Michael Robertson of Lindows Responds

Naturally, when answering your questions, he boosted his company. (Wouldn't you?) But I assure you, he wrote these answers himself instead of having them laundered by a PR team. Whether or not you agree with Michael and the way he runs Lindows (and used to run MP3.com) you've got to give him credit for speaking more openly than most other modern American CEOs.

1) why oh why?
by Ender Ryan

Why was it decided that Lindows would always run as 'root' by default? That seems like a pretty bad decision to me, and many others as it's the number 1 complaint of many Linux users who would otherwise like to give Lindows a try, but perhaps we should hear why that decision was made.

Is this how Lindows is going to continue to work in the future? I think this is one "feature" of Win9x that would really be better to leave in the past.

Robertson

I think the larger issue here is how do you balance security vs. ease of use. We are committed to providing a secure desktop operating system and make policy decisions about how to achieve a secure but usable system. For example, not plugging a computer into the 'Net would make it really secure, but not very usable. We did decide to build in a pre-configured firewall because it's largely an invisible security layer that adds meaningfully security to the desktop but stays out of the users way. Most security compromises are external attacks, not root vs. non-root issues.

Historically, multi-user systems made sense when hardware was expensive because not everyone could afford a computer and you could leverage the cost of expensive machines by creating multiple users and doing time sharing. But times have changed and computers are now ultra-affordable with PCs starting at $200.

So there's less need to share computers and have multi-user accounts with all that overhead and complexity. There aren't “administrators” in many of the homes, businesses and schools we are selling to. These are personal computers where the owner needs to be able to set the clock, change the wallpaper, configure a printer, install a flash drive, or load a new piece of software without bumping into nuances of computer science.

Take a Microsoft Windows XP or Mac OS X machine out of the box and use it and it operates in a similar manner to LindowsOS – the first person to touch it can do whatever they want. If we make Linux harder to use then other operating systems, users will not embrace it. Users just want to get their work done, they don't want to be computer experts and they shouldn't have to be. Of course, if they want to add a default password or setup multiple accounts and restrict access to their own machine, they can of course do it on all of these operating systems, including LindowsOS, even though none default that way.

2) User feedback on Linux-based desktop OS
by prostoalex

Since the Lindows PCs have been selling for a while, your marketing and customer service folks must have gotten some kind of feedback from current or prospective users.

What are the things people ask for? What are some things general users would like to see in Lindows or Linux-based desktop distributions that aren't there yet?

Robertson

When we started Lindows.com we believed that software installation was extremely difficult for most users and the biggest obstacle impeding widespread desktop adoption. So we invested considerable engineering in Click-N-Run http://www.lindows.com/clicknrun, which makes software installation (including downloading, menu items, icons, MIME types, etc.) in LindowsOS a one-click experience. It's far superior to anything Microsoft Windows XP has.

Since then, we've heard from consumers about what they want or think is missing in a desktop operating system. The number one item people thought was missing was virus protection. (This surprised me and wouldn't have been my guess; more on this topic in a later question.)

There are some key areas of hardware support which no desktop has today which users consistently bring up including: USB wireless support, Plug & Play USB drives (flash, hard drive and CD/RW), firewire and ACPI (power management for laptops). We hope to address most of these in our next release of LindowsOS version 4.0 coming shortly.

On the software side, it's amazing how quickly the community is filling application holes and a real testimony to the advances is making. Six to twelve months ago the list of “missing” software applications was different then it is today. For those seeking a Visual Basic-like program, Gambas (www.lindows.com/gambas), has made great strides. GAIM www.lindows.com/gaim has emerged as a solid meta-IM client, etc. The biggest individual holes today are probably an online banking aware personal finance program (ala Quicken) and a web development tool that is tightly integrated for creation and management such as FrontPage or Dreamweaver. (We'll announce an very cool, affordable product available in Click-N-Run next week which addresses the online banking need.) Video games is an entire product category missing for Linux. There are some great new companies like GarageGames (http://www.garagegames.com), but the high profile games are absent. Finally, video streaming is weak on desktop . None of the big three codecs (QuickTime, Real, Windows Media) have shown any real commitment to offering support. I think there's a real opportunity for one company to commit to gain the upper hand on the others with a true cross platform solution.

3) Should Linux Remain a Cult Object for Geeks?
by reallocate

Do you think the hostility toward Lindows that characterizes some members of the "community" can be attributed to their desire that Linux remain a "geeks only" cult object?

Robertson

Linux can literally save consumers billions of dollars on software, so I sure hope we can bring it to the masses – that's really our business.

I attended UCSD and as part of my major I was required to take an assembly language programming class. It was one of the computer science “weeder” classes where 60% of students fail or drop out. I struggled through it with a passing grade and had a great sense of accomplishment. The next year the major requirements were changed alleviating the assembly language requirement. I have to admit I wasn't happy with this decision since it meant that those sharing my degree after me didn't have to go through the same torturous experiment.

Until recently, it was a badge of honor to get a Linux desktop running. LindowsOS makes it possible to install in 3 minutes and have it auto-recognize all your components and then install most software with a single mouse click. Those who went through the “weeder” class path naturally won't be that excited.

4) Wine?
by IamTheRealMike

When you started, you put a lot of effort into Wine, sponsoring things like WineConf. That didn't work out, but Wine improves constantly, as the latest releases of CrossOver and WineX show. Do you think you'll ever return to it someday, or are you disillusioned with the whole thing?

Robertson

We really respect Jeremy White, Codeweavers and the rest of the Wine development team, but we did move away from Wine sometime ago. It was really a financial decision. Here's the analysis we went through. Microsoft makes roughly half of their profits from selling their operating system and half selling their office suite. If LindowsOS users still have to depend on Microsoft's office suite then they will only be able to save money on half of their software purchases. Additionally, they'll still have to deal with restrictive licensing, activation codes, endless security issues and expensive upgrade options. Undoubtedly Microsoft would continue to use their might to bully computer users who use one part of Microsoft's offerings into using the others, like they do now with Microsoft Word costing $349 and Microsoft Office priced at $399. We really need to move to a Microsoft-free computing solution to realize dramatic savings.

We thought it much better to continue to focus on the ease of use, but invest our energies in promoting and polishing native programs rather than legacy Micrsoft Windows based programs. This way we can save consumers considerable money on the OS and the other largest expenditure – the office suite. Another critical development is that the StarOffice/OpenOffice products really made major advances. We can now comfortably endorse and distribute these products.

While we stopped promoting Microsoft Windows program capability, we strongly emphasize file format compatibility which we think is critical. People often have a need to open and edit a doc, xls or ppt file and that's what we give them. By focusing on affordable programs, we can give computer users these capabilities for the lowest price.

5) MP3.com in retrospect
by prostoalex

Looking back at MP3.com, what would you do differently if you were to start the music service business all over?

Do you think MP3.com was a good business idea in the first place? Do you think the sale of the site to Vivendi Universal was a good idea?

Robertson

Our goal at MP3.com was to bring digital music to the masses and I think we made a lasting impact and left the world a better place then we found it. We fought hard in congress, courts and in the business world to make MP3 a universal standard because it was the best thing for music fans who were our ultimate customers. Today MP3 is a universal standard, DRM schemes have been thwarted, portable players are legal, virtually all hardware supports MP3, so consumers are in a relatively good place because they can freely move their music around.

We didn't accomplish everything we wanted to do. We championed the concept of a “Music Service Provider” and backed the concept up with phenomenal technology which would store a user's entire music collection online and zap it to any device via an open API (PC, portable, phone, car, CDR, etc) with a single mouse click. Licensing challenges, restrictive law interpretation, and music industry reluctance to embrace new technology torpedoed our efforts on this front. It's interesting to hear the press gush over Apple's itunes “one click” purchase and load to portable player features – something we had two years ago. I think we laid important groundwork to make this happen, but missed delivering on our entire vision.

I sold MP3.com at a time and price that I thought was good for our shareholders and have no regrets and wouldn't change any decision I made.

6)Wal-Mart
by Znonymous Coward

Microtel and Lindows have put togther some great deals for Wal-mart.com; How are sales going?

Will the Microtel + Lindows PCs ever make it to Wal-Mart store shelves?

Robertson

Sales are strong - we have the best selling products at Walmart.com. I'm confident that success will lead to retail store distribution on retailers' store shelves. We're waiting until our next version (4.0) to distribute LindowsOS in major outlets. The quality needs to be there to satisfy everyday (non-technical) computer users. I can't stress how critically important this is to the success of desktop Linux.

Linux MUST be preinstalled on computers to be a sustainable business. The Microsoft stranglehold on OEMs must be cracked to change the dynamics of the PC business. Until this happens, no desktop Linux company should be considered a viable longterm company.

7) PATENTING ONE-CLICK-INSTALL
by neitzsche

Dear Mr. Robertson,

Could you please update me on your efforts to patent your one-click-software-update solution?

If you are granted such a patent, do you plan on allowing the open source community free (beer/speech/both?) licensing?

Robertson

We don't have a patent on Click-N-Run and have not filed a patent application. I'm not a big believer in method patents. Patents need to be “non-obvious”. I'm not sure “one click anything” is patentable or should be – whether an order process (think Amazon) or software installation routine.

8) Viruses
by minus_273

Not having viruses is one of the upsides of . Why do you sell a virus scanner for Linux?

Shouldn't you be presenting the lack of viruses as one of the reasons to switch?

Robertson

I shared your viewpoint initially, but then we heard from users and discovered something new. What people thought was most lacking from LindowsOS that prevented everyday use was “virus protection”. I was surprised by this result so we talked to users to understand their logic. It turns out that they have been so traumatized by the virus problem on Microsoft Windows that it has shaped their view of the world. Many told us they would NEVER use a personal computer without virus protection because either they had been infected and publicly embarrassed or they knew someone close to them who had. Others said that their corporate policy mandated virus protection or the employee could be disciplined. It's no longer a rational decision, but simply a presupposition to using a computer.

