Dennis McCunney a exprimé avec précision : > On 4/2/2010 4:30 PM, * JeffM: >> Paul wrote: >>> I also don't see why every one is so worried about viruses, zombies, etc. >>> >> When you use an OS that has you always running as root >> (e.g. the standard version of Puppy), >> drive-by infections and the ability of any user to bork the OS >> are constant worries. >> >> The logical solution is to get an OS that has proper user levels. >> There has been a Puplet with this feature since November 2009.
> Puppy gets away with it because it's an explicitly single-user system. > There *aren't* other users to bork the OS. If Puppy was a shared > system, that would be an issue, but if you expect others besides you to > ever use the box, Puppy isn't what you run. > (I've seen discussions on the Puppy forum who want to set up the system > so others like family members can use it. That's not a simple task.) > And the likelihood of "drive by infections" is minimal, considering that > it's a Linux system, and by default uses SeaMonkey 1.1X as the > browser/email client. > If you think about it, MS-DOS, and Windows up to Vista used the "the > logged on user is administrator with all powers" approach. Vista caused > much wailing and gnashing of teeth because it defaulted to a "power > user" profile and required "run as admin" settings for many things > people were used to doing, but it's arguably what Windows should have > done to begin with. > I run Puppy, as well as Ubuntu 9.10 on an old Fujitsu Lifebook p2110 > with an 867mhz Crusoe processor, 256MB RAM, and a 40GB UDMA 4 HD. I got > Puppy because I was looking for a distro that would actually run > acceptably on limited hardware. Puppy does, more or less. I originally > installed Xubuntu along with Puppy, but it was snail slow. Wiping the > partition, reformatting as ext4, and installing Ubuntu from the > MinimalCD to get a bare bones command line instalaltion, then grabbing > Xfce4 and other preferred packages with apt-get produced a system that > isn't as sprightly as Puppy, but is usable if I'm patient. > I have static builds of SM 1.1.19 and 2.04, and Opera 10.10 installed > under Puppy, as well as Google Chrome 5.0 Beta, Firefox 3.6 and a few > other things like Midori and Dillo installed. To the extent I browse > from the Puppy box, I use SM 1.1.19. FF 3.6 is my preferred browser on > my desktop, bit it's just too bag and slow on the Puppy box (it takes > over 30 seconds just to load, and is sluggish once up.) SeaMonkey 2.04 > isn't much better. Unfortunately, current versions of Mozilla products > just aren't suitable for lower end kit. They need more horsepowwer than > the box is likely to have. > Puppy tends to get installed on lower end hardware that things like Red > Hat, SuSE and Ubuntu are simply too much for. (My Puppy box is about in > the middle of what is run in Puppy land. There are machines with 200mhz > CPUs and 64MB RAM successfully running versions of Puppy. Try that with > most distros, and see how far you get.) > I started using *nix in the 80's with AT&T System V Release 2, and have > used a variety of flavors since. Puppy's "All root, all the time" > approach took considerable adjustment, and I'd like to run a multi-user > version. (Puppy forum member Pizzasgood's puplet is based on the 4.21 > release, and reproducing his work in the current 4.31 release would be a > challenge.) So I grit my teeth, and run s root, but security isn't my > big concern when I do so. > ______ > Dennis Hi, nice to see you here as well. There is nothing I can add to this. Béèm -- [URL=http://users.kbc.skynet.be/fi001005] *Belgische Ardennen - Ardennes Belge [/URL] _______________________________________________ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
