Run browsers as root or not?

[JASpup]

Non-Puppy users are telling me not to run browsers as root. I do and I don't. Is this normal for us?

[ozsouth]

@JASpup - root used to be the way, but browser distributors tell us not to do this. The need for an underpriviliged user (spot) was noted years ago, & now seems important for internet apps. I only made the switch myself last year.

[Flash]

Can anyone in the world give an instance when running a browser as root brought them grief? First person accounts only, please.

[rockedge]

I never had a problem running as root with any browser in a security sense

[JASpup]

Puppy was designed to be a lightweight Linux that runs well on older computers in ram.

Whom do they think they're messing with?

[Feek]

In BionicPup64 I run a browser as root - I never had a problem. In FatDog is spot default for all Internet apps, so I feel a little more safer. But it's really nothing but feeling

[mikewalsh]

I never had a problem running as root with any browser in a security sense

Nope; me either.

@JASpup :-

Any Mozilla-based browser will happily run-as-root. Chromium-based browsers, however, well; it's a bit of a 'mixed bag'.

Modern Chrome & Chromium, since around v63/64, both insist on running as a "normal user" (which defaults to "spot" in Puppy, of course). Iron, Opera, Vivaldi, Edge.....even Yandex; these will all run-as-root in Puppy. It all depends on how the individual devs compile them, because the "setuid" thing will be compiled from the source code at build-time.

I wouldn't take too much notice of those dozy buggers over at LQ.org, "JASlinux". It's the world's longest-running Linux forum, many of the guys over there have been members since, like, forever, and they think they know it all. A lot of these guys have been running Linux since the very early days, when it was near as dammit a rite-of passage to have to set up your own server & host your own website; this was about the only way the rest of the Linux community would take you seriously..!! On top of which, a surprising number of them are sysadmins in their daily jobs, so they're paranoid about security and doing everything "by the book" anyway.

(These are the same guys who dismiss Puppy as a "toy", and are generally dismissive of any enquiry pertaining to it. Personally, I don't have a lot of time for them.)

Unless you run browsers that insist on running as a normal user, i.e., "spot", just carry on running 'em as root. We've been doing this here in Puppyland since I don't know when, and I've yet to come across anyone who's actually come to grief through doing so. Oh, sure.....you'll always get the odd individual who's convinced they're the target of every single crank organization out there; nothing you can say will reassure such folks, 'cos they're the type who jump at every shadow they see.

You wanna run-em-as-root, you carry on; if they're happy to do so, you're laughing.

Mike.

[rockedge]

These are the same guys who dismiss Puppy as a "toy", and are generally dismissive of any inquiry pertaining to it.

Send them to me. Want proof that my web servers running on Puppy, Dog or WeeDog can match and or out perform any of their systems? I will be very glad to oblige

That's what happens when one becomes an "elitist". Guys like me and my systems are not taken seriously BUT who's up and running when they are not? Crunching Russian, Chinese, Israeli, and some garden variety hackers like water off a duck's back....no problems.....and why? Because I can configure the server better then they can.....obviously. I started computing when there was only a root user and have no fear of it.

Next time ANYONE tells you Puppy Linux is a "toy" send them immediately to me and we'll try out a couple of things.

Anyone know the Television series "Breaking Bad"? Walter White says it best..........

[JASpup]

Any Mozilla-based browser will happily run-as-root. Chromium-based browsers, however, well; it's a bit of a 'mixed bag'.

Firefox is the browser on topic. All the more reason!

I ask about preparing a quiche and the Arch Warriors or wherever the gall the come from lecture me about running as root.

If they could state exactly what they're protecting me from, I might listen.

While I'm waiting I read Barry:

Puppy supposes a "friendly" local environment, and the main threat is from someone gaining access to your computer via the network ports while you are online.
Which is highly unlikely in Puppy, due to the firewall, minimal daemons (with network capability disabled). But, the concern is still there...

https://bkhome.org/archive/puppylinux/t ... l/root.htm

Maybe using the default disabled firewall is a bigger issue than running as root.

[foxpup]

Never had a problem either.
Running as root.

I have had lots of issues on windows at the time.
But I cannot say whether running as a user there had something to do with it.
If it had something to do with it, then bettter not run as user.

[mikewalsh]

@rockedge :-

I've been pointing people at this blog article by 'Ignorant Guru' for years:-

https://igurublog.wordpress.com/2010/01 ... -not-root/

I mentioned this over at LQ.org a couple of years ago.....and one of the senior "veterans" told me, to my face, that I was a fool to be taken in by such tripe.

