead trying to polarize the discussion into extreme pro and anti groups. Doesn't work as well here as on 4chan, does it.

>>82638 > We don't have system integrity protection on any BSD. Which was never said. BSD has securelevel which is what Apple was previously using. Is there a major difference?

>>82636 But linux used to be superior, but then niggers from corporations killed it. But even as it is now, it's still better than anything else. Again, user space used to be far superior, but corporations killed it. Now it is far inferior to other systems, with these dumb wayland/dbus/pipewire/freedesktop/other broken-by-design bloatware that does everything except its job, so you end up doing most of the heavy lifting in your terminal.

>>82659 >bloat Literally everything that isn't command line is considered bloat to some Linux fanboys.. Just buy a Commodore 64 and be done with it.

>>82579 What you desire a middle-user between the root user and the regular users. This is doable (albeit quite messy) with user groups. If I am correct most desktop Linux distributions lock the root user and only allow a set amount of actions to the users in the "wheel" groups. Your proposal is thus mostly redundant.

>>82659 You clearly only know the tools you've mentioned at a high-level and have no idea of how it was before them. ALSA is good if you you do nothing but watch youtube videos like a drooling retard. If there was no pipewire then every modern video about Linux would either have to be recorded from a virtual machine or look like it was made 15 years ago based on the sound quality, pipewire was the first tool that was compatible with GStreamer and JACK which brings audio to a non-consumer level. Say whatever you want about pulseaudio and how bloated and useless it is but pipewire is one of the pillars of the Linux desktop Wayland is not even as bloated as the X and I'll quote from the Wayland FAQ > When you're an X server there's a tremendous amount of functionality that you must support to claim to speak the X protocol, yet nobody will ever use this. For example, core fonts; this is the original font model that was how your got text on the screen for the many first years of X11. This includes code tables, glyph rasterization and caching, XLFDs (seriously, XLFDs!). Despite what the memes say, it works flawlessly with NVIDIA GPU's. Wayland isolates windows, it merges the comopositor in a single process and many other features that make it superior to Xorg, the only downside would be the stability but it's not that big of a difference Please at least do some research when you post something instead of quoting 30 year old neckbeards from 4chan who take everything new as bad, or just go back as a whole >>82660 That being said, bloat is a very important issue that most developers often look over, it leads to instability, piles of CVE's and most importantly, it makes it gradually harder for other people to contribute. What the lainon you're replying to thinks is bloat isn't by any means that, it mostly provides extra functionality for the cost of a few lines which is completely reasonable. What IS bloat is Xorg for the reasons that I won't mention again, but the said lainon is so focused on the new=bad philosophy at a point where he completely misses the point of different protocols that are meant to achieve different things

>>82663 >Wayland is not even as bloated as the X and I'll quote from the Wayland FAQ Wayland literally requires an sandboxed x server to support legacy and non-mainstream apps, and yet it is less bloated than X... it cannot possibly be compared to X because Wayland is just a protocol, you say Wayland is not as bloated as x but which compositor are you referring to? You also quoted the wayland faq which are heavily biased. Wayland only production ready if you exclusively use gnome along with gtk and qt6 apps. The reason wayland gets so much hate is its cult following who insist it is ready to be rolled out to the masses when it clearly isn't and instead of providing a compatibility layer, it forces app developers to adapt to the new protocol with threats of pulling support for xwayland on major distros. By the way, a lesser known fact, x11 has a number of projects that do support window isolation, though this is a non issue. If a malicious app can run arbitrary code in your userspace you have a far bigger problem then it spying on the youtube videos your watching during work. If redhat and co wanted to modernize the x11 code base and drop old font models, they could but instead they decided to make the switch and in turn force hundreds of projects to do the same. The entire transition to a new display server was ideologically motivated. On the other hand I agree with what you said about pipewire, it is far superior to alsa. It is not that linux users think in terms of new=bad but instead they are scared of projects like systemd slowly consuming the linux ecosystem to the point that running a simple web browser or file manager will require hundreds of shims for an alternative init system. If the linux desktop and systemd become one and the same, how would that be any different to the relationship between Windows and Microsoft?

