"Linux is better thought-out than Windows"
-
lopati: roaming wrote:
sudo is only for children and below* (* - people that really should just stay on windows)
What a mixed message. The Linux graybeards all tell you to *always* run as a limited user and you're a fool if you ever login as root. Or am I misinterpreting your answer here?
yeah I'm more old fashioned, just start a [x]term, su, do the job, ^D out. (how many times are there a few instructions to get done? less work for my old fingers doing sudo ..., sudo ..., sudo ...) but also occasionally I'm on non-linux machine - sudo doesn't always exist and probably most likely "muscle memory" effect - more used to that way [without thinking too much].
-
Weird discussion in case of Win10. I use linux subsystem for linux within it. You can choose some linux distributions from windows store. I use, for example, firefox in linux on Win10 with success..
I'm glad you acknowledged that, I was about to, when to my surprise the last comment finally did. I was also going to point out that there was an awful lot of discussion about other OSes when clearly the OP just wanted to complain about Windows. But then again, there's plenty of discussion here when someone just asks a question that can be answered "yes" or "no."
-
Nathan Minier wrote:
if you install a graphical UI on a system that runs production-critical tasks, you're doing it wrong.
I take it most Linux distributions aren't intended to run production-critical tasks, then. I'll have to remember that argument.
Nathan Minier wrote:
If you don't want to UI to have those permissions....remove those permissions. It's not terribly hard, and it's generally not an oversight.
What you're saying is that most Linux distribution creators choose to ship in a "convenience over security" state.
dandy72 wrote:
I take it most Linux distributions aren't intended to run production-critical tasks, then. I'll have to remember that argument.
Wow. No, I said if you're using a UI for production critical tasks you're doing it wrong.
dandy72 wrote:
What you're saying is that most Linux distribution creators choose to ship in a "convenience over security" state.
Yes, just like Windows does.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
-
dandy72 wrote:
I take it most Linux distributions aren't intended to run production-critical tasks, then. I'll have to remember that argument.
Wow. No, I said if you're using a UI for production critical tasks you're doing it wrong.
dandy72 wrote:
What you're saying is that most Linux distribution creators choose to ship in a "convenience over security" state.
Yes, just like Windows does.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
Nathan Minier wrote:
Wow. No, I said if you're using a UI for production critical tasks you're doing it wrong.
...and thus, since most Linux distributions include a UI that gets installed by default, my comment stands...no? I feel like we're splitting hairs here...
-
Nathan Minier wrote:
Wow. No, I said if you're using a UI for production critical tasks you're doing it wrong.
...and thus, since most Linux distributions include a UI that gets installed by default, my comment stands...no? I feel like we're splitting hairs here...
I'm sorry, I sometimes forget that not everyone's "production environment" consists of servers and infrastructure. No, in fact. I haven't used a Linux distro that installs a UI by default in many, many years. In general I'm using RHEL, CentOS, and - for my project boxes - Arch. One of my basic criteria for selecting a distro is that it does not run a Display Manager (GUI), as that is a considerable increase in terms of system footprint that needs to be secured. This is a fairly standard mindset from a server SysAdmin point of view; security and compliance are hard enough without throwing unnecessary bells and whistles into the mix.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
-
I'm sorry, I sometimes forget that not everyone's "production environment" consists of servers and infrastructure. No, in fact. I haven't used a Linux distro that installs a UI by default in many, many years. In general I'm using RHEL, CentOS, and - for my project boxes - Arch. One of my basic criteria for selecting a distro is that it does not run a Display Manager (GUI), as that is a considerable increase in terms of system footprint that needs to be secured. This is a fairly standard mindset from a server SysAdmin point of view; security and compliance are hard enough without throwing unnecessary bells and whistles into the mix.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
Well, we're certainly not disagreeing. I just felt you were making a very broad, blanket statement. Amongst those you've mentioned, I've tinkered with RHEL and CentOS, but always with a GUI. I'm not so hardcore yet as to live off of the terminal window by itself. :-)
-
Well, as far as I remember, John McAfee only went nuts after Intel bought his company. And at that time, he already didn't have much to do with it anyway, despite bearing his name.
I can't remember the producer or the channel I saw the documentary/interview about McAfee (the man), but there were live Q&A sessions with him; I want to say it was a National Geographic documentary produced by one of their branches that research topics outside of geography & wild life. Regardless, was an eye opener --wish I could offer more help on the matter, but feel a search could reveal the video and feel it's a good hour or so spent. The vid is after the acquisition of McAfee, and McAfee (the man) is definitely convinced that someone or a group is out for his blood, but never definitively says why or whom skirting questions regarding the topics. Seriously, who benefits more from the continued existence of malware then those out to put an end to it (might be the reason McAfee is paranoid); amazing that every machine I say that had McAfee AV then decided to drop it was immediately infected with a critical virus within 2 weeks tops. AV could have been the first form of ransom ware for all we know. Something to think about. Anyway, was good chatting with ya!