(*shrug*)

Mike.

[darry19662018]

Deleted

[JASpup]

They never take into account frugal installs. If I stuff up or get an infection. I can delete save folder. Puppy is totally different with it's sfs environment.

No kidding.

The wisest would be inclined to measure the best ideas for dominance. I just came here looking to keep old hardware going. Puppy like most other distro families has a lot of hurdles, but it works. I learn new features and options all the time.

More popular on the old forum, there's one post here as of this post on Figaro, the password manager. On Puppy if you're looking for something, it might already be there.

I boot Ubuntu on my 64 system. I create its persistence file at the time of making the boot, but persistence flexibility and usefulness pales in comparison to a frugal pupsave.

[darry19662018]

Deleted .

[JASpup]

My point was that those who judge Puppies running as root judge it as though it was a normal multi-user system - it is not because they do not understand how it works and yes you are right persistence does pale by comparison to Puppy's ability to have a save file or save folder.

Right

The Arch Warriors instead of asking me which distro I was using ignored my Firefox question about the configuration data we have stored in /root/.mozilla/firefox to chastise me about running Firefox as root.

So we're doing different things.

Say you score a 130 IQ and you're devoted to tech with years of experience.

Intelligence isn't dogma. It's also not interpersonal intellectual competition, chauvinism, and dominance, because you'll do fine with whatever positive aspirations motivate you and the world will be better without the negativity. Your world.

Intelligence is about communication, a macro perspective, and judgement.

On two & three, Puppy is looking superior.

If you can make a clear case that a single-user system still needs "sudo", I'll read it.

Communication can be word-tedious, but without it you're not communicating, you're just 'at-ing' at other people and hoping for the best, or not caring.

[JASpup]

I don't expect anyone to know, but if we nuke /root/.mozilla/firefox, where are

• Visible toolbar settings

• Default search engine

• Available search engines?

The other Preferences appear to be in prefs.js.

I'm going for lean, use a lot of browsers, and don't want to bog the pupsave with browser config data.

[mikewalsh]

Um....heh. Y'know, I don't quite think you understand how browsers work, JASpup.

You can't just simply delete stuff which, on the face of it - to YOU, apparently - seems to be totally irrelevant.

Starting from a "clean slate", everything in the 'profile' is generated as a consequence of the libxul.so shared library running. It's 'hard-coded' at build-time, and, believe it or not, everything DOES have a function. The guys at Mozilla have been building this browser for the best part of 20 years; don't you think it's barely possible that they might - just might - have some idea of what they're doing after all this time?

Oh, I know; you look through the profile, and for example, you may see what seems like an excessive number of sqlite database files. You can't just, for instance, "cherry-pick" what seems to you be 'necessary', and casually discard what seems as though it isn't. It doesn't work like that, I'm afraid..!

If you want a browser set-up precisely the way you want it, then you have but one option; you download the source code, you learn about the required command-line flags.....and you compile it yourself.

That, I'm afraid, is the reality. It's the way this particular 'cookie' crumbles.....

You go HERE. Select the version you want, then download the tar.gz from the /source sub-directory. Load your devx and kernel_sources SFS packages, make SURE you have LOTS of space, and off you go.....

This site may be of some use:-

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/doc ... oper_guide

(That's how PaleMoon came into being; its 'devs' decided they didn't like the direction the Firefox browser was taking.....so they 'forked' the source code and developed their own version...)

Good luck..!

Mike.

[williwaw]

rather than nuke it, I set up my browser configs, then use williams2 method to make it "static".
if updating or reconfiguring, I simply recompress into a new tar

viewtopic.php?p=23070#p23070

[JASpup]

Um....heh. Y'know, I don't quite think you understand how browsers work, JASpup.

You can't just simply delete stuff which, on the face of it - to YOU, apparently - seems to be totally irrelevant.

It's easier to follow when one starts being interested in why I would do it in the first place.

Before running Firefox new, the /root configuration directory doesn't even exist. Most people don't care, but I only want to save/preserve my Preferences. I don't care about everything else. To me it's extraneous, because it's automatically created running the browser. I don't want the rest in my pupsave.