>>82663 >pipewire is one of the pillars of the Linux desktop That's exactly what I'm trying to say. Whoever stands on such poor excuses for pillars is essentially fuarrrked. Sound system is in principle very simple, simpler even than what pulseaudio did. You just need to play audio, that's all, nothing more, literally. If you need low latency high quality capture just send your application raw data and let in handle that. The application will just use a library. There is no need to implement a fuarrrkton of audio processing bullshit in your audio server when 99% of desktop will never use those features at all. >video The fact that a single daemon handles both sound and video is a fuarrrking joke. 99.9% of users don't need the video features at all. If you need a low latency high quality video capture, it should be handled by a different daemon. But yes for low iq monkeys like you it's simpler to just turn linux into windows and pretend it's the correct way to do soykaf.

>>82625 >If you run malware as any user, especially the main unprivileged user with all the loot and persistence opportunities, it's over. Malware as root or pseudoroot (whatever the fuarrrk that'd be), it's triple over. The idea isn't to protect you from tgreat actors, its to get rid of the tedious process of wiping your whole drige and reinstalling your system from scratch, because you mistyped something in config/deleted some file and it refused to boot up. Its to isolate base system from the influence of user actions sonas to make sure that it is up and running (booting up, at least) no matter what you do. A sorta "invisible wall" that protects you from falling off a cliff and breaking your entire set of limbs while foing the computing. Stealing data is a whole another issue tgat needs to be adressed separately and is irrelevant here. >Would if they could. On all other platforms it's not a bogeyman, it's reality. Check out Android and iOS, the only OS most people use, can't have root on your own device, can't even run your own code anymore, iOS doesn't have "side"loading (AKA normal loading) and it's being phased out on Android too. Look at Windows and macOS being slowly guided into the same rut. "Secure" Boot, "T"PM, "System Integrity" Protection, MS Pluton, ARM "Trust"Zone, Apple App Store, Google Play Services, all to restrict the cattle's thin clients that don't even work without remote services anyway, to squeeze a buck out of them. Yes, but I propose doing this without the "locking you out and DRMing your system" part. The idea, again, is to isolate base system from the influence of the actions that user does inside of the system. >I'm running commands as root all day Anecdotal evidence, most users will just sudo rm -rf / or whatever and bitch about their system not booting up again (anf be right to do so). Our goal is to make sure that the system will just reset to its vanilla state and upon booting up to a command line interface and proposes the user to connect to wifi and redoenload KDE Plasma ot Gnome so as all he/she has to do is hit enter and reboot his/her PC/laptop a couple more times >What would your halfway-root account do differently? It would isolate the system by not having access to exactly the chunk of it that is responsible for basic functioning and booting up, while still retaining access to perform all the tasks that do not involve chabging files that can potentially break the system (cause it to refuse to boot up). For example, it woulf be able to write to all the blick devices, except the system disk so that formatting works on everything but the disk on which the system is installed ensuring that user overwrite it with zeroes. It will be able to install packages amd write to non-essential system directories, for example, the hosts file. Change and edit files of all the users, create/manage virtual machines, etc... The only thing that will be out of reach is, again, the files that are flagged as protected (also block devices so as to not let it bypass it by writing to block devices directly). Call it sroot (?) idk

>>82668 >I am an idiot And you're not welcome. If you are too stupid to not end your system by having access to root, you're not welcome. Get the fuarrrk out of linux. You are the root of all evil. Computing must be hard to keep you out. You are not wanted. Anyone who's got half the brain is smart enough to not need to be babysitted while editing files in /etc.

>>82669 Are you one of those "just fon't doenload viruses" dudes?

>>82668 That's how you kill good instrument: instead of a perfectly fine but a bit dangerous knife you want to have some baby-safe toy. Why not just learn your instrument? Why would one even use root if they have no understanding of it? Also on the topic of system restoring itself I think NixOS does something similar.

The main thing that bothers me about Linux security design is the sandboxing being handled by the package managers. That makes no sense.

