sudo to startx??!

[deadly7]

Ok, so two nights ago I left "slapt-get --upgrade" running for me because, due to the fact that I'm on a fresh install of Slackware, my software was way behind.  Now, last time I did this I remember needing "libcairo.so.2" so before my upgrade I went and got cairo-1.0.2-i486-1.tgz from the Slackware ftp.  After the upgrade I opened Firefox to see if it worked, and I was running Firefox v1.5.0.4.
I turned off my computer and started it today.  I log in, whatever, "startx"
It gives me an error about not being able to access /home/deadly7/.ICEauthority and shut off X.
I did:
$ cd ~/
$ ls
And the file wasn't there.
So I tried "sudo startx"
And that worked.  Is there any workaround for this or am I just stuck with it?

[Quik]

First of all, the reason you weren't able to see it is because it's dotICEathority. Just like bash history and whatnot, it won't show up in a ls. Try cd ~/ && pico .ICEathority

[Ergot]

ls -a
I like --dist-upgrade better. Followed by some --install-set [a/ap/d/etc..]

[Joe]

Using --upgrade is a real nice way to break dependancies and kill your system.

[deadly7]

You know, you guys suck at helping me. :p

[Joe]

deadly: zomg, my system broke
Joe: --upgrade tends to do that
Ergot: Use --dist-upgrade

[Ergot]

deadly: zomg, my system broke
Joe: --upgrade tends to do that
Ergot: Use --dist-upgrade

Mmhmm! Just do what I said and next time keep an eye on the changelog. >

[deadly7]

Zomg even after dist-upgrade it no work unless I do sudo.
"/home/deadly7/.xinitrc: line 58: xcreensaver: command not found
Agent pid 1464
which: no dbus-launch in (/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/X11R6/bin:/usr/games:/usr/lib/java/bin:/usr/lib/java/jre/bin:/opt/kde/bin:/usr/lib/qt/bin:.)
xfce4-session: Unable to access file /home/deadly7/.ICEauthority: Permission denied
Agent pid 1464 killed"

[Joe]

"/home/deadly7/.xinitrc: line 58: xcreensaver: command not found

xcreensaver? Man.. I wonder why it doesn't work?

EDIT -
touch ~/.ICEauthority

[Sidoh]

touch joesmom

[wires]

Go ArchLinux!  Haven't had any problems yet.  Easy to update too, without breaking anything.

[deadly7]

Meh.
sudo chmod 0777 /home/deadly7/.ICEauthority
sudo chmod 0777 /home/deadly7/.Xauthority
gg
Closed.

[iago]

Meh.
sudo chmod 0777 /home/deadly7/.ICEauthority
sudo chmod 0777 /home/deadly7/.Xauthority
gg
Closed.

0777 is dumb. 

It sounds like root owns your configuration files. 

do:
chown -R yourusername.users /home/yourusername

Then set the permissions on your home directory to 0700 (unless you're running a webserver; then it should be 0711). 

Then set your configuration files to 0700. 

[deadly7]

It works!

[iago]

But it's dumb.  It gives anybody access to write to your files.  I don't care if you're the only user, using 0777 isn't something you should be accustomed to. 

If the owner is set properly, then 0700 will give you r/w/x access.  If it doesn't, then you don't own the file.  If you don't own the file, then "chown -R yourusername.users /home/yourusername" will fix it.  So do that instead. 

[deadly7]

:\
I did it your way. Whatever.  I'm the only one in my family that even remotely knows how to use Linux. My brother's probably used Red Hat once or twice at work, but he doesn't make a habit of it.  He's sorta like War.

[MyndFyre]

I don't care if you're the only user, using 0777 isn't something you should be accustomed to. 

QFT.  It's like solving a permissions problem on Windows by assigning the Everyone group Full Access.

It's just not smart.

[iago]

I don't care if you're the only user, using 0777 isn't something you should be accustomed to. 

QFT.  It's like solving a permissions problem on Windows by assigning the Everyone group Full Access.

It's just not smart.

Yeah, that's how I eventually fixed Windows' permission problems.  But I think that it's an awful lot easier to assign permissions and access on Linux, because on Windows it seemed absolutely horrible. 

[Joe]

As far as I knew, the UNIX-style permissions were three numbers. What's the 0 mean in 0777?

[Sidoh]

As far as I knew, the UNIX-style permissions were three numbers. What's the 0 mean in 0777?

Octal notation.

[iago]

As far as I knew, the UNIX-style permissions were three numbers. What's the 0 mean in 0777?

Octal notation.

Correct.  Although chmod numbers are always octal, the leading 0 is added for the benefit of anybody reading it. 

The 0 can also be a 1, 2, or 4 for interesting effects.  Try it out!

Hint:

ron@South:~$ chmod 01700 test.txt; ls -l test.txt
-rwx-----T  1 ron users 0 2006-06-27 15:28 test.txt*

ron@South:~$ chmod 02700 test.txt; ls -l test.txt
-rwx--S---  1 ron users 0 2006-06-27 15:28 test.txt*

ron@South:~$ chmod 03700 test.txt; ls -l test.txt
-rwx--S--T  1 ron users 0 2006-06-27 15:28 test.txt*

ron@South:~$ chmod 04700 test.txt; ls -l test.txt
-rws------  1 ron users 0 2006-06-27 15:28 test.txt*

[MyndFyre]

I don't care if you're the only user, using 0777 isn't something you should be accustomed to. 

QFT.  It's like solving a permissions problem on Windows by assigning the Everyone group Full Access.

It's just not smart.

Yeah, that's how I eventually fixed Windows' permission problems.  But I think that it's an awful lot easier to assign permissions and access on Linux, because on Windows it seemed absolutely horrible. 

Again... it's because you don't know how to use it.  To me, it seems like Linux permissions are absolutely horrible.  And I even have a passing understanding of chmod! 

[iago]

Linux permissions are very simple, but perfectly functional, which I prefer.  Windows gets too complicated and make it too easy to make a mistake.  I've seen veteran Windows users fighting with permissions enough times...

[MyndFyre]

Linux permissions come in the form:

Owner, Everyone else, Root

and

Read, Write, eXecute (or special execute as the case may be).

Right?

NTFS permissions are much more granular, granting access to objects based on the thread context's Principal, which has its own security identity (SID) and group membership, where each group has its own SID.  NTFS permissions also are more granular as to what can be assigned; read, write, execute, and modify are the basic permissions, but there are also others which include the right to take ownership or backup.

So, where you say complicated, I see robust. 

[Sidoh]

I like Linux permissions, but if I were running a server for a larget network, I think I would prefer NTFS.

[Chavo]

I like to change peoples passwords at random, thats permissions for you!

(note: I don't really do that, but oddly enough a certain client accused a coworker of doing so