Let me use an analogy. Say someone grew up in the crime-ridden inner city project and then decides to move to the country. No matter how hard that real estate agent tries to use statistics and reasoning to convince them they don't need locks on their doors of the house they're buying, the buyer won't believe it because that's not the world they grew up in. 95% of the world has grown up in a Microsoft virus-infested project. Microsoft has cleverly positioned it as a solely external problem so they don't have to incur the cost to fix it. Bravo to Microsoft for good marketing which has saved them billions in support. Consequently, computer users don't see the root of the problem as shoddy Microsoft programs that if they were to abandon the problem subsides, but rather a fact of life of personal computing. It's a lock on the door they insist on having – regardless of the crime statistics in their area.

So we offer a one-click virus solution powered by Central Command. Virii are a tiny problem today on Linux, but as more desktops migrate it would be foolish to think that it will never be a problem. Just stopping inadvertantly passing on Microsoft Windows vulnerabilities has value to many consumers, as I've attempted to illustrate to many people considering desktop Linux.

9) Click-n-Run vs apt-get
by mahdi13

Lindows is based off of the Debian code and uses apt-get to install software from the Click-n-Run repository. What is in place to keep people from changing the apt-get sources from CnR to the Debian sources and install something like Synaptic (and getting newer, updated packages for free) instead of paying the $99/year (with a few execptions)?

Robertson

It is true that LindowsOS is Debian based, but Click-N-Run is no longer apt-get based. We're now on the third generation of the Click-N-Run architecture and it shares virtually no code with apt-get. As often happens you learn a lot when you do version 1.0. In the first version we learned the limitations of apt-get and were forced to create our own system which would better support personalization, commerce, error handling, and low bandwidth environments. We saw about 60% success rate using the first version of apt-get. Today we achieve over a 90% success rate. And we're able to offer advanced features like Aisles, CNR Express, a full featured commerce engine, and critical features like auto-retry and partial install resume.

LindowsOS users are free to use apt-get or any other feature. We don't remove the command line or limit their ability to install software. They can “open the hood” if they want to. Our goal is to do all the heavy lifting for them for a fair price and build a profitable business. If we can't offer value beyone what they can get from apt-get then they shouldn't give us any money. So that keeps us working hard to offer value.

The Warehouse part of the Click-N-Run (http://lindows.com/warehouse) adds tremendous value as well. Not only do users get an informative graphical representation for many products, but because listings are based on popularity they can get a listing of the most valuable software as measured by the community. We also spend considerable amount of time working on the top 25 programs. We typically customize them to make them work well together and on LindowsOS. Since anyone can browse the information for free, we have even learned that our warehouse is used by many who don't use our products as a resource. We recompile the programs to use the “My Documents” folder by default to resolve one of the common complaints from users that “they can't find their saved files”. That's obviously a simple example, but those are the types of things that make all the pieces work well together for LindowsOS users and will bring desktop to a wider audience.

10) Xbox
by randomErr

What ever possessed you to put up the bounty on the Xbox project?

Robertson

To understand my motivation it's probably important to understand my belief in personal ownership. I believe that if you purchase a product, you should have the right to change it, move it, or alter it for your own personal needs. The seller should have the right to say that you void the warranty or refuse to support it if you change it, but you should still have right as the purchaser to make that choice. This goes for music, software and personal computers. My belief is that as long as consumers have this right, then they'll use that freedom to make choices which steer our society in a generally positive direction. I'd contend we've already witnessed this with MP3.

The Xbox is Microsoft's first attempt at a closed architecture PC. What they learn from the Xbox will be in their next generation closed desktop PC system. Microsoft wants to move to a world where THEY decide what software a computer runs because that will allow them to extract the most money from consumers. They'll position this product with a comforting sounding name like “trustworthy” computing and tout the benefits, but it's really about shifting power over an individual's PC from the buyer to Microsoft. Microsoft will put up a permission gate before any software can be installed which will have a fee associated with it. It will ultimately give Microsoft control over a user's computer. This is why we do not, in any way, limit what software users can install.

I think it's critical that consumers have control over their computers and the ability to decide what software they want to utilize. I look at the Xbox as simply a personal computer. This is why I funded the Xbox reward.

NOTE: I funded it through http://pubsoft.org, Russ Nelson's great concept which I hope catches on.

Consumer freedom is also one of the primary reasons I started Lindows.com. If we can get a substantial number of desktop users we will ensure the longevity of an open architecture PC and ensure that the computing world evolves in a consumer-friendly direction.

Thanks for the opportunity to answer your questions.

Comments

Running as root is insane.

[Malor]

You know, one of his answers really bugs me.... the old 'security versus convenience' argument. He essentially says that Lindows runs as root to be convenient.

He talks, later, about how his customers are so traumatized by viruses that they'd never consider running a machine without some kind of protection. Windows, which has always been 'features before security', has horrific virus problems.

In essence, he's indirectly bashing his own way of doing business. One of the main reasons viruses don't spread as easily on Linux is simply that normal users don't have permission to mess with system files. Even if a virus DID infect your Linux box, the damage would most likely be contained to the user account's home directory, unless you did something stupid (or weren't patched up properly). Lindows is, in essence, being stupid by default. He's trying to make Lindows 'just like Windows' -- so you get all the design problems and fewer user-level features to boot. What a deal.

If he wants to make Linux BETTER than Microsoft, this is likely an area of key differentiation, and yet he's glossing over the whole issue for 'user convenience'. Instead, he should be investing resources into engineering a solution that preserves both ease of use AND security. It can be done, it just costs time and money. Mandrake has a decent solution to this problem. It could be improved, but it's not too bad. It would make a fine starting place.

A corollary of an old computer aphorism: "Cheap, secure, convenient. Pick any two."

Ummm...No

[Wyatt Earp]

"Take a Microsoft Windows XP or Mac OS X machine out of the box and use it and it operates in a similar manner to LindowsOS ? the first person to touch it can do whatever they want."

Sorry, Mac OS X is not running as root out of the box.

While the first user is an Admin, they do no have root access, there are many directories they can't see, and they can't go in and trash stuff in another users account.

Re:Ummm...No

[Octagon Most]

And even at that level of ease vs. security there are inconveniences for less technically inclined users. Having to enter an administrator password every time one installs something under OS X is an annoyance. I won't argue whether it's better (safer, etc.), just that it does introduce a new hurdle for novices. Outside of the geek community that understands and argues about such things is the real world where products need to be delivered with ease of use to the masses.

Re:Ummm...No

[Anonymous Coward]

His point on this was that noone gives a crap about wether or not root logs on. The market he is selling to jsut wants to get its dumb work done and then turn the stupid computer off.

Virus protection: same thing. They want 'virus protection' because thats all the rage. Wether or not they KNOW what the fuck virus protection even does, they dont care... they need it.

They're selling an illusion, if you will. Jesus, MS does it all the time. :)

Re:Ummm...No

[m1chael]

i cant see why normal people cant get into the habit of typing in a password to do root commands. you could even have a password dialog and maybe a avatar too...

Re:Ummm...No

[JUSTONEMORELATTE]

Sorry, Mac OS X is not running as root out of the box.

While the first user is an Admin, they do no have root access, there are many directories they can't see, and they can't go in and trash stuff in another users account.

While you point out an interesting distinction (BSD/OSX's difference between admin and root) it is beside the point.
Robertson's contention is that commodity PCs aren't running as multi-user systems. The person who powers it on is the user, the admin, the only one using it. There are no "other users" to trash.
The tradeoff is convenience/security. Some claim that it's better to spend your day-to-day operations in an unpriv account, and intentionally change to a priv account when those privs are needed. Robertson's claim is that non-geeks don't want to make that distinction or take that extra step, and the reduction in protection is worth it for ease of use and the resulting acceptance.

He's in an interesting position by pushing an OS for folks without CS (or generally geeky) backgrounds. My linux boxes all have non-priv accounts, and I use sudo when I need it. To be quite honest though, I'm typing on a win2k box, and my user has full Administrator privs. It is also a single-user system. There are no other users who's data needs to be protected. Am I more vulnerable to OS damage from inadvertant actions? Sure. Do I care enough to give up the convenience, not really.

--

Re:Ummm...No

[Ian Bicking]

the first person to touch it can do whatever they want.

In contrast, however, this is true for MacOS X, and for any version of Linux (because the person that sets up the machine gets to set up the root account).

But, in contrast to Linux, MacOS X doesn't require root priviledges to change the clock or a number of other operations (many hardware related). Linux often requires higher permissions than it should, because it is coming from the perspective of a shared, multiuser environment, or it does not give the console user extra priviledges.

Re:Ummm...No

[TB42]

Exactly. Plus, you have to know a thing or 2 about NetInfo to change root's password. You can't even su to root "out of the box" without this knowledge.

Re:Ummm...No

[jellomizer]

You beat me to the point. OS X dosent have a root user installed basicly the Admin user has elivated rights. So he can do most things. Any thing that Root needs to do is done threw the sudo command. which I find to be a good balance between security and ease of use. I would much rather have Linux OS design to inforce the use of sudo more then just using the root user.
Not running as root by default also will prevent any future viruses from spreading rapidly because the user permissions can help slow it down.
I personally really like the OS X solution, it dosent stop me from dooing anything stupid (or ingenious) but it works like a warning sign that is reminding me that I have to do something that is need high access.

Re:Ummm...No

[SCHecklerX]

I beg to differ

Most households only have one computer. No network. no multiple machines. Johnny, Dad, Mom, and Suzie all use the same computer. A multi-user OS is the proper way to do this, so that Dad doesn't have to worry about Johnny fscking up his files, or if dad is the administrator, of johnny, suzie, or mom fscking up the computer system files.

Unfortunately, Lusers have been trained that it is 'ok' to trample all over the system, fscking up the settings for everybody. Linux has always been a multi-user system, so it is TRIVIAL to have several people in the household share a single computer, yet all have their own environment to work in. My ex-g/f and her two children certainly have no problems with the linux box I built for them.

Win2k was a step in the right direction, but most windoze programs are not multi-user aware still.

Re:Ummm...No

[Jeremy Erwin]

Of course, should you wish to secure the clock, you can (click the padlock icon). On macs, root login is disabled, and most everything is done through sudo. Administrators have, by default, full shell access. ("sudo su" works).

Re:Ummm...No

[Wyatt Earp]

" Any thing that Root needs to do is done threw the sudo command."

You still need to enable root on OS X, which requires getting into NetInfo Manager

Re:Ummm...No

[the_2nd_coming]

dude, that might be true but all you need to set up full root privlages is the ability to use the cmd line and then you type:

sudo

and then it asks for a password, you give it nothing, it then asks you to set up the root password.

ater that the person can trash everyones folder....of cource to get to that point you must have admin privilges in aqua.