>>82579 You could append this snippet to your .bashrc # enable trash support in Midnight Commander with libtrash alias mc='LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/libtrash.so mc' # Important! # If not running interactively, don't do anything [[ $- != *i* ]] && return alias rm='rm --interactive --preserve-root=all' alias ln='ln --verbose --interactive' alias cp='cp --interactive' alias mv='mv --interactive' However I suggest always using trash-cli for removing files!

>>82672 >Why would one even use root if they have no understanding of it? Because you are required to for basic tasks like formatting your flash drive or installing packages (which is something lots of people do while having no idea about how user account control works on Windows). You see, that is part of computing being easy and practical: you don't hwve to learn how things work from scratch in order to get other things done. Computer is supposed ti make your life easier not visa-versa. >knife analogy Analogies don't work as arguments, but if I were to make it, I'd say that in the implementation of OSX, it's rather a magical knife that is always perfectly sharp and can cut through dead animal's flash or a vagetable/fruit/etc snack very easily while being unable to kill a human (it detects live human flesh and goes "ghost-mode". >nixOS Na-ah, not spanding my entire day learning to write config just to be able to edit a video on my computer. Its wotk that I am trying to avoid because I don't get paid for it.

>>82674 Thanks, but I can personally not do dangerous stuff on my system, however the idea here is for me to not have to do anything in order to keep my systrm safe instead of proactively try to make it safe to use

>>82676 >Computer is supposed ti make your life easier not visa-versa. No it's not. But if you think it is, go use Windows? Why are you not using Windows? Or MacOS? There's a reason they ended up unusable. When developers start catering to people like you their software is all but bound to become soykaf. >Analogies don't work as arguments Yes they do, though not often. If you're too stupid to be fuarrrking careful and the read the fuarrrking manual, it's your problem. It is impossible to have a good and efficient design that would also be idiot proof. You either make your software utter horsecrap but idiot proof, or vulnerable to idiots but efficient. >not spanding my entire day learning to write config just to be able to edit a video Then stfu + btfo.

>>82678 >There's a reason they ended up unusable. corporate idiocy? both platforms from their very inception were oriented around user friendliness as a primary concern

>>82676 >Because you are required to for basic tasks like formatting your flash drive or installing packages Good point, but I'd say it's more like "input password to authenticate" than real root usage. At least on beginner friendly distributions. >Analogies don't work as arguments Not that I was trying to argue, just having a talk. And I feel like adding an analogy makes a discussion a bit more pleasant. >to write config just to be able to edit a video Agreed, not for everyone. I was just pointing, that there are some projects with this feature. And they might be tuned to be more friendly. The current usability is indeed questionable. For me it's also not an option as I prefer offline systems and offline backups. To sum up, I think your view of simplicity differs quite a lot from the other posters. Most here value their tools to be transparent and easy to understand, but you are more interested in tools just getting job done. Valid view, but I don't see why would you not use MacOS for that.

>>82678 >No it's not Why are you so drasticly and angrily oppose making Linux a suitable OS to do work quickly and effectively I stead of endlessly learning how to do trivial things like copying a file or creating a desktop shortcut just to be able to do what you could already do million times faster and better on Windows? >There's a reason they ended up unusable No they weren't, they ender up being usable, but spoiled by corporate greed and the least we can do about it is to make Linux at least able to compete with them on the same level. >When developers start catering to people like you their software is all but bound to become soykaf. Nope, its when s proprietary system becomes popular enough and can implement anti-user features while also stagnating in terms of quality. But for the aforementioned to happen, said systrm would first need to become usable enough for an averege user, who has needs that have to be satisfied and is willing to spend very limited amount of time and effort to satisfy them by learning the computing that needs to be done to achieve them

