Re: Lindows
Ken Moffat wrote: > Did you see the message that said they were coming out with Mandrake > boxes? Seems a bit bleeding edge, but very hopeful... > The're also going to be selling them with Mandrake. http://newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=02/06/19/1519219 ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Re: Lindows
Jay Nugent wrote: > > I just ordered one for my Dad. > Total bill, including shipping was $414.00 > > I'm game to give Lindows a try. If it sucks I can always reload the >box with RedHat or Debian or SuSE or whatever.. > Did you see the message that said they were coming out with Mandrake boxes? Seems a bit bleeding edge, but very hopeful... ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Re: lindows comes to walmart
Also a very positive article about this in the New York Times On Saturday 15 June 2002 09:48 am,Ken Moffat wrote: > Any opinions on Lindows? > > On Fri, 14 Jun 2002 07:51:49 -0700 > > Jim Bonnet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Very interesting article on newsforge about lindows being sold > > stock on machines at walmart.. -- Tony Alfrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] "I'd rather be sailing" ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Re: lindows comes to walmart
Tyler Regas wrote: > VMware Workstation offers warnings on all operations that can be > disabled when the user is familiar with everything. There is also an > option to turn them all off at once. I wouldn't be surprised to find > that there was an option in the console install that turned it off > before it ever showed the first warning. > > This is just me, oc, but I don't find that to be anything like that > damned paperclip. VMware Workstation is considered a tool for > professionals. The very same professionals that you claim don't want > warnings for everything. Its very likely they don't, but continued > experience with a system is required before even the smartest admin > doesn't need help anymore. Which is why man pages, documentation, and training exist. It's also why test platforms are called that, to test on. You NEVER make a change on a production system unless you know exactly what you're doing. If anyone could do it, why would we even need SysAdmins? To fix the mistakes made by those who think they know what they're doing. Most will be the first to say they *don't* know everything, but also that they will diligently search for the answer beforehand and not depend on a confirmation dialog to catch their mistakes. > Using your doctor reference... Imagine if a doctor was using a laser to > correct your vision and that the slightest mistake would leave you blind. > When the doctor sets the coordinates or whatever they set into the > system, would you want him or her to just blindly click the "Burn" > button, confident that despite their humanity they never make mistakes, or > would it make you feel better if they were required to doublecheck all > of their settings against your needs before proceeding? Is your sight > worth an additional minute or two? A doctor also doesn't have backups to restore from, redundant hardware mirroring capabilities, and DOES have insurance if he makes a mistake. He also doesn't let the receptionist hone her skills on patients. That's exactly why you can't let normal users play doctor. > I don't make this argument because I don't understand. I make it because > we need to develop interfaces (which doesn't necessarily mean GUI) that > work with whomever gets on the system. Nobody, even an admin, should be > allowed to destroy an entire installation because they have the > priviledges to edit config files. This is bad design. In another light, > would you feel slighted or shut out if you were disallowed from changing > a LILO or GRUB configuration parameter that would cause the system to no > longer work? Would it not be enough to be able to modify LILO or GRUB to > boot in various ways without having access to damaging alterations? Somebody has to be able to do anything, even if it's rm -rf /* otherwise we're back to a system that's not in our control. Just like what Microsoft sells. > Maybe you're right. Maybe I just don't get it... I "got it" after having to rebuild numerous machines caused by users who hosed production boxes because they were granted privileges they should never have had. They caused hundreds of other users a lot of pain, grief, lost work, and money. And guess who was caught in the middle? If you fixed it you were a saint, if you couldn't, you were a sinner, even if you didn't commit the sin, you just inherited it. It's not the best way to learn why things are the way they are. :) -- Andrew Mathews 4:45pm up 35 days, 16:24, 9 users, load average: 1.00, 1.00, 1.00 Is this TERMINAL fun? ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Re: lindows comes to walmart
On Sat, 15 Jun 2002 16:55:06 -0400 begin Joel Hammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spewed forth: > The security issue is not insignificant. However, I think that the main > damage done by MS is to have given birth to a generation of computer > users who have no concept of computer security. How this will work out > when a bunch of linux computers go on line as root is anybody's guess. The same kind of concerns about M$ providing the world the ability to open raw sockets. Few users know what they are, and no ordinary user has any business being able to open one. System security is but one issue. No one will connect to a network of mine with a Lindows computer if ordinary users are running as root. Not until _all_ traffic is encrypted before it leaves the box. [snip] Ciao, David A. Bandel -- Focus on the dream, not the competition. -- Nemesis Racing Team motto ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Re: lindows comes to walmart