Re:Ummm...No

[Ian Bicking]

An interesting compromise (between Lindows and OS X) would be if a user at the console (with administrator priviledge) could permit certain (all?) operations just with a normal confirmation (click OK) -- not entering any password.

Supposing the dialog was implemented so it was somewhat secure (i.e., a program couldn't fake you clicking OK), and distinct (so that it was a signal you were doing something that required trust in the program), and not used excessively (so it didn't become second nature to click the OK)... it seems like it'd be pretty decent security for a personal machine.

Re:Ummm...No

[JUSTONEMORELATTE]

Most households only have one computer. No network. no multiple machines. Johnny, Dad, Mom, and Suzie all use the same computer. A multi-user OS is the proper way to do this, so that Dad doesn't have to worry about Johnny fscking up his files, or if dad is the administrator, of johnny, suzie, or mom fscking up the computer system files.

Your take -- The problem is that most households have 1 PC, the solution is a multi-user OS
The Lindows view -- you've got the problem right, but the solution is to make PCs cheap enough to be commodity instead of big iron. As someone else points out, The cost of one Dell gets you 4 Lindows OS PCs.

My ex-g/f and her two children certainly have no problems with the linux box I built for them.

But a geek still had to build it for them. And if your ex and her kids are not geeks, then they're stuck with what you've provided. They still have the PITA factor of dealing with root if they need to change something (new printer, new version of Netscape)

I'm not trying to take a stand on the root/non-root debate, but I think many non-root folks are missing the point. Robertson is trying to take a new perspective on pushing Linux into previously impenetrable markets. Bitching that he's just a lazy sysadmin promoting lazy system admin habits is missing that point.

--

Re:Ummm...No

[BigBir3d]

How many people:

$ sudo rm foo

when the are having problems? How many actually know what sudo does? Right up there with:

"zap your pram"

"repair your permissions"

Re:Ummm...No

[JimDabell]

But, in contrast to Linux, MacOS X doesn't require root priviledges to change the clock or a number of other operations (many hardware related).

You don't have to be root to do that stuff in Linux either. That's just how lots of distributions are configured out of the box.

Changing the permissions so that users can alter clock settings is a hell of a lot better than making everyone root by default, so they are free to screw up the entire system.

Re:Ummm...No

[jd]

I'll agree, and I'll go one step further. Unix systems, these days, don't have the concept of "one physical user, one user account". They seperate the logical space and resources by user.

This is why you have a printer user, even though the printer is most unlikely to grow arms and eyes, log in, and play VGA Pac Man.

Users are, perhaps, these days a misnomer, as they apply to any bounded set of resources. I'm not sure what an alternative name might be, but "user" is definitely wrong for today's usage.

Another example would be SE-Linux. Each role a user or application set has has a seperate account! This makes a whole lot of sense. If you're checking e-mail, you don't want to be able to delete your prized wordprocessor documents, although you might want to read them (for the purpose of sending them, for example).

Role-based computing is even less bothered by virii than traditional Unix accounts. In the above example, for instance, any e-mail virus that did manage to infect the machine COULD NOT infect those documents, as they'd be read-only from that role.

Finally, this brings me onto virus scanning. Properly-configured Unix-based systems are virtually immune to viruses, because everything is compartmentalized. Nothing can spread between compartments. When adding roles, the compartments get considerably smaller and more restrictive in what they can do.

But what can a virus do, anyway? Not a whole lot. By capping each account's ability to use a specific resource (eg: CPU time), a virus cannot stall the machine or - worse - run something comparable to CPUBurn and fry the processor. It cannot use up excessive disk space (quotas). It cannot do most of the things Windows and DOS viruses can take for granted.

What kind of virus scanning is necessary? Combining Tripwire, SARA, TARA and NESSUS into one complete scanning system would be pretty much everything you could want or need. No virus signatures needed, so no problems with new virii appearing. You're already covered.

In short, I understand this guy's perspective, but it's the perspective of someone whose knowledge of what is out there is incomplete.

Oh, one last point. If a single-user system was all you needed, then why not use Cornfield's real-time OS? It's open-source, doesn't have any unnecessary complications, and would make a great building-block for a wrappered OS.

Re:Ummm...No

[afidel]

It's not that it's ok, it's that it is easier to reinstall the OS ocassionally then it is to do an effective job as a sys admin. There is a reason that sys admins make good money, it is a fairly difficult job to stay on top of with a very large knowledge domain. Desktop/home users don't WANT to be sys admins, they just want to log in, have their computer work, and get their tasks finished. They will willingly give up the frustration of sys admining in exchange for occassional problems, its less of a hassle for them. Just because you set up a multiuser environment for someone doesn't mean it can be done effectivly at a commercial level when selling to the general public.

Re:Ummm...No

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, Mac OS X is not running as root out of the box.

true

"...the first person to touch it can do whatever they want."

also true

sudo passwd

Voila, first person to touch it can do whatever they want.

Re:Ummm...No

[TotallyUseless]

Thing 1 you have to know: How to Double Click an icon (Netinfo Manager)
Thing 2 you have to know: How to use a menu.

Re:Ummm...No

[StormReaver]

"Linux often requires higher permissions than it should, because it is coming from the perspective of a shared, multiuser environment, or it does not give the console user extra priviledges."

KDE 3.1 handles this nicely. For every given function that requires root privs, the user is required to enter the root password the first time the privs are required. The password window has a checkbox that allows KDE to remember the password for that given function. So if the user decides that requiring the root password for changing the clock is going overboard, he can set KDE to not require the password in the future.

Re:Ummm...No

[Rinikusu]

Shit, you're right.
Real people date, get married and have kids. Man, I gotta get out from behind the computer..

Re:Ummm...No

[Yrd]

This is exactly the kind of thing I do... I dual boot Gentoo and Windows XP Pro, and my XP system has only one user account with full privileges. Sure I could screw up the system really easily (although knowing Windows it'll screw up itself quite happily without any help from me), but I don't bother setting up a proper seperate user account for day-to-day use simply because I don't trust Windows to do it properly. I'll admit I've never tried it, but I very much doubt games and so forth would work properly (I know I couldn't install them, but would they run as a non-privileged user? I know for a fact that some won't, it says in their instruction manuals).

And games are the only reason I have Windows at all, (or rather, they will be when gPhoto2's PTP support works properly with my camera).

But I don't use Outlook, so at least I'm safe from most of those nasty e-mail virus things.

Re:Ummm...No

[Van Halen]

" Any thing that Root needs to do is done threw the sudo command."

You still need to enable root on OS X, which requires getting into NetInfo Manager

Actually, see the subject line. You do NOT need to enable root unless you want to login as root. Otherwise, you keep root disabled (no password) and use sudo for everything. Need a root shell? sudo -s.

Just a quick correction. ;-)

Re:Ummm...No

[ensignyu]

I believe Red Hat gives the console user access to devices like sound and module when you log in.

Re:Ummm...No

[Graspee_Leemoor]

"This is why you have a printer user, even though the printer is most unlikely to grow arms and eyes, log in, and play VGA Pac Man."

LOL! Nice one.

graspee

Re:Ummm...No

[DickBreath]

Most households only have one computer. No network. no multiple machines. Johnny, Dad, Mom, and Suzie all use the same computer.

Yeah, I remember the days when a household could only afford one four function pocket calculator. They were about $400, and that was 1975 dollars! Why didn't those idiots make calculators multi-user?

Re:Ummm...No

[Grishnakh]

Real people date, get married and have kids. Man, I gotta get out from behind the computer..

Yeah, but some of us have tried that and haven't made much progress, so we stick to what we're better at.

and if this were a Microsoft or MS-friendly CEO...

[ThePretender]

"Naturally, when answering your questions, he boosted his company. (Wouldn't you?)"

would read:

Naturally, when answering your questions, he boosted his company. (Which is typical for a money-grubbing, morally bankrupt merchant of the Devil!)

Virus and Root

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems to me that the inclusion of virus protection is somehow in response to the fact that the Lindows default user runs as root. Running all your desktop apps seems to leave your OS more vulnerable to silly problems with email clients and the like.

Is this the beginning of rampant linux virii? I hope Lindows comes up with a better solution.

Geek Cult Linux

[CyborgWarrior]

I'm a high school student in CT, USA and have been for a long time trying to convince the technology department to move to a Linux server. Everyone in the technology department seems hesitant, but I've also talked to many of the teachers and they seem more open to it. Interestingly, it seems less of a geek thing around here, than a normal user thing. People are beginning to get seriously disgusted with Microsoft and are looking more for other options. This could be the perfect time for Lindows to enter the market for the average user.

Re:Geek Cult Linux

[Bana_Asawa]

For your school please go to the following http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=6349 Title is "Linux from Kindergarten to High School"

Re:Geek Cult Linux

[cptgrudge]

I've run into the same thing where I work (a public school), and I'm *in* the tech dept. I think a lot of the hestitancy comes from fear. The people "in charge" know Microsoft, and the change frightens them. They are unwilling or unable to learn the new skills required to maintain the systems. "Old skool" used to mean you knew Unix; now it means you know Windows.

It doesn't get me down though. We've got some IDS boxes going in, a web server, and an experimental server going in. All running Linux. Realize that *I* am the one supporting them, since no one else knows how. If the people to manage them don't have the skills necessary don't expect a warm response. Replacing people is a cold way of handling it, and there are a *lot* of political issues to deal with in a school system. In these days when school districts may need to save money, show a real TCO benefit, and the switch can be made.

Email me at clsaiko (at) mahtomedi.k12.mn.us if you want to hear how I brought some of the changes about.

Re:Geek Cult Linux

[Crispy Critters]

have been for a long time trying to convince the technology department to move to a Linux server...This could be the perfect time for Lindows to enter the market for the average user.

Yikes. Lindows (I cringe typing the name) is apparently designed not to be a server. The answers show that it is being pushed for a desktop for a single user. Many things that make Linux useful on a server are exactly the things that have been hacked out to make the Lindows distribution. If you need a server that can be run by someone who finds the filesystem too confusing and remembering two different passwords too difficult, I really don't know what you should do.