>>82695 >Why are you so drasticly and angrily oppose making Linux a suitable OS to do work quickly and effectively Because features you describe are the exact opposite of "quickly and effectively". Speed and efficiency do not come from the background you're describing, namely, they don't come as "I am a dumb glitterboy so make me a monkey proof tool that does everything for me", but instead they come as "I am smart, I learned how to use this well designed tool, invested my time into it and now I am quick and efficient". But your "le Linux Desktop" tools are neither well designed, nor does investing time in them result in proportional rewards in speed and efficiency. Such tools by their very nature end up being horsecrap. >No they weren't, they ender up being usable What exactly is usable about them? File Explorer? Windows has always been an abomination when it came to hacking, and it hasn't improved. I've never used Mac. >Nope, its when s proprietary system becomes popular enough and can implement anti-user features My dumb glitterboy, write it on your stupid face that these corporate antifeatures have been introduced by you cattle, because you are the food of those corporations and wherever you go, you have them dogging you and destroying everything on their way. To fix this, only two solutions are possible. One to change world order to one that is honest, fair and has no need for evil corporations, the other solution is to gatekeep cattle. I can't see how the first solution is doable >an averege user, who has needs that have to be satisfied and is willing to spend very limited amount of time and effort to satisfy them by learning the computing that needs to be done to achieve them Btfo to windows. In this desolate world, even scrapes often require somebody to sacrifice his life to get them, but good things require a lifetime of dedication and unending work. If you are not willing to learn, suck it up and use Windows. But you are a dumb glitterboy and you won't ever do that so instead you pretend that RedHat is any different from Microsoft or Google or whoever the fuarrrk. You create the demand for monkey proof software thus allowing corporation to invade freely and without fear of being gatekept. And if there is a corporation around, you are doomed to be crushed by it because it has an infinite amount of resources while you're just a single man. tl;dr kys

>>82695 I’d just like to interject for a moment. What you’re referring to as Linux, is in fact, probably Systemd/Linux, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, Systemd plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning system made useful by GNU corelibs, shell utilities, vital system components, and the Systemd managerial system comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX. Many Linux users run a modified version of the Linux system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of the Linux system which is widely used today is often called GNU/Linux, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically now Systemd/Linux, developed by Lennart Poettering and Red Hat. There really is a GNU/Linux, and those people are not using it, but a modified variant of a system including Linux, like Android. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine’s resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux was normally used in combination with the GNU/Linux operating system. Now, the whole system is basically GNU/Linux with Systemd overlaid, or more correctly, Systemd/Linux. All the GNU/Linux distributions are really separate from the so-called Systemd/Linux system!

>>82696 Damn, dude, I wonder what kind of "work" you do on your PC. Must be hard to spend hours to google and memorize commands for what Windows users do with a couple of flicks of a mouse in GUI.

>>82701 >I don't have a counterargument, let me attempt unimaginative ad hominem Okay, step up your trolling though, this will not do for lainchan >Linux users installing a web browser 1. Open terminal 2. yay firefox 3. Press Enter to confirm >Windows users installing a web browser 1. Open web browser (kek) 2. Google "firefox" 3. Click on result, hopefully not a malware scam site 4. Click around for installer exe 5. Click run on the downloaded exe 6. "Are you sure you want to run this exe from the internet?" 7. Click around in installer 8. Edge spyware still runs in the background, contacting remote servers

OP this entire thread is soykaf, if you are so enamoured by macos's magical knife that 'does not cut the user' then just use macos.If you want commands and bash scripts to ask you before modifying files then append >>82674 to your bashrc. If you won't accept either of these suggestions then please just shut the fuc k up. >82701 You realize linux has gui appstores right, you can very easily use linux as a normal person without ever touching a terminal. >>82702 You forgot the last five steps: Friend sends you a link 1. Click link, opens in edge 2. Open settings, head to default apps, default browser, switch it to firefox 3. Click link again, opens in edge 4. Copy url 5. Open start menu, launch firefox and manually paste the link

>>82673 You mean flatpak that requires sandboxing cuz its like a glizzy living rent-free and doesn't even uses GPG signing of packages instead it uses a mid design similair to pip but slightly better but still cyberhumped

