|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Idea #29025: New users need a simple default option that will set up a separate /home
|
|
This idea was marked as being not considered for implementation the 8 April 12.
|
|
Written by fabricator4 the 23 Dec 11 at 18:59.
Related project:
Live CD installer.
Status: Won't implement
|
|
|
Rationale
Experienced users will usually set up a separate /home partition because it makes re-installation and recovery of the root system partition so much easier. New users however need a simple option that will do the same thing for them the first time they install Ubuntu.
Anyone providing support on forums such as Launchpad Questions and Ubuntu Forums knows that a common problem is inexperienced or careless users not doing sufficient backups before attempting an on-line upgrade or other modification of their system. Damaged file systems where /home is on the / partition can make recovery of data quite difficult, especially when trying to coach someone through the forums. Having a separate /home partition would reduce the risk to the user's data and would in most cases reduce the system recovery to a re-installation of the system on the / partition.
While this idea has been proposed in years past, the proposed implementations have been elaborate and the objections to the them don't do justice to either the needs of new users or the abilities of experienced users. While a new user won't have any idea themselves about the best way to set up / and /home partitions, all that is really required (for the average new desktop user) is a 15Gb / partition and the rest allocated for /home. We don't need to over think this but the need for it to be implemented is quite desperate since it will give new Linux users a more robust system that is easier to maintain in the long term, and will reduce the burden on volunteers providing support in forums such as Launchpad Questions and Ubuntu Forums.
In the past objections have included things like concerns over the configuration not being suitable for large database users. Such users would not be considered inexperienced since the use of large databases, server setups or other dedicated systems is really the requirement of an experienced user and they will set the system up manually to suit the task requirements. Inexperienced users attempting such configurations would be setting up test systems first to explore the possibilities, and would quickly gain experience in this aspect of system configuration. In short, they are not what anyone would consider a 'normal' desktop user.
Another objection to this idea has been that it would be too difficult for users to change the partition sizes if that needed to. 15Gb would be quite sufficient for a new user to install Ubuntu and a great many programs from the repositories, while at the same time being a rather insignificant amount of space to use on modern hard drives. In addition to this, providing that both partitions are next to each other and either both primary partitions or on the same extended partition resizing is a simple matter with Gparted: this is much easier than deciding after installation that a separate /home is required and (1) Resizing and moving partitions to make space (2) Creating a new partition for /home, (3)setting up the new home to be recognized by Ubuntu (fstab) and (4) migrating all the user's data to the new partition.
|
|
65
votes
|
|
69
2
4
|
|
|
|
|
38
votes
|
|
46
4
8
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
votes
|
|
20
4
16
|
|
|
|
|
|
Propose your solution
Attachments
No attachments.
Duplicates
Comments
cheesehead
(Brainstorm admin)
wrote on the 26 Dec 11 at 11:25
|
|
|
This idea is a retread of Idea #5390 from three years ago. Developers from the Ubuntu Installer Team did respond to that idea, essentially saying that they weren't interested in adding the feature, and explaining why.
Since the Installer Team has previously rejected this Rationale, solutions should be implemented by the community and contributed to Ubuntu.
Approving for 30 days to gauge community interest and ideas for a either a non-installer solution, or some kind of clear/non-confusing solution that the Installer team will accept if contributed.
|
|
turbolad
wrote on the 26 Dec 11 at 15:48
|
|
|
This is an *excellent* idea and should be considered seriously.
A dedicated /home partition would allow users' to CLEANLY upgrade (or downgrade) Ubuntu without formatting and deleting their /home directories, which contains the users personal files - these /home directories also contain every program's settings for each User Account. The Ubuntu installer could leave the /home partition intact (or create it) - by default - when setting up the file system and swap partition during installation.
The only one major criticism of Ubuntu is upgrading Ubuntu can break things, but if that were to happen, the user can re-install the previous Ubuntu without losing their /home contents (another idea in itself: option to downgrade Ubuntu if the user is not happy with the new version lol).
Is it possible to have the /home partition size change as needed e.g. if free space outside of /home runs low - if that ever happens in the "real world" desktop setup?
Finally, I hope the moderators don't delete this idea too soon - the person who wrote this idea knows what they're talking about. :)
|
|
|
I fully agree with Solution #1. It is well thought-out and takes into account smaller hard drives. A size of 15Gb is rather large, but probably a good idea as a default size.
Solution #2 is not so good for the simple reason that the "normal" intended user (i.e. the "human" in "Linux for humans") will not know what the installer is talking about (such users often don't know what a partition is -- they are usually accustomed to thinking about C: drive, D: drive and so forth).
|
|
turbolad
wrote on the 26 Dec 11 at 16:29
|
|
|
|
@PaddyLandau hence I wrote solution #3 which would take care of "normal" users and newbies installing Ubuntu; such users accept the default settings.
|
|
turbolad
wrote on the 26 Dec 11 at 18:30
|
|
|
!! IMPORTANT QUESTION !!
Would a separate /home partition allow every user to have an encrypted /home directory?
Consider that the Ubuntu installer must take into account encrypted /home directories - or /home partitions - when installing newer (or older) versions of Ubuntu, whether installing Ubuntu over a previous version or CLEANLY installing Ubuntu. From my understanding, the /home directory (or /home partition) is intended for storing personal files and settings rather than system-wide use.
Encrypting the /home directories for each user is essential for keeping users' personal files private. Consider that if Ubuntu were installed on a laptop that is stolen, an encrypted /home directory would at least keep private files encrypted!
|
|
|
@turbolad
Yes the user could still have an encrypted home directory. There would be no significant change in how this works, it's just that the configuration of a separate /home partition would be done automatically rather than the user having to know exactly how to set it up.