You need some sort of approval from the "technology department"? Scrounge an old Pentium or P2 computer nobody wants, have someone download a distro and burn cd's for you, and go set the thing up. If you can't do it in school, do it at your house or a friend's house. Start now! Time's a-wasting!

Re:Geek Cult Linux

[CyborgWarrior]

Lol, this would probably be true for this department also except for the fact that I do web design work for them and other stuff. The 'kids' that actually have a valid opinion about this stuff today are usually directly involved with the 'grown ups' who are in charge of it. Secondly, the Lindows system I would suggest more for the individual computers that the teachers would use, not necessarily for the server. We had almost convinced the administrator to build a second server running Linux, but he had little experience with it and was leary of trying it, so they just installed Win 2K on the second server.

Re:Geek Cult Linux

[Bana_Asawa]

With that form of attitude we would never have any technology advancements. To curb the curiosity of a student is to stunt their growth. If you can not lead then get out of the way. If you can not teach then go home and leave it to the ones who care.

ACLs are inane.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just an aside ... if Linux didnt make it so fucking difficult to assign programs just the capabilities they need we wouldnt still be in this mess of choosing between two evils.

Just as C lived on long beyond its usefull life, for some applications, and managed to give us a cornucopia of exploits which could have been easily avoided with a sane language ... so have ACLs done the same in their own way. We should differentiate, but clinging on to a past which has outlived its usefullness wont do it. WinNT/2k/XP have ACLs too ya know ...

Re:ACLs are inane.

[mickwd]

Name one single, popular operating system NOT written in assembler, C or C++ (which shares C's issues, as it allows the use of virtually all of its constructs).

C beyond its useful life ? I don't think so.

Re:ACLs are inane.

[NanoGator]

"... so have ACLs done the same in their own way. We should differentiate, but clinging on to a past which has outlived its usefullness wont do it. WinNT/2k/XP have ACLs too ya know ... "

What's an ACL?

Re:ACLs are inane.

[mbogosian]

What's an ACL?

Access Control Layer

I think.

Re:ACLs are inane.

[c.derby]

Close...

Access
Control
List

Re:ACLs are inane.

[Smallpond]

" Name one single, popular operating system NOT written in assembler, C or C++ "

Perq Operating System was written in Perq Pascal.

Symbolic Lisp Machine O/S was written in Lisp.

Re:ACLs are inane.

[Doctor Memory]

The original poster said popular OS. The only one I can think of is VMS, virtually all of which was written in BLISS. I wouldn't be surprised if large parts of the UCSD p-System were written in Pascal, but I don't know for sure.

Re:ACLs are inane.

[Eccles]

What's an ACL?

Anterior cruciate ligament. One of those bits of the knee that athletes are always tearing.

Seriously, though, it's an Access Control List. The idea is, rather than apps being associated with a user and having all the permissions of said user, you have to give individual apps permissions/restrictions. You could thus give your browser read-only access to your files, for example, or you could prevent an app from accessing the network.

Re:ACLs are inane.

[fanatic]

There's a couple of world-beaters. Never heard of either.

Re:ACLs are inane.

[NanoGator]

"Seriously, though, it's an Access Control List. The idea is, rather than apps being associated with a user and having all the permissions of said user, you have to give individual apps permissions/restrictions. You could thus give your browser read-only access to your files, for example, or you could prevent an app from accessing the network. "

Thank you! I especially appreciate the explanation, sure beats just getting the words that the acronymn stands for. :)

Re:ACLs are inane.

[redhat421]

ACL == Access Control List From:

The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (13 Mar 01) [foldoc]

Access Control List

(ACL) A list of the services available on a server, each with a list of the hosts permitted to use the service.

(1994-11-08)

Re:ACLs are inane.

[TummyX]

Well, on windows at least, it's about giving different applications different permissions. Files are still associated with a user -- it's just that they can be associated with multiple users and groups. So user A can have R/W access to file F but user B can only have R access F. You can't do that in Unix without making a whole new group.

"the Click-N-Run architecture..."

[NewbieSpaz]

"the Click-N-Run architecture and it shares virtually no code with apt-get"

Isn't this a GPL violation, if Click-n-run is utilizing any code at all from Apt? So where is the publicly available source code for click-n-run anyway? I don't see it on their source code FTP site.

Re:"the Click-N-Run architecture..."

[i_am_nitrogen]

Click-N-Run never shared any code with apt-get. It originally called the apt-get executable to download and install the software, but now the Click-N-Run client downloads the software itself, and uses dpkg to install it. This is just an accidental miswording by Michael Robertson.

Re:"the Click-N-Run architecture..."

[Soko]

Do you have the binary of Click-n-run?

From the GPL FAQ:

The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.

But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the users, under the GPL.

Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you.

I read that to mean that you are only required to relese the source to those people you've released the binaries to, and it says nothing of making the source available to the general public (unless the binaries are as well, of course).

In summation: Buy Lindows, install it and then you should be able to get the source to Click-n-run. After that, you can modify and re-distribute it to your hearts content.

Soko

Re:"the Click-N-Run architecture..."

[fobbman]

While I don't know for sure, seeing someone of his stature use the word "virtually" gives me reason to believe that there is apt code in his product.

"No code" would mean "No code". "Virtually" is a modifier that is used for a reason.

Re:"the Click-N-Run architecture..."

[NewbieSpaz]

I do not have a LindowsOS. However, I would be interested to see if somebody who does have it (legally, and running on a PC currently) can get the source code for it. I have a strong feeling that it won't be happening any time soon...

As an experiment, if somebody is able to in fact get the source code, it would be cool to see who gets it online, on a public ftp server first...

Re:"the Click-N-Run architecture..."

[the_2nd_coming]

if he is calling the dpkg binary then he is useing apt code but it is not part of his code.

you get it.

Re:"the Click-N-Run architecture..."

[oldstrat]

I'm not going to copy the full body of your text, for the sake of brevity, hovever I encourage anyone reading my message to read yours before considering mine.

I'm only going to copy your interpretation of GPL;

Quote
"I read that to mean that you are only required to relese the source to those people you've released the binaries to, and it says nothing of making the source available to the general public (unless the binaries are as well, of course)."
EndQuote

Response
Partly correct, just as important is that you must extend to the person the same rights that were extended to you, as in the ability to pass the source along to others freely. Of course this does not apply to Click-N-Run, I'll expand on that below.
EndResponse

Quote
"In summation: Buy Lindows, install it and then you should be able to get the source to Click-n-run. After that, you can modify and re-distribute it to your hearts content."
EndQuote

Response
Nope, your not entitled to the source for Click-N-Run, it's not GPL. And because it ties into other programs it does not have to be GPL, it's proprietory and that's ok according to the GPL.
If it contained GPL code inside of itself, then it would have to pass on the GPL rights.
The GPL is not infective, it is built to give rights, not take them. Copyright can sit side by side with copyleft without contamination. EndResponse Sure I've go some bones to pick with LindowsOS, and RedHat and Suse, and IBM, SCO and MicroSoft for that matter, but the GPL couldn't be any clearer.
The muddy water I see in the LindowsOS Distro, is that the released "source" is not going to make it possible to recreate the total of the GPL'd portions of the Distro.
If I give you a GPL'd Binary, I have to make the source available to you. Lindows does not.
EndResponse

I also don't see LindowsOS giving back to the community, only taking. It's not a requirement of GPL that you give back, but it is an expectation of the GNU community and if you expect the support of that community you need to make a real effort to meet the expectations of the community. LindowsOS does not.

Re:"the Click-N-Run architecture..."

[|<amikaze]

Is Clik-N-Run released under the GPL? Just because the kernel is GPL'd doesn't mean all software that comes with it is.

Re:"the Click-N-Run architecture..."

[i_am_nitrogen]

Most CEO's aren't aware of the details of their engineering departments. Their primary purpose is dealing with the overall direction of the company and any really big decisions. The words/phrases "uses, calls, shares code, links, loads, accesses" probably all mean the same thing (i.e. nothing) to most people. What I'm sure Mr. Robertson means is that Click-N-Run is virtually independent of apt-get.

Re:"the Click-N-Run architecture..."

[orkysoft]

Actually, I think Lindows.com does give back to the Linux community, in the form of a bigger audience.

Re:"the Click-N-Run architecture..."

[afidel]

He's a CEO, not a coder. Like the article says he didn't run it past PR or legal, so a technical miswording is forgiveable.

Re:"the Click-N-Run architecture..."

[Anonymous Coward]

But he passed the "weeder" CS course in assembly at UCSD. No excuse!

Re:"the Click-N-Run architecture..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Click-N-Run doesn't share ANY code with Apt-get. All it shares is that it understands how to unpackage a .deb file. So, no, this is not a violation of the GPL.

Mark

Kidding yourself

[Sanity]

One of the main reasons viruses don't spread as easily on Linux is simply that normal users don't have permission to mess with system files.

I really think that Linux users are kidding themselves when they use this argument. The main reason that there are so few Linux viruses out there is that there are so few desktop Linux installations relative to Windows, making it less fun to write Linux viruses, and less likely for them to spread.

A Linux virus could do significant damage without root access, and there are a variety of ways that such a virus could trick the user into giving it root access. Trojan a RPM or DEB, or even just ask the user for their root password with some excuse like "Your hard disk has reached a fragmentation level of 30%, we recommend that you defragment it now. Please enter your root password").

Re:Kidding yourself

[Otter]

A Linux virus could do significant damage without root access...

In general, the idea that users don't have access to anything important is a holdover from when Unix meant large multi-user systems with regular backups. In Linux desktop use, the files in ~ are probably more important and less replaceable than system files. And, as you say, there's no need for root access for an email virus to spread.

Re:Kidding yourself

[Malor]

Yes, all of those things are true. And I imagine that eventually, Linux viruses may become a real problem.

But it is an extra layer of security; virus writers have to work harder to get around the inherent limitations. It's not a free lunch.

On a normal Linux/Unix machine, An HTML-code exploit is not, by itself, going to spawn a remote root shell to Joe Attacker's box; it's going to take either user foolishness ("Type in your root password for maintanance purposes") or a second local exploit to do it.

On a Lindows box, ALL you need is the HTML exploit, no additional stupidity required.

One of the key issues with both real-life and computer-based viruses is containment. You're seeing that now with SARS. If you can slow the rate of infection, you gain time to deploy a response.