The security issue is not insignificant. However, I think that the main damage done by MS is to have given birth to a generation of computer users who have no concept of computer security. How this will work out when a bunch of linux computers go on line as root is anybody's guess. I sure hope Lindows has success. I visited their web page. I am not quite sure of how they will do it. But, I get the impression that you will be able to download lots of stuff, some likely not compatible with your system, from the warehouse. Howerver, I hope they will be certifying software as comptible with lindows so users will not be wasting their time with missing library issues, and the like. I agree that linux has to shed its "elitist" image if it is to be successful on the desktop and be just as easy as windows to use. An EASY LEARNING CURVE is essential. For example, I can use vi fairly well after many months of practice and frustration, but, even now I am still far from expert. I use vi in preference to all other wordprocessors. I realize now that all other wordprocessors are just crutches for the learning disabled, slow and clumsy but easy to learn and use. Despite this, vi hasn't become the dominant wordprocessor even in the linux world. So, an easy learning curve, not just efficiency and ease of use, seems crucial, and not just for windows users. Joel ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Re: lindows comes to walmart
> Now just "why" would I want to receive a warning message every time I > need to make a change as root? If I'm running as root, I'd damn well > better know what I'm doing, otherwise I shouldn't be doing it. That > solution reminds me of a paperclip that always tried to offer advice. > Stupid users that are unable to make a decision without being prompted > with "are you sure?" should either seek more training or a different > occupation. I sure wouldn't want a doctor or mechanic that needed to be > prompted with that. And yes, the information, financial records, credit > reports and other data can be just as important as a doctor's scalpel or > a mechanic's wrench. Can you imagine someone's investment portfolio > suddenly disappearing because everyone had root? VMware Workstation offers warnings on all operations that can be disabled when the user is familiar with everything. There is also an option to turn them all off at once. I wouldn't be surprised to find that there was an option in the console install that turned it off before it ever showed the first warning. This is just me, oc, but I don't find that to be anything like that damned paperclip. VMware Workstation is considered a tool for professionals. The very same professionals that you claim don't want warnings for everything. Its very likely they don't, but continued experience with a system is required before even the smartest admin doesn't need help anymore. Using your doctor reference... Imagine if a doctor was using a laser to correct your vision and that the slightest mistake would leave you blind. When the doctor sets the coordinates or whatever they set into the system, would you want him or her to just blindly click the "Burn" button, confident that despite their humanity they never make mistakes, or would it make you feel better if they were required to doublecheck all of their settings against your needs before proceeding? Is your sight worth an additional minute or two? I don't make this argument because I don't understand. I make it because we need to develop interfaces (which doesn't necessarily mean GUI) that work with whomever gets on the system. Nobody, even an admin, should be allowed to destroy an entire installation because they have the priviledges to edit config files. This is bad design. In another light, would you feel slighted or shut out if you were disallowed from changing a LILO or GRUB configuration parameter that would cause the system to no longer work? Would it not be enough to be able to modify LILO or GRUB to boot in various ways without having access to damaging alterations? Maybe you're right. Maybe I just don't get it... > > Not a slam, just trying to help you "grasp the idea" from the other > point of view. Not taken as such. :) -- Tyler Regas listmanager AT writerbase DOT com ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Re: lindows comes to walmart
> Nothing wrong as running as root except: > > 1. Those viruses will run with root priviledge, too. You should at least > read your email as a regular user. Fine. Can it be made to work seamlessly? What if there were a sub-root account that all apps ran in. Sort of a reverse su. > 2. You can alter crucial system files without wanting to. Is it impossible to add a checks and balances system to this? Don't admins want warnings on occasion? While not blowing their horn, MS seems to be able to create installers and other processes that can be easily modified to run without user interaction. > 3. It makes a mockery out of the concept of a multiuser computer system. How? Why should there have to be a single, all-powerful user that installs and other administration functions are limited to? Why can't a multi-user system allow all users to do as they wish