>>82705 >without ever touching a terminal Haha haha h haha haha haha Oh god

>>82702 >Okay, step up your trolling though, this will not do for lainchan This was never intended to be a genuine responce to your criticism, pal, its just me mocking unwillingness to make Linux user-friendly so that instead of spending time and effort setting up what has already been set up for you in Windows/OSX you can start doing actual work right away. Like professionally editing videos, images, developing games, editing presentations etc.. >>82696 >What exactly is usable about them? The fact that there are GUI tools for everything, because unlike Linux shut-ins, Bill Gates understood the concept of intuitiveness and the fact that nobody wants to invest their time into memorizing commands and reading through huge walls of text the program throws at them just to be able to do basic computational tasks. For example, I don't want to read the documentation to be able to copy a file from one folder to another, I do not want to spend time learning the syntax for commands to format my drive when I can just drag a line, representing what chunk of it I should snap off to call it "drive C" and another one for "drive D" >My dumb glitterboy, write it on your stupid face that these corporate antifeatures have been introduced by you cattle, because you are the food of those corporations and wherever you go, you have them dogging you and destroying everything on their way. To fix this, only two solutions are possible. One to change world order to one that is honest, fair and has no need for evil corporations, the other solution is to gatekeep cattle. I can't see how the first solution is doable Your frustration and anger comes from misunderstanding completely what makes proprietary operating systems implement anti-user features like data collection and paywalls. It is not the fact that making computation less intellectually demanding those corpos have let more people in. Its the fact that they are proprietary in the first place. In and of itself them being user-friendly has little to do with corporations implementing the anti-user features. You see, the great thing about users friendliness and simplicity of interaction between user and program is that it unloads the effort, time and intellectual resources from the human to the machine they are using so that later it can be spent doing something actually productive. I don't want to learn the whole cource of aerodynamics just to be able to fly an airplane. >>82680 >Good point, but I'd say it's more like "input password to authenticate" than real root usage. At least on beginner friendly distributions. There should be a single flag to make the system "rock solid" and for the user to be able to delete protected files to manually switch that flag to an "off" state. Currently, there is no such option available, even on immutable distros there are still loopholes to overwrite the system using sudo, which is not the case on MacOS. I understand the concern some users display when presented with the initial idea, but that comes from only looking at it surface-deep. This has absolutely nothing to do with "locking user out", instead, it should be a feature that is aimed at making sure that the system is in its original unchanging state and won't rerefuse to boot no matter what you might do within it. That essentially makes use of backups unnecessary (except user files)

Oh so that's a funded sh*ill, great. Imagine corporations being so desperate they actually engage some no life idiots into coming to image boards and praising microsoft/apple/other corporations. >windows is le good because Bill Gates is a smart and good guy If anybody is low IQ enough to believe this please let me know.

>>82752 If that is what is convenient for you to believe

>>82751 >Bill Gates understood How to make money off idiots and other businesses. Abundance of proprietary tooling exists because it's money. >Its the fact that they are proprietary in the first place Sysyemd is open source. Red Hat is open source. Linux is open source. Nothing prevents them from poisoning open source in the ways they want. It's abundance of useful idiots like you who request to have everything good for free that gives them complete freedom of enshittification. Linux has been secure for some time but ever since your underdeveloped brains got exposed to the idea of open source you've allowed them to invade by creating the corresponding demand on the market. As a proof of this your posts are mostly ramble and you don't tell us anything except that you're retarded. >I don't want to learn the whole cource of aerodynamics just to be able to fly an airplane. I'm glad for you. Fortunately you have all the solutions you deserve already, there are no reasons for you to use linux, ever. Don't worry soon they get rid of Linux and make Linux another proprietary OS so you'll be able to get the full taste of open source! >There should be a single flag to make the system "rock solid" And a button to make everyone wealthy and happy!

>>82754 >Sysyemd is open source What's wrong with systemd?

>>82755 red hat got reported cia ties in past and sysd looks like a mitm platform for linux. sysd also got caught several times trying to implement questionable designs that would allow tracking & backdoors.

>>82756 forgot disclaimer for non-linux people: not everyone adopted the mitm monolith. Distros staying true to the linux philosophy continue to exist.