Tens of thousands of run-as-root boxes directly attached to cablemodem make a very fertile environment for virus development. An extra layer of security, requiring additional stupidity on someone's part, will slow the spread and help contain the damage.

Any defense can be gotten around, given enough time and effort. That does not, however, imply that no defenses should be deployed. I stand behind my assertion that knowingly defeating one of the main lines of security in an operating system for 'convenience' is grossly stupid.

Re:Kidding yourself

[niom]

What you don't realize is that, for its intended audience, running as non-root does not provide any kind of additional security. I challenge you to provide a realistic example of something nasty that could be done with a Lindows machine that requires root access by the attacker. I can only think of deleting programs and such (but messing with the user configuration would have the same effect for a computer illiterate user) and listening on ports lower than 1024 (hardly a big issue).

Re:Kidding yourself

[nlinecomputers]

I really think that Linux users are kidding themselves when they use this argument. The main reason that there are so few Linux viruses out there is that there are so few desktop Linux installations relative to Windows, making it less fun to write Linux viruses, and less likely for them to spread.

Well that is true for the desktop but there are quite a few Linux servers out there. I'd think it would be more fun to disrupt a bunch of servers then a bunch of desktops. (hell many viruses are just DDoS deamons being spread to do just that.) We don't see Linux viruses because it's hard to write them. Most windows viruses exploit the same gapping holes in the system that have never been patched. Microsoft calls them features. Kits to write new viruses based on the same holes exist all over the net. If it was that easy to crack Linux then it would be done.

Re:Kidding yourself

[sbaker]

EH?

The reason viruses don't exist/spread is because Linux mailers don't treat data as code. Simply reading text files and HTML (sans Java/Javascript) cannot allow a virus to spread by the *simple* mechanisms that allow them to propagate in the Windoze world.

There is also the diversity argument. Under Windoze, there is essentially only one mailer in common use. If you hack a virus to work with that, it'll spread like wildfire because every mail it sends out to replicate itself has a 99% chance of hitting another machine that'll replicate it. In the Linux world, even if all those outgoing mails reach other Linux boxen, the chances are that most of the people it reaches will be running some other mailer and the virus will stop right there. That DRASTICALLY slows down the growth rate of the virus - so even if one were possible, it would spread at a snail's pace and be easy to contain.

I don't think it has anything to do with root access.

However, I regard the idea of running Lindows in root 100% of the time as sheer lunacy. There is such a thing as protecting a user from himself. "rm -R /" should NOT work! If it were both safe and convenient to run in root all the time, most Linux desktop users would do so - however we don't - an overwhelming number of people will voluntarily give up a small measure of convenience in order to gain a measure of protection-from-self-induced-screwups.

Re:Kidding yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why RPMs and DEBs now are digitally signed so you can verify that they are not trojans.

As far as viruses spreading on Linux, a key reason why is that the software isn't (as) brain-damaged. For example, the two major GUI mail clients, Evolution and KMail, don't simply run ActiveX code (or any code for that matter (even javascript is turned off by default)).

Re:Kidding yourself

[Lumpy]

And, as you say, there's no need for root access for an email virus to spread.

you are right... it needs Microsoft Outlook.

anyone who put's scripting in any email program needs to be brutally killed in the streets, and their body publically impaled as an example to others...

same goes for the ability to do anything with an attachment but SAVE AS.... come on programmers.. get a clue.

Re:Kidding yourself

[StormReaver]

"And, as you say, there's no need for root access for an email virus to spread."

So many people who use this argument are overlooking the obvious. An email virus requires an email program that will automatically execute attachments. There is no email program for Linux that does this. All Linux email programs require the user to:

1) Save the attachment to disk.
2) Change the file attribute(s) to executable (because Linux email programs never save files with the execute bit(s) set).
3) Expicitly run the program.

The reason Microsoft email viruses are so prevelant is because Microsoft's email program requires the user to:

1) Read the email.
2) There is no second step.

Running the system as root will in no way make a user susceptible to email viruses on Linux. However, running as root will greatly increase the damage done to the system if a user runs a malicious program.

Assume that I, under my user account "stormreaver", get tricked into performing the three steps needed to run a malicious binary emailed to me and it completely wipes out my home directory.

If I didn't have backups, which is foolish considering how cheap CD-R's are nowadays and how easy KDE 3.1 makes backups, it's true that I'm out of luck for my personal files. I have to remove my account (by becoming root), recreate my account, and start over. The rest of my system (games, utilities, etc) are all fine.

If I did have backups, which I have, then I delete my compromised account, recreate the user account, and copy my backed-up config files. It takes my (estimating) about ten minutes to get back to where I was (allowing time for reading hundreds of megabytes from the backup CDs). I'm then back in business. Since all my executables (minus my in-development binaries) were protected by root access, nothing was permenantly damaged. At most, I'm somewhat inconvenienced. I saved days of redownloading and installing large non-system apps and several hours of installing and tweaking my operating system (with the latter taking most of the time).

The superuser/regular-user distinction made in Linux is real protection against filesystem viruses because it eliminates the automatic propogation mechanism required by such viruses.

Only profound stupidity on the part of email software developers (and profound stupidity on the part of users running Outlook through WINE, though the threat is greatly reduced on Linux because most WINE installations don't have Microsoft address books) will present an email virus problem on Linux.

Running everything as root will still require active user participation to propogate any type of Linux virus. However, the damage done will be far more extensive.

None of this will matter, of course, if a regular user installs something by temporarily becoming root, and the install program then makes the software setuid root. However, the protections added by the superuser/regular-user distinction are significant.

KDE has almost nailed all circumstances where this is inconvenient and provides a simple way to temporarily become root to perform system-altering tasks. The only one remaining, that I encounter, is having to use the command prompt to su to root in order to install a game using Loki's installer.

Re:Kidding yourself

[ichimunki]

Why shouldn't there be an ability to open the attachment directly with an appropriate application? The extra step of saving the file to disk isn't ultimately making anything safer.

And you're kidding about Outlook right? I've seen email viruses that worked in Pine. All that was required were gullible users who would hasten to forward an email to their entire addressbook because they'd read a line in a scare-mail like "forward this to everyone you know immediately". :)

Just as scary, and not unheard of on Linux is the whole trend towards displaying HTML right in the mailer. What a nightmare.

Re:Kidding yourself

[ichimunki]

Oh come on. Accidentally deleting the entire filesystem is a rite of passage. :)

Re:Kidding yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you or did you not notice that there are products like firewalls and anti-virus that are quite capable of defending against the large majority of these exploits? It can, is, and will continue to be done on Windows, and it can and will start affecting Linux desktops, make no mistake about it.

Where there is a market to provide protection, there will be companies to supply the protection in the form of software. Symantec will most likely themselves release AV and firewall software for Linux as soon as it gains enough momentum.

Re:Kidding yourself

[Malor]

Uh, install a rootkit?

Re:Kidding yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

An easy way to protect ~:

1. login als root.
2. copy your (important) stuff from ~ into another directory on your harddisk
3. become user again
4. feel safe

btw, does anyone know a good personal delta-backup software to automatise this?

Re:Kidding yourself

[Patoski]

An email attachment that entices the user to run the script and executes.
passwd somethingdifferentthatyoudontknowabout

Logged in as root: Congrats you've just been owned. You're making installing root kits very easy for script kiddies you know?

Logged in as a plain user: someone just changed your password. You can log in to your box as root and reclaim your account. This could be done via an easy to use Rescue Mode.

or how about...

rm -rf /

Logged in as root: you just lost your whole box.

Logged in as normal user: You lose your personal files and some config work you've done. If you keep backups anywhere you're ok. Heck, Lindows could even offer to backup your /home dir in a secure location if you have enough space on your HD or CD-R if need be.

Re:Kidding yourself

[mackstann]

Access to raw sockets allows people to do all kinds of nasty things, things that affect much more than just the compromised machine in question, and things that could very well cause lots of problems on a cable network.

...Things that I can't be specific about because I don't really know : P

I'm sure someone can chime in and describe just what can be done.

Re:Kidding yourself

[evilviper]

the files in ~ are probably more important and less replaceable than system files

Well, not from a virus' point of view. What a virus needs to do is load itself into memory, then save itself to disk, in some way that it will be started again, then hide it's presence as completely as possible.

All of the above is possible if you are running as Root... The last 2 above are ``more difficult'', and ``not possible'', respectively, if the virus is loaded as a non-privlidged user.

I would like to express my utter disgust at the current methods of virus protection. All an antivirus program on Windows would have to do is to see if a program attempts to write to system files, and carefully monitor changes made to startup configuration files, such as the registry. When it notices this acticivity, it could stop the program, and ask the user what to do. Of course, this method wouldn't make antivirus companies stinking rich from selling virus definitions.

In Unix, the task would be a bit more difficult, simply because there are far more places something could be written to be run automatically. However, there are certainly methods that could negate the virus problem. Systrace is one very significant option. Right now, Mozilla is running under systrace. If Mozilla was to execute some code, it couldn't do much of anything but download webpages, and ruin my bookmarks...

For a commercial solution that is older, and slightly different, you may want to check out Cylant Secure. It boasts an impressive record, and most importantly, it runs on the platforms that systrace doesn't yet.

A virus scanner is simply a half-assed way of treating the symptoms, instead of the disease, so that a company can leech a subscription out of you.

there's no need for root access for an email virus to spread.

There's no need for Root access for any virus to SPREAD. Root access is just needed for the other important parts of a virus' life, not for replicating itself.

Of course, three cheers for Microsoft for NOT porting Outlook over to Unix, and hence, by in-action, making the world a better place.

Re:Kidding yourself

[bbqBrain]

That's an interesting point. One could most likely consider everything above $HOME on a typical Lindows box replaceable. Because the user isn't hacking startup scripts, recompiling the kernel, etc., a reinstallation from CD and update from CnR would restore the PC to its previous state. Losing $HOME, OTOH, would be disastrous.

In light of this, I wonder if Lindows has considered an online backup service. You could have an automated or manually-run agent make a bzipped tarball of $HOME and transfer it to a Lindows server. Hell, I'd go one step further and encrypt that with ``openssl rc4'' and a user-defined password. Tack on an interface for excluding specified directories and a N-megabyte limit, and I think you have a killer service.