with their settings? A real multi-user system should allow a user to do anything they wish with their user environment while protecting the domains of others. If I turn my install to shit I should be able to restore it from some ubiquitous backup without affecting the other users. This, oc, is a pipe dream, at least for now :) > That said, I can easily see the advantage of running always as root. I guess > Microsoft saw them, too. That's why they are so successful. MS is not successful because they understand the single-user environment. They are successful because they have no scruples in their business practices. > Joel > > > ___ > Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users > Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL. -- Tyler Regas listmanager AT writerbase DOT com ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Re: lindows comes to walmart
Pragmatically speaking, it's a non-issue. These are throw-away boxes. The most critical piece of data inside will be the latest joke-of-the day forwarded by Aunt Fredia. Most system corruption is not done by users poking around where they shouldn't, but by sloppy software installer programs. Or, in the case of Windows, by the O/S corrupting itself. If Linux is ever to become desktop mainstream, this is the sort of sacrilege that will the the order of the day. May as well get used to it. Michael On Saturday 15 June 2002 02:18 pm, Joel Hammer wrote: > Nothing wrong as running as root except: > > 1. Those viruses will run with root priviledge, too. You should at least > read your email as a regular user. > 2. You can alter crucial system files without wanting to. > 3. It makes a mockery out of the concept of a multiuser computer system. > > That said, I can easily see the advantage of running always as root. I > guess Microsoft saw them, too. That's why they are so successful. > > Joel > > > ___ > Linux-users mailing list - > http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe > info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL. ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Re: lindows comes to walmart
Tyler Regas wrote: >>it reportedly has the user run constantly as root. > > > I never understood that. It must be from my years on single-user systems. > I just can't grasp the idea that running a Linux box as a single user so > dramatically places said user in catastrophe's way. I do it all the time. > I never set up additional users. Not once have I done anything that I > couldn't have done as a user and no unauthorized persons have ever > gained access to my machine. But that doesn't make it right. That's like saying "I've fired my weapon thousands of times and never shot anyone else". It's a principle, not a statement of fact. Simplicity is still the common denominator in the fact that "if it's not installed on the system, it can't be compromised". Use BIND as an example. If it's not installed, the exploits used against it are worthless. It's no different for users accounts. If the user isn't allowed to do it, it isn't another security hole to worry about. If every user can edit /etc/passwd then what's the point of having passwords? User A can hose User B's account, and as User B I'd expect my account and work to be secure. On a single user system it's not a concern, but on a multi-user system there's a completely different scenario, which is why that principle is so much more relevant. How many single user mainframes do you think exist? UNIX was intended to be multi-user which is why that principle is highly relevant. So your argument is that it "can" be done and the community is that it "shouldn't" be done. It's been argued to death, but nonetheless "shouldn't" won't come back to bite you in the ass. > There's really no reason why a person should not be able to run as root > and still receive warnings about what they might do. It all really comes > down to user interface. Then again, if the coder doesn't want to add > these friendly aspects and count on the user being so savvy as to > question everything while providing little to no documentation, there's > nothing I can do to stop that. I'll simply use another tool. Now just "why" would I want to receive a warning message every time I need to make a change as root? If I'm running as root, I'd damn well better know what I'm doing, otherwise I shouldn't be doing it. That solution reminds me of a paperclip that always tried to offer advice. Stupid users that are unable to make a decision without being prompted with "are you sure?" should either seek more training or a different occupation. I sure wouldn't want a doctor or mechanic that needed to be prompted with that. And yes, the information, financial records, credit reports and other data can be just as important as a doctor's scalpel or a mechanic's wrench. Can you imagine someone's investment portfolio suddenly disappearing because everyone had root? Not a slam, just trying to help you "grasp the idea" from the other point of view. -- Andrew Mathews 1:10pm up 35 days, 12:49, 9 users, load average: 1.00, 1.02, 1.04 Work is of two kinds: first, altering the position of matter at or near the earth's surface relative to other matter; second, telling other people to do so. -- Bertrand Russell ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Re: lindows comes to walmart
