JeffM wrote: >>If a newbie can do damage >>without any prompt that what he is doing is dangerous, >>he gets a fowl impression of "Linux" >>--because Puppy is a poor implementation of Linux. >> >>Again, with Puppy, it's too easy for a n00b to get a bad impression >>when one of the selling points of a proper Linux distro >>is that that kind of crap doesn't happen. >> >>Now, if someone absolutely MUST have Puppy, >>there is **one** extant version which has proper userlevels >>(i.e. you're **not** always running as root). >>http://google.com/search?q=PuppyLinux+MultiUser&hl=all >>You *won't*, however, spot that one >>when you go thru the front door of any Puppy site. 8-( >> >>...and running *any* Puppy from **non-writable** media is OK >>as the OS can't get borked that way. >>As soon as you *install* Puppy, however, >>(any except the one exemplar), Puppy becomes vulnerable.>> >> doc@ kd4e.com wrote: > This is so filled with error >it would take too long to refute them properly, > I wish you would make the effort to educate me.
>but here's the short list: > >There are *several* versions of Puppy with user accounts. >FatDog 64 comes to mind but I *know* that there are more. > So far, I count 2 proper Puplets: your 1 and my 1. More names of actual exemplars would be welcome. That's what? 2 percent of Puplets? ...and, again, you don't see either of those when you go in the front door of Puppy sites --especially not with a tag on them that says DOESN'T SUCK LIKE REGULAR PUPPY. Sorry. You're not going to convince me that the philosophy of the chief developer of Puppy is not critically flawed. I *am* willing to acknowledge Puplet developers who do it right. >Fluppy[...]utilizes a Trash folder > ..and I assume runs as root--again, like Win9x. ...or XandrOS, or Dyne:bolic, or Lindows/Linspire/Freespire. >It is as easy, or easier, to add and remove apps from Puppy >than in MS versions of windows. > ANY Linux distro's package management is orders of magnitude better than whatever Micros~1has. I won't argue in favor of M$'s junk on any level. I am willing to advocate for Linux distros --but not defective-by-design distros. >It is just as easy, or easier, to "bork" MS versions of windows - > Again, I won't defend M$'s crap. I hold them up as examples of what NOT to do. To the extent that Puppy repeats Windoze's mistakes (especially those of Win9x), I condemn Puppy as unsuitable. _______________________________________________ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