Re:Kidding yourself

[niom]

passwd somethingdifferentthatyoudontknowabout

Not a very realistic example; it would be immediately detected (and possibly corrected) by the user and of no use to the attacker. Furthermore, running everything as root prevents this problem as there are no passwords. Try again.

rm -rf /

Logged in as normal user: You lose your personal files and some config work you've done.

i.e. what a normal user is most interested in preserving.

If you keep backups anywhere you're ok.

It seems to me it's quite easier (and safer) to keep backups of the programs, since they don't change frequently and thus can be burned in CDs. And if your non-root user has been "infected" the trojan/virus can keep deleting your documents until you reinstall the system -- the same thing you'd have to do if the attacker had root access. If you have already lost your documents (which could happen root or non root), reinstalling a few programs from CDs is the least of your worries.

Re:Kidding yourself

[Vaughn Anderson]

The main reason that there are so few Linux viruses out there is that there are so few desktop Linux installations relative to Windows, making it less fun to write Linux viruses, and less likely for them to spread.

Perhaps it has something to do with Outlook?

Just maybe?

Re:Kidding yourself

[dsplat]

you are right... it needs Microsoft Outlook.

And when someone finds a security hole in a commonly used version of Mozilla or Evolution, that could hit a significant percent of desktop Linux users. If we make the assumption that the number of such users is going to grow, I think it is safe to assume that they are not as likely to use something that doesn't look like a Windows e-mail client. They want to make the transition as simply as possible.

There will be Linux viruses. We will get hit. Currently, the smaller installed base and the diversity of distributions, client software, kernel versions, etc. is making Linux harder to target. If 90% of desktop users were using Linux, and 80-90% of those all used the same e-mail client, browser, and word processor, Linux would provide a rich target environment. More virus writers would target it.

Re:Kidding yourself

[christophersaul]

We did have Outlook Express for Solaris!

Re:Kidding yourself

[Ed Avis]

The biggest reason viruses aren't such a problem on Linux is that Linux users don't generally run binary-only programs downloaded from random places. They don't attach dancing_elephants.exe to their messages or run such a program when it arrives.

Yes - in theory it is possible to add a virus to source code so that when compiled the virus will spread, but this requires deliberate steps. I think most Windows viruses are spread accidentally.

Re:Kidding yourself

[fymidos]

Yes, but as i said before, it cannot spread as it cannot infect binaries, so there *really* is no such thing as a "virus problem" in linux, and unix in general.

It has nothing to do with few linux users, at this point linux users are propably million times more than DOS users in '87 and there were like a million viruses for DOS back then...

Re:Kidding yourself

[dougthonus]

> How many people would really try this? I'm not sure if this would work on modern windows, but it would certainly work in the old days, and you didn't see the masses of windows users accidentally deleting their harddrives. > An overwhelming majority of geeks and computer science graduates would rather give up that small measure of convenience. An overwhelming majority of non-geeks would probably rather have the easy version that works out of the box.

Re:Kidding yourself

[Trepalium]

So many people who use this argument are overlooking the obvious. An email virus requires an email program that will automatically execute attachments.

Not exactly. All a virus requires is that an e-mail program automatically execute arbitrary code from the e-mail message. Now, this could be done by scripting flaws, or some brain damaged HTML parser. Or, it could by done by a buffer overflow vulnerability in the software that allows an attacker to insert something onto the stack, and have the code jump to his viral code and start executing it. Once this happens, steps 1, 2 and 3 have already been automated by the virus, and you're infected.

Now, I don't care to debate if IE's html engine is more or less buggy than Gecko, or khtml, and frankly, it doesn't matter. A single vulnerable entry point is all an attacker needs to get access.

Re:Kidding yourself

[Alethes]

The main reason that there are so few Linux viruses out there is that there are so few desktop Linux installations relative to Windows, making it less fun to write Linux viruses, and less likely for them to spread.

That logic doesn't really hold up when you consider that Apache is on a lot more servers than IIS, yet IIS gets hit quite a bit more often with worms.

A Linux virus could do significant damage without root access, and there are a variety of ways that such a virus could trick the user into giving it root access.

That will be the case with any OS, though, so you haven't really made a point. At least with users running as users instead of as root, there is less of a chance of havoc being wreaked, even if it's only a minimal difference. You can't regulate stupidity or ignorance, so there will always be the people that run everything that gets sent to them, and possibly even enter a root password at every oppotunity. However, that doesn't mean software vendors should just throw their hands up in the air and blow off security in the name of convenience. That's how Microsoft got into the security hellhole they're in now.

Re:Kidding yourself

[Trepalium]

You've obviously read Steve Gibson's the-sky-is-falling-because-of-xp's-raw-sockets rant on grc.com. Basically, it makes it easier to spoof, or dump invalid datagrams onto the network. However, assuming all ISPs use proper ingress and egress filtering, and all computers run TCP/IP stacks with secure sequence number generation, the only protocol that would be easy to spoof would be something like UDP, and only if the designers of the specific UDP service forgot to include some kind of secure sequence number in their packets.

Re:Kidding yourself

[m1a1]

A Linux virus could do significant damage without root access

What, delete my home directory? Not that I don't love my home directory, it's fantastic, but if they want it that bad they can have it.

The truth is a virus is very limited in what it can do without root, just a like a user is limited without root. In linux, if I wanted to completely (or as close to it as possible) protect my financial data I could make a user account that I do my finances (and ONLY my finances) on. Then if a virus gets ahold of my normal user account it is automatically quarantined. This is a good thing. If the virus were running as root the time I spent protecting my info with separate accounts would be useless.

Re:Kidding yourself

[damiam]

Not a very realistic example; it would be immediately detected (and possibly corrected) by the user and of no use to the attacker. Furthermore, running everything as root prevents this problem as there are no passwords. Try again.

Even if the current password is blank, it's still quite possible to change it to something non-blank.

It seems to me it's quite easier (and safer) to keep backups of the programs

Easier, safer, and completely useless. You can redownload a program any time you want. You can't download your documents back.

And if your non-root user has been "infected" the trojan/virus can keep deleting your documents until you reinstall the system

No, you can log in as root and delete the non-root trojan. If the trojan had root access, it would be able to stop that.

Re:Kidding yourself

[Alan Cox]

It stops being about program security at a point as your user base grows. While there is no excuse for the shoddy UIs in things like Windows that made it natural to click Ok to "a fun thing fred sent" the ultimate target nowdays is the user, because users are the weakest part of the system.

Thats why things like SELinux or the Debian RSBAC Linux are so important. There is a real need to make sure any user can work out which end is the barrel without pulling the trigger

Re:Kidding yourself

[alexjohns]

"rm -R /" should NOT work

Having been computing since about 1978, I can say that the capability to destroy your file system has existed in pretty much every operating system I have ever seen. (Not too conversant with mainframes.) It's a rite of passage for most sysadmins.

I think the default-login-as-root-is-bad argument is a canard put forward by people who see everything as a technical problem. The inability to see the human side of things is a common failing in geeks.

Think about something as simple as driving. It's pretty easy to screw up in a car and yet we pretty much let everybody drive. It's the same thing with PC's. It's your PC - if you want to run as root, who's to say you can't? We choose convenience over safety many times on any given day. It would be much safer to cross at the light, but how many of us don't jaywalk daily?

Other than a couple of grammatical errors I could find no fault in any of Michael's answers. His business logic seems to be very sound. I hope he does well.

Re:Kidding yourself

[pelorus]

anyone who put's scripting in any email program needs to be brutally killed in the streets

Ouch, tough crowd.

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with scripting in any application. We should point the fingers at the virus writers and commit heinous crimes against their personage.

It should be safe to have scripting in an application.

Re:Kidding yourself

[Rysc]

btw, does anyone know a good personal delta-backup software to automatise this?

No, but I could write you a shell script in about nine seconds.

Oh, do you mean with a GUI? Then no.

But seriously, I have have cron job tar, gzip and store in a safe location my entire home directory once per day under a date-stamped filename. HD space is cheap, so I delete old stuff infrequently.

To make this more secure, make the script run as a user whose files normal users are not allowed to read (much less write), make the backup location a seperate disk or a network drive, and boom. Safety. One can rvrn impliment the "Roll back to a working configuration" thing by a similar method of autobacking up /etc.

Re:Kidding yourself

[Azureflare]

Isn't it better that we make ourselves harder to hit though? That's why it's important that the linux community continues creating quality coded products, without easy-access holes. Yes, people will find vulnerabilities. Is there a system that will never have vulnerabilities? That's like the notion of "100%"..You can protect 99.99999% of the time, but pure freak chance will always get you in the end. But at least those vulnerabilities will be fewer (hopefully?) than microsoft's products. At least the damn script kiddies won't be able to send out viruses? I remember when some Microsoft high-up guy was speaking on some major security hazard in Windows XP home edition (It was on grc.com a while back), he said (Basically) Why should we make it hard for hackers? They will find a way, so we shouldn't waste time trying to prevent it.

OK, they want to save costs, but leave the users out in the cold. NOT the people I want coding my operating system/office/internet browser. Until they take a firm view about actual "security", I will not trust them. Not that I really matter..I'm just a consumer; They could probably care less how I think of them.

Re:Kidding yourself

[Sj0]

The extra step of saving the file to disk isn't ultimately making anything safer.

It most certainly does. Just remember that for the longest time, everyone KNEW that viruses couldn't be spread by looking at e-mails. nowadays, just looking at it in the preview pane is enough to infect your system and send it to everyone on your list if you haven't patched and secured Outlook Express.

The behaviour you're describing is a result of idiocy. Outlook viruses make it so non-idiots can infect their systems my doing something mundane and not paticularly stupid at all (reading an e-mail isn't stupid. Opening foreign executables can be.)

Re:Kidding yourself

[LamerX]

Well, since I have more choices as to what version of my kernel, what distribution, what mail client, what web browser, what ISP, what IM app, what office suite, what desktop interface, etc, etc, is what keeps things diverse and hence viruses down. Not to say that you don't have a choice with Windows, but most distros come up and say "Hey, which one of these to do you want to use?" and Windows automatically says "You're going to use MS EVERYTHING, most people default to that. THAT is what makes viruses so easy and rampant, a company that wants to control the users and dominate completely.

