The "Microsofting" of Linux

Given our last topic, it's interesting that we fall into this one.

While we love to hammer at proprietary companies like Microsoft for "dumbing down" the interaction for users, it's something of a shock when we realize that some Linux distros are doing the exact same thing.

FACT: Fedora 10 ( and 9 as well, but let's focus on what I can actually quote.) has been admittedly hobbled in the root user logon. Supposedly, this is to provide a safety net for new users.

I am curious as to exactly when Fedora, of all distros, became a distro that ONLY "newbies" use.

Is this move really to help new users, or is it to prevent the developers and forum mods, help staff etc.. not have to hear about common errors some users are likely to make?

Linux in general is supposed to be "open" Open source, open to checking source code, open to usage.

How "open" can Linux be if a Linux user is deliberately inhibited in how they use or access their distro simply to save the powers that be from hearing about newbie errors?

For most distros, and Fedora is no exception, there are plenty of tools to "harden", lock down and otherwise secure a users OS, be it in use as a desktop or a server.

There are apps and tools like Bastille and fail2ban and SELinux and AppArmor, firewalls, intrusion detectors and so on, that can be implemented as the user decides they want to implement them. THAT is "open" my friends, when I decide what and how I use my system, not some group of devs who grow weary of users "oops" lamentations.

If I wanted the company that provides the OS I use to do my thinking for me, I would probably still be using MS products.

Now, I don't mean to pick on Fedora too hard. They have a nice distro that in many other respects is just fine.

It would be a shame though, to see other distros en masse, jump onto this "Joe User is too dumb to use our distro" attitude.

To all developers out there who w appreciate all your hard work and participation, just keep in mind, as you expect for yourself, we might be installing a distro that someone else put together, but once it is installed on my computer, it is my distro, to make the decisions as I feel necessary.

It's called respect. Just as you like to receive as well.

UPDATE:

Seeing the confusion people have understanding that I am not discussing the mere disabling of the root user account, such as Ubuntu does. That has a quick fix in simply activating the root user and root has full access to the system, as it should.

This is more inhibiting that that in it limits the access and capabilities root has while logged in as root. Whether you think one should log in as root or not, is your one opinion, there are many arguable points to either side of that discussion. It is a matter of access and someone else forcing you, by default, to work with a computer the way they want you to and not the way you perhaps might choose to.

That is "Big Brother". Yes, one can search and try to find workarounds or fixes, but the point is, going to such lengths to do so should be unnecessary.

It isn't that Fedora has done this, it's that ANY distro would choose to do so. Also, this is not a 'typical' approach to using Linux, not only do they inhibit the root users capabilities, they do not inform anyone that access to root is different than what they might expect.

If there were at least a warning or notice that such changes are present, one could decide upfront whether or not that is the type of system they want to take the time to install on their system.

It isn't 'elitism' to expect a distro to be productive and accessible out of the box. Those are the same demands that people make of Windows and of the new development of Linux as a whole. To be accessible and productive out of the box.

Once again, I am not "bashing" Fedora for this, I am using them as an example of a company or group of developers that decide they are somehow responsible for thinking that they must force users to use a system as the group demands, rather than letting users decide for themselves how they want to use it.

It's the mentality that I would say is the problem. Moreso, it is one thing to give someone sage advice on how the best way to do something or accomplish desired results, it is something else entirely to force them to do it.

Perhaps "dumbing down" isn't the correct phrase here. It's more like trying to making something "foolproof" so as to protect people from themselves. Welcome to the U.S.S.L