>>82757 linux is becoming "windows" , we need a new "linux"

>>82758 Just don't use Linux along with the poorly made GNU utils if you're tired of it, it isn't the only option. Plan9 is the most fun, FreeBSD is the most supported and OpenBSD is the most minimalist. It's a bit of a hassle to get started with them but it definitely pays off

>>82758 Why do you need something new? As said distros who stay true to old paradigm still exist. Just support the gaellic villages retaining freedom from roman control. I think independent linux systems will continue to exist regardless how much money m$ pumps into the linux foundation because even governments like china fund their own linux versions as their understand the importance of owning their OS.

>>82760 thats lizard mentality we need to join the old ways with news. for me kbytes mentality in a pentbyte reality.

>>82760 The said distros will die off in the near future. At some point so many software will depend on systemd and friends that not running poetteringOS will make your system unsuitable for literally any normal person activity, which defeats the purpose of computing. There will still be "free" distros if you want to program for the sake of programing but you won't even be able to use a browser on them. Why are you hiding from government anyway? They're good and care for your well being, please submit!

>>82762 you can literally make all apps with ai in less than month. just make your own ai and free yourself.

>>82762 You can emulate mandatory functionality just like you already emulate for windows software. Ironically systemd reliance will become the new windows equivalent.

>>82763 Can you please confide to us which AI exactly made yours?

>>82766 i made my own ai from scratch. started with this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptron

>>82767 Did you by any chance implement it in MATLAB?

>>82768 i hate matlab.(although i use it as a start) believe it or not i use mips assembly. i use this assembler to test it. https://computerscience.missouristate.edu/mars-mips-simulator.htm i like to work with small memory .

>>82751 >There should be a single flag to make the system "rock solid" and for the user to be able to delete protected files to manually switch that flag to an "off" state. Currently, there is no such option available You know what you're right, we should create a separate user that is able to modify system level files and another that is confined to the home directory. We should make it so tha you can switch between the two with a password. Infact I am surprised this concept has never been thought up before. For the privileged user I vote to call it 'root', any objections?

>>82773 btfo noob you need pills not c compiler. >password are you fuarrrking dumb this day and age all passwords can be cracked you need a cryptographically secure mechanism for authenticating your trusted user probably stored on a separate media that only you own. >root do you realize that if anyone gains access to root he owns your system? you need to enforce kernel level restrictions so only cryptographically secure processes, that have been signed by a trusted party, can touch your system files at all. the binaries that are authenticated should be signed by somebody we universally trust and distributed by them to every system. i vote for google, any objections?

>>82754 >And a button to make everyone wealthy and happy! By "rock solid" I meant that any command or executable or syscall should not be able to destroy, modify, delete a certain type of protected system files (unless you turn that flag off). Kinda like its done in OSX, not "make system ideal"

>>82777 did you ever hear of apparmor? go configure nownownow

>>82776 what are you even talking about, take your stupid strawman argument back to 4chan.

>>82778 Hiz I have already mentioned that it is not user-friendly if you have to configure it manually instead of a simple "on/off" switch which would be nice

>>82789 You have all the liberty of implementing it yourself. FOSS has never worked the other way around and when it does it won't be FOSS anymore. Food for though - systemd provides open source software but proprietary platform and environment. Is it really FOSS, then?

>>82579 >Why doesn't Linux have this feature? Because that "feature" is awful and I'd rather shoot myself in the head than use it. I had to deal with SELinux stupidty enough to know that I would never ever want SIP. When I do >sudo command It better do the goddamn command, but no, not under SIP.

>Its either everything (complete root access that can potentially damage the system) or nothing I lol'd fuarrrkn hard https://man.openbsd.org/doas.conf.5 permit nopass user as root cmd /bin/shutdown permit nopass user as root cmd /bin/reboot

>>82582 Yup - In the case of MacOS: Apple decides. With Linux you can set up restrictions with SELinux or even better use an immutable system that is transactional and image based.