Re:Kidding yourself

[pcraven]

So when I send my mother in law a picture, you expect me to step her though a 'save as' procedure?

She once dragged her precious solitare program off the start menu. She called me in a complete tizzy. It was not fun trying to get that set up again.

Yes, I know, rdesktop, right? She's dial-up. And like I want to step her though finding out what IP address she's on.

Re:Kidding yourself

[redhog]

One thing you can do with root, but not woithout root, is putting the network card in prromiscous mode, and sniffing the network. Another thing, helping the virus pread, would be to change a binary in /usr/bin or even /bin or /sbin, so that the virus would be invoked again at some future timepoint, say at reboot. Most users do NOT have any programs in $HOME/bin, so tricking them into running the virus' code as a native binary, is hard.

Re:Kidding yourself

[mackstann]

I remember hearing about Steve Gibson's rant but I never read it (he annoys me), I only recently learned a tiny bit about raw sockets thanks to someone on my LUG's mailing list. (in fact here is the exact message)

Re:Kidding yourself

[Alan Hicks]

A Linux virus could do significant damage without root access, and there are a variety of ways that such a virus could trick the user into giving it root access. Trojan a RPM or DEB, or even just ask the user for their root password with some excuse like "Your hard disk has reached a fragmentation level of 30%, we recommend that you defragment it now. Please enter your root password").

This would never float on my Linux.

Re:Kidding yourself

[sbergman2]

Bravo!!! Someone finally said the obvious instead of quoting dogma.

Usually when I bring up the point about running as root being of limited security value on a single user system, as well as a usability pain to the casual user, I usually get a bunch of condescending responses claiming that if I were an experienced administrator, I would understand the advantages of blah, blah, blah... And the thread usally ends up concluding that backups of user data are very important and everyone should do them. Which is very odd, because it's totally irrelevant to the original topic. Not sure why it always goes that way. ;-)

Re:Kidding yourself

[Nurf]

So when I send my mother in law a picture, you expect me to step her though a 'save as' procedure?

There is a difference between showing a picture and executing code. One executes code, the other renders data.

You mother in law is most welcome to view her pictures.

Please learn the difference between code and data. Maybe this would be easier if you stopped using Microsoft email clients.

Re:Kidding yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

Your just another full of shit linux zealot, check this out:
The Linux Virus Writing HowTo...

Re:Kidding yourself

[AvitarX]

Do you think users that are fearful of viruses all back things up regularly?

The trama of a virus is all your hours of work, personal files old, email, pirated stuff, ect. lost.

All root protections will do is protect the pirated software.

On a home computer where the average user has the root password there is no reason to not run them as root.

People are gullable and will provide the root password at the drop of a hat (didn't that british poll find people glad to give up their password?)

Re:Kidding yourself

[1u3hr]

>>anyone who puts scripting in any email program needs to be brutally killed in the streets
>There's nothing intrinsically wrong with scripting in any application.

I want scripting in my email app. What I don't want is it executing any scripts that come as attachments without at least asking if I really am so stupid. That goes for any HTML beyond text formatting too (no, DON'T fetch the 1x1 gif image that lets the fucking spammer know I've opened his fucking message).

Re:Kidding yourself

[1u3hr]

[Michael's] business logic seems to be very sound. I hope he does well.

Also, note as Michael says, it is entirely possible to change this single-user = root behaviour, it's just not the default. It would be trivial to make an update that could do that for naive users should Lindows viruses and worms start to appear. I think it's not wrong for Michael to emphasise usability for "switchers" now -- remember that almost every new user on an "insecure" Lindows box is actually one less user on a totally insecure Windows box. The Lindows insecurities can be rapidly hardened, it's not reinventing the system as MS must, it's just turning on features that already exist.

Re:Kidding yourself

[Com2Kid]

• I would like to express my utter disgust at the current methods of virus protection. All an antivirus program on Windows would have to do is to see if a program attempts to write to system files, and carefully monitor changes made to startup configuration files, such as the registry.

Which would do jack shit good against any virus that did not rely on starting up on next boot.

But even more than that;

• When it notices this acticivity, it could stop the program, and ask the user what to do. Of course, this method wouldn't make antivirus companies stinking rich from selling virus definitions.

Welcome to windows, the wonderful world of the registry being written to ten gazzilion times per day. Asking the user for permission each time? Hah. Heck even privlidged programs that are needed to run at boot, what happens if a virus infects their executable to run along side the program when it starts up legitimatly? (which a fair number of viruses have done in the past.)

Virus definitions are needed for a reason, not every virus uses such simple methods as you have described above.

(what about viruses that try and kill the virus scanner and THEN infect things? Lovely. . . . better catch those long before they try and play around with the registry!)

Re:Kidding yourself

[Herr_Nightingale]

it may very well be that fragmentation of the user base is necessary to keep the virus epidemic away from the Linux platform. Unfortunately, that's also what keeps users from Linux. Too much choice, too little information, and too much inaccurate or overly biased information (eg. "KDE is better than GNOME") also further divides the potential Linux converts into two camps: those who look further, and eventually find out what they want to know, and subsequently replace Windows (ie, about .01% of people who "check Linux out") and the people who give up after trying to decide which distro to use - after all, there are more Linux distros than users now.

Re:Kidding yourself

[Bas_Wijnen]

A Linux virus could do significant damage without root access

A virus in GNU/Linux could indeed do a lot of damage, but you are forgetting one point. Many popular viruses have an incubation time of 0: they start doing malicious things the moment they infest a computer. In the old days, when spreading was a hard thing to do for a virus, they sometimes had an incubation time of a year or something. That way, your whole system (and that of others) was infested before you realized that something was wrong.

It is very likely that this behaviour will return if a virus cannot just send itself out to the whole addressbook the moment it arrives. If this happens while executing as the root user, you need a reinstall of the whole system. If it happens as a normal user, that user's home should probably be recovered from backup. If it happens as a dummy user in a chrooted environment (which is how any e-mailer should execute an attachment if it chooses to do so at all), then nothing at all needs to be done.

I think this kind of extra security alone is worth the inconvinience of typing the root password when installing something. But there is more. If a non-malicious program has a bug, when running it as root it can break the system, while running it as a normal user will most probably not do any harm (non-malicious code will not do rm -rf /, it will more probably try something like cp /dev/urandom /dev/hda.) This is probably a greater threat on GNU/Linux systems in the current world than viruses, and also by itself reason enough not to use the root account for programs that don't need it.

Re:Kidding yourself

[ichimunki]

No. It doesn't. Auto-preview/auto-execute are much different than "open attachement with application". The only thing saving the file to disk before opening it in an application does is make more work for the user. If the file somehow exploits a weakness in the application it doesn't matter whether you opened "directly" from the mail program, or whether you saved it to your drive first. You'll notice I am not proposing that you be able to run attachments *as* applications. But again, if the user is just going to save it to disk and then execute it from there. You aren't really saving anything.

People are typically the weakest link in any security chain. No amount of inconvenience is going to improve that. In fact, I think if you look closely you'll find that the more annoying security measures are to people, the more risky their behavior will become as they do things that help them through those measures with maximum ease.

This is why so many people choose things like their own name as a password, or simply stick the password next to the computer on a piece of notepaper, or whatever. You aren't going to make a system more secure by making it less convenient unless your users know and understand why it's less convenient.

Re:Kidding yourself

[dsplat]

You can protect 99.99999% of the time, but pure freak chance will always get you in the end. But at least those vulnerabilities will be fewer (hopefully?) than microsoft's products.

Yes, and there is another way to look at this too. When your code is written around an architecture that is designed to provide security and protection of one program from another, even if you have as many vulnerabilities, most of them can be fixed without changes to the design.

I don't think that Microsoft's buffer overflows are any easier or harder for them to fix than buffer overflows in any open source project. Allowing code to be executed from incoming e-mail on the other hand is more fundamental to the design. If it were limited to something like Java's security sandbox, at least any holes that were found could be plugged. Sharing macros in documents wasn't horribly unsafe when the only place you were getting them from was a coworker down the hall. But now, protecting from dangerous actions those macros can execute is difficult.

Re:Kidding yourself

[evilviper]

Which would do jack shit good against any virus that did not rely on starting up on next boot.

What viruses would that leave? Every major virus wants to be around after a reboot... If not, it wouldn't be a major problem.

the wonderful world of the registry being written to ten gazzilion times per day. Asking the user for permission each time?

The registry is not some mystical, mythical thing... A program can easilly watch the dozen or so keys in the registry where startup programs are launched. I don't think asking permission from the user for those select keys would be a problem.

what happens if a virus infects their executable to run along side the program when it starts up legitimatly?

You obviosuly didn't understand my post. The antivirus program needs to watch the programs that run at startup, and prevent them from being written to.

what about viruses that try and kill the virus scanner and THEN infect things?

What about them??? Not like they would have the ability to. Programs can be made resistant to being shutdown, and the virus scanner could simply intercept any kill commands and selectively decide which ones to allow... That would be another thing for the virus scanner to monitor, to determine if a virus has been found. Obviously, if a virus can kill the scanner, even signatures won't help you one bit.

Re:Kidding yourself

[sbaker]

The car analogy can be employed here - but it has to be employed carefully.

In a car, there is a big difference between the tools you use when 'administering' it (things like wrenches and screwdrivers) and the tools you use to drive it (the steering wheel, brakes, accellerator and gear lever). Hence, it's not likely that you'll accidentally remove the wheel bolts while you are simply driving the car around town.

You *can* do your own 'administration' by picking up a wrench, opening the hood and fiddling with the mechanical bits. But if you don't know what you are doing, you can hand it over to a professional car-admin person. Opening the hood is approximately equivelent to entering 'root' mode in Linux. If you own the car, you *can* do it - but it's not something you can do by accident - and it's something that most people won't do unless they are 'car-geeks'.

So it should be with Linux - only more so. The 'normal' tools you use while driving your computer (mv, cp, rm, etc) are the exact same tools you use to swap out the engine, bleed the brakes and drain the transmission fluid. That makes it all the more important that 'mechanic' mode and 'driver' mode are clearly separated.

What Lindows does (in effect) is to place all the critical parts of the car within easy reach of the driver's seat and has you drive using a universal tool that can be used both to turn the steering AND to undo the engine mounting bolts. Since the steering wheel and the engine mounting bolts are quite close to each other, painted the same colour and accessible using the same tools, the chances of this happening by accident are noticably higher than they would be if the engine bolts were under the hood and you had to operate a very special lever in order to open it.