I was unaware of that...
-
Well, as far as I remember, John McAfee only went nuts after Intel bought his company. And at that time, he already didn't have much to do with it anyway, despite bearing his name.
I can't remember the producer or the channel I saw the documentary/interview about McAfee (the man), but there were live Q&A sessions with him; I want to say it was a National Geographic documentary produced by one of their branches that research topics outside of geography & wild life. Regardless, was an eye opener --wish I could offer more help on the matter, but feel a search could reveal the video and feel it's a good hour or so spent. The vid is after the acquisition of McAfee, and McAfee (the man) is definitely convinced that someone or a group is out for his blood, but never definitively says why or whom skirting questions regarding the topics. Seriously, who benefits more from the continued existence of malware then those out to put an end to it (might be the reason McAfee is paranoid); amazing that every machine I say that had McAfee AV then decided to drop it was immediately infected with a critical virus within 2 weeks tops. AV could have been the first form of ransom ware for all we know. Something to think about. Anyway, was good chatting with ya!
I was unaware of that...
-
I can't remember the producer or the channel I saw the documentary/interview about McAfee (the man), but there were live Q&A sessions with him; I want to say it was a National Geographic documentary produced by one of their branches that research topics outside of geography & wild life. Regardless, was an eye opener --wish I could offer more help on the matter, but feel a search could reveal the video and feel it's a good hour or so spent. The vid is after the acquisition of McAfee, and McAfee (the man) is definitely convinced that someone or a group is out for his blood, but never definitively says why or whom skirting questions regarding the topics. Seriously, who benefits more from the continued existence of malware then those out to put an end to it (might be the reason McAfee is paranoid); amazing that every machine I say that had McAfee AV then decided to drop it was immediately infected with a critical virus within 2 weeks tops. AV could have been the first form of ransom ware for all we know. Something to think about. Anyway, was good chatting with ya!
I was unaware of that...
[Feel free not to continue with this thread] I remember reading about McAfee's coke-fueled rants. Haven't heard of him in a few years; I hope he got the help he needed. Personally I've never bought into the "AV makers are creating viruses" idea. Microsoft has one built-in, and they don't charge money for it, and you can't purchase any sort of "pro" version, so what would be in it for them? That's not to say I don't think of some of the other AV companies as any less than scumbags. Clearly, some of them benefit from the fear mongering in which they participate.
-
...but if that's the case, some things are definitely falling through the cracks. On many distributions, if I try to shutdown the system at a command prompt (typically with "shutdown -P 0"), I'm told I have to run sudo and I'm prompted for a password. Great feature, you wouldn't want any dumbass you share your computer with to be able to bring it down without showing he's got at least *some* amount of authority. Yet that same user can select Shutdown from the UI, and it'll happily comply without prompting for anything else (or at most, a confirmation prompt). If this was some sort of oversight, it would've been addressed years ago, no?
I'm not prejudiced -- they both suck! Over the past few weeks I have been trying to sort out a Linux X-Windows problem. Too many versions, too many updates, too little adequate documentation, too many kids putting out messages on forums, too little design thoughtfulness, too many cryptic names ... I could go on for days. Prior to that, I was trying to sort out a Window's UEFI dual boot problem. Same for Windows...and add too many internal functions that I don't need...or want, too many hidden telemetry functions that I don't trust, too many legacy functions that really should have been updated, too much being forced to do things MS's way....and on, and on, and on. I want a clean, simple, understandable, capable, stable system that, in Apple's words, "just works". (I am not a fan of Apple either, but that's another story.) I find too much of my time is spent nowadays sorting out interaction problems and managing updates. And I'm not getting done what I want to get done. Not, back to figuring out why my abacus gave me a different answer than my slide rule.
-
I'm not prejudiced -- they both suck! Over the past few weeks I have been trying to sort out a Linux X-Windows problem. Too many versions, too many updates, too little adequate documentation, too many kids putting out messages on forums, too little design thoughtfulness, too many cryptic names ... I could go on for days. Prior to that, I was trying to sort out a Window's UEFI dual boot problem. Same for Windows...and add too many internal functions that I don't need...or want, too many hidden telemetry functions that I don't trust, too many legacy functions that really should have been updated, too much being forced to do things MS's way....and on, and on, and on. I want a clean, simple, understandable, capable, stable system that, in Apple's words, "just works". (I am not a fan of Apple either, but that's another story.) I find too much of my time is spent nowadays sorting out interaction problems and managing updates. And I'm not getting done what I want to get done. Not, back to figuring out why my abacus gave me a different answer than my slide rule.
I understand exactly what you're saying. The problem is, we need someone to hit the Reset button and start with a whole new OS. The problem with that is that it'd be expected to be compatible with everything else that already exists, else it's a non-starter. There's just so much baggage to worry about, such a project IMO would never get off the ground. So what do we do?