[JASpup]

rather than nuke it, I set up my browser configs, then use williams2 method to make it "static".
if updating or reconfiguring, I simply recompress into a new tar

viewtopic.php?p=23070#p23070

First, it removes all traces of Firefox from the file system. Anything that was in there from the last time I used Firefox is gone.
Then it unzips my clean firefox, which is exactly what was there when I last explicitly saved it.
firefox.tar.gz is the firefox program.
firefoxcfg.tar.gz is the configuration files.
Then it starts Firefox.

Reads good. Taersh does something like this with SFS.

That's what I want, a 'fix it and forget it' for every standalone browser for any distro that runs it, and the same for each installed browser.

I copy the configuration files off ram, but I'd have to write a script to automate putting them back each boot and running. I speculated just pupsaving the files that mattered might be easier (let Firefox copy the rest).

Overall I don't want multiple browsers in ram, just their static configurations.

[mikewalsh]

Um....heh. Y'know, I don't quite think you understand how browsers work, JASpup.

You can't just simply delete stuff which, on the face of it - to YOU, apparently - seems to be totally irrelevant.

It's easier to follow when one starts being interested in why I would do it in the first place.

Before running Firefox new, the /root configuration directory doesn't even exist. Most people don't care, but I only want to save/preserve my Preferences. I don't care about everything else. To me it's extraneous, because it's automatically created running the browser. I don't want the rest in my pupsave.

Mm-hm. In that case, do what many of us do; keep the profile directory outside the 'save', and sym-link it into the correct place inside where Firefox expects to find it. If you want to keep your personal userprefs.js file inside, create the profile directory outside, then sym-link all internal items apart from that one into a 'matching' profile folder in the correct location within the save.....then put the 'real' userprefs.js file inside with all the other sym-linked items.

I do something similar with the Iron & Vivaldi browsers. Both 32- and 64-bit versions share a common profile directory.....with the exception of the Widevine config file. This remains within each dedicated profile, because it's both binary- AND $path-specific. Everything else is either a text-file, a database (non binary-specific), or those weird storage files peculiar to the Chromium browsers (which again, are only 'data' internally).

That may be the best approach, given what mrmazda told you about the userprefs.js file taking precedence over the prefs.js file.....

With Puppy, the sky's the limit; use your imagination, and be prepared to think 'outside the box' a wee bit. Puppy's sym-link function will let you pull stunts like this, which almost anywhere else would be discouraged, and deliberately made hard to accomplish.

Mike.

[williwaw]

Reads good. Taersh does something like this with SFS.

That's what I want, a 'fix it and forget it' for every standalone browser for any distro that runs it, and the same for each installed browser.

I copy the configuration files off ram, but I'd have to write a script to automate putting them back each boot and running. I speculated just pupsaving the files that mattered might be easier (let Firefox copy the rest).

Overall I don't want multiple browsers in ram, just their static configurations.

sfs or tar, the principle is the same.

I keep the configs and the browser together with this..viewtopic.php?p=3944#p3944

I also maintain the tarred portable outside my savefile, and use the same for all my pups and dogs by just linking the uncompress script to each desktop.

[8Geee]

6 years no problems in root using firefox. Slacko5.7 and Precise-lite5.7.2 from FF23 to 78.9esr.
As previously mention Puppy is NOT your run-of-the-mill OS.

Posting from"AtomicPreciseXXI" the latest thing in my neck of woods. Sound in YouTube to boot.

Regards
8Geee

[JASpup]

Best way to keep the configuration static?

(same data each boot before browser applications modify the standalone config files)

Mrmazda called called the file user.js. Any difference?

Mm-hm. In that case, do what many of us do; keep the profile directory outside the 'save', and sym-link it into the correct place inside where Firefox expects to find it. If you want to keep your personal userprefs.js file inside, create the profile directory outside, then sym-link all internal items apart from that one into a 'matching' profile folder in the correct location within the save.....then put the 'real' userprefs.js file inside with all the other sym-linked items.

I do something similar with the Iron & Vivaldi browsers. Both 32- and 64-bit versions share a common profile directory.....with the exception of the Widevine config file. This remains within each dedicated profile, because it's both binary- AND $path-specific. Everything else is either a text-file, a database (non binary-specific), or those weird storage files peculiar to the Chromium browsers (which again, are only 'data' internally).

That may be the best approach, given what mrmazda told you about the userprefs.js file taking precedence over the prefs.js file.....

[JASpup]

@Electrojim

6 years no problems in root using firefox. Slacko5.7 and Precise-lite5.7.2 from FF23 to 78.9esr.