begin Ken Moffat's quote: | jeez! Windows based security model. or, to put in another way: http://www.linuxandmain.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=102 -- dep http://www.linuxandmain.com -- outside the box, barely within the envelope, and no animated paperclip anywhere. ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Re: lindows comes to walmart
Nothing wrong as running as root except: 1. Those viruses will run with root priviledge, too. You should at least read your email as a regular user. 2. You can alter crucial system files without wanting to. 3. It makes a mockery out of the concept of a multiuser computer system. That said, I can easily see the advantage of running always as root. I guess Microsoft saw them, too. That's why they are so successful. Joel ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Re: lindows comes to walmart
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, Hey! It's the worst of both worlds!! It's gonna be a success ;) On Sat, 15 Jun 2002 10:58:57 -0700, Ken Moffat wrote: >jeez! Windows based security model. > >On Sat, 15 Jun 2002 13:21:14 -0400 >dep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> begin Ken Moffat's quote: >> | Any opinions on Lindows? >> >> it reportedly has the user run constantly as root. >> -- >> dep >> >> http://www.linuxandmain.com -- outside the box, barely within the >> envelope, and no animated paperclip anywhere. >> ___ >> Linux-users mailing list - >> http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the >> above URL. >> > > >-- >Ken Moffat >kmoffat@(nospam)drizzle.com >___ >Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users >Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL. Federico Voges Socio gerente Intrasoft Malabia 2137 14 A (1425) Buenos Aires Argentina Te/Fax: 54-11-4833-5182 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.intrasoft.com.ar PGP Public Key Fingerprint: A536 4595 EB6F D197 FBC1 5C3A 145C 2516 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. iQA/AwUBPQuDMRRcJRaVKt4XEQI4uQCg6VqcMSiNfQ+W37WVCoYrPuWGZJQAn3nY Q6D78qVIfa69Za79S8PD1lxx =vM9P -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Re: lindows comes to walmart
jeez! Windows based security model. On Sat, 15 Jun 2002 13:21:14 -0400 dep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > begin Ken Moffat's quote: > | Any opinions on Lindows? > > it reportedly has the user run constantly as root. > -- > dep > > http://www.linuxandmain.com -- outside the box, barely within the > envelope, and no animated paperclip anywhere. > ___ > Linux-users mailing list - > http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users > Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the > above URL. > -- Ken Moffat kmoffat@(nospam)drizzle.com ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Re: lindows comes to walmart
> it reportedly has the user run constantly as root. I never understood that. It must be from my years on single-user systems. I just can't grasp the idea that running a Linux box as a single user so dramatically places said user in catastrophe's way. I do it all the time. I never set up additional users. Not once have I done anything that I couldn't have done as a user and no unauthorized persons have ever gained access to my machine. There's really no reason why a person should not be able to run as root and still receive warnings about what they might do. It all really comes down to user interface. Then again, if the coder doesn't want to add these friendly aspects and count on the user being so savvy as to question everything while providing little to no documentation, there's nothing I can do to stop that. I'll simply use another tool. That raises the question of where the line is for Linux as a fringe OS and when it becomes a mainstream OS. If Linux developers keep creating powerful but painful programs that assume the end user will compile the code, install required libraries, and run it from a console then Linux will never have a chance at the desktop. And to assume that systems adminitrators don't appreciate a little helping GUI hand is a mistake. The quicker an admin can get his job done and keep endusers from breathing down his/her neck and the more money he/she can make as a result, the happier they will be. Of course, the argument lies with the size and added complexity of UI libraries to run all this nice looking stuff, but there are a number of slim solutions. I must be damned lucky to never have had a serious problem because I ran in root. In fact, the largest problems have come from testing the kernel upgrade in the Mandrake GUI designed for end users. In early iterations of the Ximian GNOME desktop installer it ate the X config, forcing you to login via console. These are two examples of a helping GUI doing dastardly things, and they require root access. This would have happened even if I'd su'd in to do it. Just my $0.23.5 :) -- Tyler Regas listmanager AT writerbase DOT com ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Re: lindows comes to walmart
begin Ken Moffat's quote: | Any opinions on Lindows? it reportedly has the user run constantly as root. -- dep http://www.linuxandmain.com -- outside the box, barely within the envelope, and no animated paperclip anywhere. ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
Re: lindows comes to walmart
Any opinions on Lindows? On Fri, 14 Jun 2002 07:51:49 -0700 Jim Bonnet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Very interesting article on newsforge about lindows being sold stock > on machines at walmart.. -- Ken Moffat kmoffat@(nospam)drizzle.com ___ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