-
...but if that's the case, some things are definitely falling through the cracks. On many distributions, if I try to shutdown the system at a command prompt (typically with "shutdown -P 0"), I'm told I have to run sudo and I'm prompted for a password. Great feature, you wouldn't want any dumbass you share your computer with to be able to bring it down without showing he's got at least *some* amount of authority. Yet that same user can select Shutdown from the UI, and it'll happily comply without prompting for anything else (or at most, a confirmation prompt). If this was some sort of oversight, it would've been addressed years ago, no?
The general thinking is that if you have access to the console running the UI, then you also have access the the power button. If your machine is genuinely multiuser, then there should be some system configuration to prevent a user from shutting down the system remotely.
-
I understand exactly what you're saying. The problem is, we need someone to hit the Reset button and start with a whole new OS. The problem with that is that it'd be expected to be compatible with everything else that already exists, else it's a non-starter. There's just so much baggage to worry about, such a project IMO would never get off the ground. So what do we do?
I've been doing some sideline research on what it would take to hit the Reset button (I like the way you phrased that!). I wonder if that's what Google, Apple, etc., did when they came out with things like Android. OS'es don't have to be as complex as Windows or as convoluted as Linux. Both have good features but carry so much legacy garbage that they become virtually unusable. Both are based on 1970's technology and little has been done to start from scratch, probably because nobody has the deep pockets or the will power to do it. Things that might be done differently, IMO, include a programming language that is less error prone and more readable than current languages like C++ and javascript; consistent, clear naming conventions for utilities like using "copy" instead of "cp", less emphasis on "themes", better version and dependency usage, less hardware variation thus avoiding driver issues...just to name a few. Scrapping compatibility goes a long way towards solving a lot of the legacy issues. Scrapping the idea of "being all things to all people" takes it even further. Then, getting management out the picture would help as well. (I can't tell you how many times I've heard a manager say something like "We need to do....because _____ (fill in his favorite competitor) is doing it." Or, maybe Artificial Intelligence will bring some real intelligence to the issue. Just my thoughts.
-
I've been doing some sideline research on what it would take to hit the Reset button (I like the way you phrased that!). I wonder if that's what Google, Apple, etc., did when they came out with things like Android. OS'es don't have to be as complex as Windows or as convoluted as Linux. Both have good features but carry so much legacy garbage that they become virtually unusable. Both are based on 1970's technology and little has been done to start from scratch, probably because nobody has the deep pockets or the will power to do it. Things that might be done differently, IMO, include a programming language that is less error prone and more readable than current languages like C++ and javascript; consistent, clear naming conventions for utilities like using "copy" instead of "cp", less emphasis on "themes", better version and dependency usage, less hardware variation thus avoiding driver issues...just to name a few. Scrapping compatibility goes a long way towards solving a lot of the legacy issues. Scrapping the idea of "being all things to all people" takes it even further. Then, getting management out the picture would help as well. (I can't tell you how many times I've heard a manager say something like "We need to do....because _____ (fill in his favorite competitor) is doing it." Or, maybe Artificial Intelligence will bring some real intelligence to the issue. Just my thoughts.
rjmoses wrote:
Scrapping compatibility goes a long way towards solving a lot of the legacy issues. Scrapping the idea of "being all things to all people" takes it even further.
When I read this I immediately thought "tablets". They had a good run, companies made billions from them, but every market analyst is now saying sales have flatlined, if not declined altogether, for the past few years and there's no sign of that ever reversing course. Already. They do a good job of "not being all things to all people", and for a lot of them this is all they need. But it's clear right now they're never going to be a complete replacement for what came before (and I'm not sure honestly if that was ever anyone's stated goal), and because of that, instead of simplifying things, they now *add* to the ecosystem complexity. I don't see how we can achieve a "full reset". Maybe a giant, planet-wide EM pulse like they like to do in the movies. :-)
-
[Feel free not to continue with this thread] I remember reading about McAfee's coke-fueled rants. Haven't heard of him in a few years; I hope he got the help he needed. Personally I've never bought into the "AV makers are creating viruses" idea. Microsoft has one built-in, and they don't charge money for it, and you can't purchase any sort of "pro" version, so what would be in it for them? That's not to say I don't think of some of the other AV companies as any less than scumbags. Clearly, some of them benefit from the fear mongering in which they participate.
Primarily the reason why I use Window's AV and have had issues in the past with McAfee after un-installation resulting in my computer being proliferated with Trojans and other malicious software and know others whom encountered the same. Regardless the discussion is flying off on tangents, but honestly [I don't and will not buy into the innocent, 3rd party blanket association]. Take care. There are white hats out there (awesome thing), but that's a veil for some.
I was unaware of that...