Ease of downgrading is also a very good point and I'm glad you brought it up. The install-over option in Ubuntu doesn't work all the time (as I found in testing) and there are particular problems with this when downgrading. A clean formatting install gets around this problem if the /home is on a separate and unformatted partition.
@PaddyLandau:
Both options 1 and 2 that I proposed give the _option_ of setting up a separate /home - they don't force this and only the way it is asked varies. Option 1 adds to the available install options by adding and extra "Use entire disk with separate home" and "install alongside with separate home" while the second option does not change the initial options but instead subsequently asks the user if they would like a separate /home. This might be the better option since it keeps the initial screen simpler and separates the idea of a separate /home, and would also give more space to give an explanation of the benefits of a separate /home. This would be my favourite option for these reasons.
Chris
|
|
teh603
wrote on the 27 Dec 11 at 02:43
|
|
|
I like number three, however, I've had problems with /home decrypting on low-resources systems. In most cases, simply having a password- protected login will be sufficient data protection against casual thieves. Basically, it removes the "low- hanging fruit." So I don't really like the idea of having /home encryption turned on by default.
It would also increase the number of times a user enters their password, thus rendering them slightly more vulnerable to social engineering attacks. The less times we require password entry, the more important it becomes.
I imagine that if /home encryption were required, the person installing the data would know enough to turn it on, and the computer would be powerful enough to handle it.
|
|
|
I'm not sure why the question of encryption keeps coming up, unless I'm missing something (I don't use encryption myself) As far as I'm aware having a separate /home partition has absolutely nothing to do with whether it's encrypted or not.
Chris
|
|
|
Encryption is an important consideration. Many people use it, especially for desktops holding sensitive data or for laptops and netbooks. Some business have policies that require it.
A fresh installation currently will cause the home folder's encrypted data to be lost, unless some poorly-documented, user-unfriendly steps are taken both prior to and after installation.
Therefore, I would like to see encryption taken into account in the installer. At the very least, a clear warning should be given if the installer detects that the home folder contains one or more encrypted accounts and the partition is not being reformatted; but preferably having the encryption taken over seamlessly (which would require a password to be entered for each encrypted account).
|
|
teh603
wrote on the 27 Dec 11 at 22:14
|
|
|
@PaddyLandau- The problem is that having too much encryption and too many password screens causes the user to become used to entering their password without asking why they're entering it. And that's where social engineering attacks start taking place; people get tricked into installing packages blindly because "Oh, its just another password screen."
As a side note to "sensitive" data- if it might require an encrypted drive, why not just disconnect the computers handling it from the internet? You can have a private LAN with no outside network connections, and be a lot more secure. Anonymous can't hack a system that's not on the internet.
|
|
turbolad
wrote on the 27 Dec 11 at 23:05
|
|
|
I want to clear up this encryption thing and yes I do agree with the points made above about having too many prompts for the password.
From my understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong at any point), the encrypted /home directories don't just encrypt the users files from outside access - but also prevent other people with USER ACCOUNTS on that SAME computer from accessing other people's /home directories. Full disk encryption alone would only prevent access to the encrypted contents if the hard drive were mounted (without the correct password) e.g. from another Linux live CD/DVD/USB. With full disk encryption, once the correct password is entered, the entire contents are then accessible.
In order for the /home partition idea to work with the encrypted /home directories, there needs to be an automatic way of preserving the encrypted /home directories - without prompting for every users' password - when Ubuntu is being installed, either cleanly installed, upgraded or downgraded.
I hope this clears things up.
|
|
|
The question of encrypting the entire /home partition or just ~/ is a completely separate issue, and you should start your own brainstorm idea on this. Please don't hijack this thread, it's far too important (in my opinion of course).
Thankyou.
|
|
turbolad
wrote on the 29 Dec 11 at 01:54
|
|
|
@fabricator4 This thread has not been "hijacked" by the encryption issue. The encrypted /home problem is *very* important - if the /home partition idea is implemented to magically solve all the problems caused by installing Ubuntu at the expense of breaking the /home encryption (which many Ubuntu users' take for granted), then we have a *major* problem.
Provided the /home partition does not break the encrypted /home directories and does not require the Ubuntu installer to ask for ever users' password, then we can stop talking about the encryption issue. Until then, this is a serious "brick wall".
The issue is "solved" when it's guaranteed that installing/upgrading/downgrading Ubuntu with a separate /home partition has no effect whatsoever on the encrypted /home directories and these can be accessed normally when the users log in with their correct passwords, and of course the encrypted /home directories stay encrypted.
|
|
sarincv
wrote on the 18 Jan 12 at 10:12
|
|
|
|
I like the solution #2. At present, the installer asks if the user needs a separate swap partition. Why don't we make the installer ask the same for a /home partition??
|
|
|
|
Removed solution #4. If you would like to debate the merits of HAVING a separate home folder (notice how all the other solutions state it as an OPTION), please do so in the COMMENT section. Also note that separate home folders are NOT only to accomodate dual-boot but also to aid in reinstalls, multiple FS types, encryption, etc.
|
|
cheesehead
(Brainstorm admin)
wrote on the 8 Apr 12 at 00:48
|
|
|
Closing in Brainstorm.
After three months (instead of one month), there is still interest...but nobody has refuted the reasons for won't-implement posted in Idea #5390, nor has anyone stepped up to lead a community effort to implement it.
|
Post your comment
|
|
|