>>82845 They say that this is not their intention to make them fully immutable. They are still loopholes that can be exploited. The system isn't fully immune to root

>why isn't feature x universal on linux? because linux doesn't have one guy telling everyone what to do. everyone who uses linux is free to modify it or add any features they want to. the fact that feature x hasn't been written or isn't widely adopted can mean only one thing. linux users don't give a royal fuarrrk about it.

>>82856 >because linux doesn't have one guy telling everyone what to do the collective jewish mind behind all the linux foundation corpos laughs at you

>>82587 What does it mean, could you explain?

>>82873 In the same way your employer tells you what you can and cannot do in the office, large donors hold sway over the organizations they fund. Jewish finance holds a great deal of power over american media, politics, and ngos such as the linux foundation.

OP is systems illiterate. The post >>82642 explains why. A lot of the confusion, and resulting discussion (pointless discussion), is that a distro is not the same as a "product". macOS SIP feature exists to protect macOS developers from other macOS developers. No actual user (not IT admin, a user) of macOS ever encounters SIP or knows about it. Linux, optionally (subject to distro, or "product") can choose to ignore what syscalls are made by uid 0. This entire thread is a total waste of time. But they very most retarded post on this thread is by >>82588 > For example, one can want to edit a video or compose a musical track without spending hours googling and editing configs to make programs needed for completion of those tasks work The below works on pretty much every single distro and takes less than one minute (subject to download speed). And, if it doesn't work on a distro, that is because the operator of that distro chose a special distro for specialized purpose other than "user endpoint". wget https://github.com/mifi/lossless-cut/releases/download/v3.64.0/LosslessCut-linux-x86_64.AppImage chmod +x LosslessCut-linux-x86_64.AppImage ./LosslessCut-linux-x86_64.AppImage Is really really not so hard. A package manager, for which SIP has absolutely no real use as >>82642 explained, can also get and install the app. To the retard who posted >>82588 you sure are an utterly retarded n1gger, please do not post on this forum ever again.

> because unlike Linux shut-ins, Bill Gates understood the concept of intuitiveness and the fact that nobody wants to invest their time into memorizing commands and reading through huge walls of text the program throws at them just to be able to do basic computational tasks The most popular user interface that exists today, that is used universally by turbo-norm1es and computer-illiterate people, is Android. The Linux kernel powers Android. For a System76 user to "have to mess with the command line" is extremely rare and distinctly separate from System76 users who choose to use a terminal emulator to do something. Mint and Ubuntu users very rarely "have to" use "the command line", even for proprietary Nvidia drivers to be added, there are point-click ui widgets. Those of us who spend our time on the GNU Compiler Collection, LLVM, and other system type stuff, paid or not, do not believe that the interfaces we use should ever (like ever ever ever) be conflated with the interfaces that turbo-normal people use. Given the data points above >>82751 is either a paid wage slave, which is not at all unlikely, given what Mike Benz revealed, and the confirmed existence of wage slave farms (Shareblue, JIDF, etc), or a mentally ill fagg0t because no one can actually be that stupid, but a mentally ill fagg0t, or a simp, will indeed pretend to be that stupid. People who act that way in real life either get a concussion or get shot.

>>82873 Abusing cute anime girl cockroach

>>82677 if >>82674 wasn't good enough... You should start using throw-away containers/jails or VMs. Take a look at bubblewrap and bubblejail, too! >https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bubblejail >https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Systemd-nspawn >https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Chroot And have backups! btrfs/zfs/LVM snapshots aren't enough because there are scenarios where you can't restore a snapshot, nevertheless, they do add a nice layer of extra protection. I recommend setting up btrfs + snapper + snap-pac-grub (https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/snap-pac-grub) or something similar. OpenSUSE has this kind of setup by default but you can configure it for any distro (use Snapper or Timeshift). It allows you to rollback to a previous btrfs snapshot from Grub bootloader menu. Then configure some form of backup, see: >https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Rsync#As_a_backup_utility >https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Borg_backup or https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Restic You can also test Fedora Atomic. It probably also does what you want. I suggest using either the KDE version or the Sway version, depending on your personal taste. >https://fedoraproject.org/atomic-desktops/sway/