Re:Kidding yourself

[sbaker]

I have seen one guy erase his DOS hard drive this way.

He was a non-technical guy who was trying to install some kind of word processor and ran out of disk space. He phoned up one of us software geeks to ask for help and someone *jokingly* told him that he could always DELETE *.* to make some space! (with whatever recursive flags DOS has - I forget).

Of course about 10 minutes later we had another plaintive phone call "I tried what you said - but now my PC won't boot".

Ack!

Re:Kidding yourself

[alexjohns]

I wasn't so much talking about working on the car, although technically your analogy is more correct. I was talking about giving people - with little or no knowledge - great power. What's worse: Driving a car into a crowd of people or typing 'rm * -rf' in the wrong directory?

We allow people to own guns, smoke, hang-glide, etc. In the case of PC's, since it's really just your own data, if you shoot yourself in the foot, it's really your own fault. Perhaps the OS shouldn't allow you to do it, but lessons learned that painfully usually stick.

Re:Kidding yourself

[Trepalium]

The points in that page are quite valid, however, not all configurations are necessarily vulnerable to an ARP poisoning attack. For example, many cable modems are capable of filtering which traffic is meant for them and which is not. In order to do ARP spoofing, you need to hear an ARP request to respond to, so if you never receive a request, you can't return a response. However, this isn't the case for all cable networks. In Winnipeg, we had both. On the Shaw Cable side, you could sniff the network all you want, you don't get anything that wasn't explicitly sent to you. On the Videon Cable side, each neighbourhood was wide open -- you could see other people's traffic, file shares, and broadcast packets. Then again, Videon was the same people who left their important systems with the SNMP community set to "public", and were shocked when some mischievous folks decided to fiddle around with them.

Re:Kidding yourself

[quintesse]

Huh? But I don't want to back up my programs, I would care less that a virus deletes something that can be easily replaced than something that cost me hours, days or even months to make. But I can easily back up my own work, it won't take tens of GBs and multiple DVDs or tapes (and therefore a lot of my precious time) to do it. What I do care about is the enormous amount of time it takes to set up a new system. Maybe the time it takes to install Linux or Windows is short enough, but before you have a system that is exactly suited to your needs you need to spend long days of installing and configuring all the programs that you want to use. So personally I'd rather back up my own, irreplacable, work and the program settings in my home directory so I quickly go back to work if a virus ever wipes my personal files.

Re:Kidding yourself

[Anonymous Conrad]

The reason viruses don't exist/spread is because Linux mailers don't treat data as code. Simply reading text files and HTML (sans Java/Javascript) cannot allow a virus to spread by the *simple* mechanisms that allow them to propagate in the Windoze world.

Which are what?

Outlook hasn't executed java, javascript or activex in HTML mail for a very long time.

In a default exchange install you can't run any executable or script attachments from Outlook without saving them to disk first. Again, that's been true for a very long time.

(I realise this is old - found in metamods)

Re:Kidding yourself

[Com2Kid]

• What viruses would that leave? Every major virus wants to be around after a reboot...

Code Red did a ton of damage without needing rebooting, and once Administrative Privileges are gained on a system, the virus scanner is toasted UNLESS it is CONSTANTLY monitoring the system's memory to make sure something shifty isn't going on.

• The registry is not some mystical, mythical thing... A program can easilly watch the dozen or so keys in the registry where startup programs are launched.

Plenty of havoc can be wrecked on the registry WITHOUT needing to alter the startup programs.

Heck, even excluding the registry, viruses have propagated long before Windows9x and Windows NTx were around.

• I don't think asking permission from the user for those select keys would be a problem.

Your right, the user would just call up the local "computer person" and ask him / her what to do for each individual case, until the user got so used to hearing "click ok" that they accepted anything.

Doh.

• You obviously didn't understand my post. The antivirus program needs to watch the programs that run at startup, and prevent them from being written to.

Oh yah, that works GREAT for auto-updating programs. Or do you want the user to have to manually OK that to? What about a virus that masquerades as an autoupdater?

Hell, what about a virus that just plain old fashion wipes out the MBR? The partition table? Or (ick) corrupts the BIOS?

What about a virus that goes around corrupting Word documents adding or deleting random segments from them? Viruses that send out tons of random e-mails? Viruses that do anything else in the world but sit there and stay resident?

How about viruses that infect executable files and then each time the file is run wreck random havoc on the user's computer? Are those "acceptable" viruses that do not have to be detected and cleaned?

Re:Kidding yourself

[evilviper]

Reply to you is like talking to a brick wall... Forget it.

Re:Kidding yourself

[dacarr]

It's still different though. Micros~1 to this day hides their heads in the sand on holes, where these communities will invariably correct the errors on finding them and post to their favorite systems to propagate it.

And yes, Linux will be hit eventually, I won't deny that. We still get hit. Sendmail, anybody?

But it still stands. The linux community will rise to the occasion, the Microsoft community will continue to foist the problem off on the antivirus community rather than bother to plug their holes, and just disclaim themselves by saying "Well you should be wearing a condom!".

Re:Kidding yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi m ame is Jose Ignacio, i will tell you only two reason of a great amount of them cuase there are almost no viruses, cauze i know of a couple of them, in Linux, FreeBSD, UNIX, or MACOS, why viruses usually attacs Microsoft plattforms?- cause in any windows, almost till W2K exist a lot of trash knowledge that allow you to make a virus that will kill almos every one using a pc with such a language, otherwise in the other OS told before there is no trash knowledge cause in case of an "infection" you can determine in no time how to correct the problem and how to stop the "virus" ...

Re:Kidding yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

> All root protections will do is protect the pirated software.

How is that ?

On a home computer where the average user has the root password there is no reason to not run them as root.

People are gullable and will provide the root password at the drop of a hat (didn't that british poll find people glad to give up their password?)

The same stupid argument: whats the point in being alive if we are all gonna die one day ?

What you are saying is that no system (includes the PC and the gullible user) is 100% fool-proof. You cannot prove that running as root is less secure than running as non-root. And remember that while there are gullible users who will give up root passwords there are also less gullible users who won't. But if the same less gullible users are forced to work as root, they will have no choice at all.

Re:Kidding yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

A Linux virus could do significant damage without root access, and there are a variety of ways that such a virus could trick the user into giving it root access. Trojan a RPM or DEB, or even just ask the user for their root password with some excuse like "Your hard disk has reached a fragmentation level of 30%, we recommend that you defragment it now. Please enter your root password").
None of which prove that running as root is less secure than running as non-root. All you have shown is that no system (PC + gullible user) is 100% virus-protected, which we all know. If you can prove that running as root is less secure than running as non-root, you have an argument for favoring the root mode over the non-root mode. I can bet that you can't do that because in any linux system root always gives you more power to do harm than a non-root user because as root, you can do everything than a non-root user can do AND MORE.

Re:Kidding yourself

[karlm]

First of all, RC4 is a very poor cipher choice unless you have really good reasons to the contrary. I'm not going to get into weak keys and startup-up behavior other than to say RC4 has many problems that require very careful use, which is the main reason WEP wireless encryption is a joke. Any of the AES finaists in CFB mode will be much better choices.

Secondly, why not disable root by default and make a lot more things SUID root? Your nifty admin apps wouldn't need the user to enter a password and could still effectively prevent the user from screwing stuff up too badly. You could then do a local backup that the user physically couldn't get at. A daily backup, a weekly backup and a monthly backup would be sufficient. The SUID root admin app could allow them to restore $HOME without giving them write/delete acess to the backup file. I agree that online backups would also be nice in many situations. However, I think a lot of people are underestimating the utility of making the system rootless and providing safe admin tools. I'm not aware of any OS that does automatic incremental backups "out of the box". If their software packages all had two install options (global install or install in $HOME) that would be great, too.

Mac OS X doesn't run as root!!!

[NivenHuH]

Question #1: Why was it decided that Lindows would always run as 'root' by default?

"Take a Microsoft Windows XP or Mac OS X machine out of the box and use it and it operates in a similar manner to LindowsOS ? the first person to touch it can do whatever they want."

And Mac OS X runs a *NIX base and doesn't run everything as root.. >=P Everything makes use of sudo, wheel users, etc.. *shrug* Sounds like he didn't really have a valid answer to justify this... (They could have written the tools to do the administrative functions.. just like RedHat has done..)

Re:Mac OS X doesn't run as root!!!

[bigpat]

"Sounds like he didn't really have a valid answer to justify this.."

Okay here is the valid answer in simple terms... It was easier.

Re:Mac OS X doesn't run as root!!!

[Jennifer Ever]

Every version of Windows and, AFAIK, every version of Mac OS prior to X, has given 'root' access by default, and with exception of NT, 2000, and XP, haven't even offered any real means to provide different access levels to different users.

So I think his point is quite valid, and you're just picking a nit about OS X.

A few things

[IWantMoreSpamPlease]

..I think the larger issue here is how do you balance security vs. ease of use. We are committed to providing a secure desktop operating system and make policy decisions about how to achieve a secure but usable system. ..

Sounds like PR speak to me...I could easily see Dilbert's boos (Bossbert?) saying this.

In addition, I find it very interesting in regards to his talk about viruses and how users have become accustomed to the viruses that "ravage" the windows world.

It's amazing to me that people will even *consider* it part and parcel of dealing with Windows that they can't even fathom there are alternatives (i.e. virus free ways of dealing with things), sad really!

Re:A few things

[wfberg]

..I think the larger issue here is how do you balance security vs. ease of use. We are committed to providing a secure desktop operating system and make policy decisions about how to achieve a secure but usable system. ..

Sounds like PR speak to me...I could easily see Dilbert's boos (Bossbert?) saying this.


On the other hand, he might just mean exactly what he's saying. For example, another poster pointed out that the Mac OS X default Admin account can't look at all directories; likewise, in Windows XP, you can't browse all directories without encountering some resistance; not quite entering a root password, but at least a boilerplate warning. That makes using the system less convenient, but might dissuade those people who know they're but lusers to not do too much damage.

Perhaps in later versions of Lindows they will start using permissions, but the user's userid will still be 0, or the user won't be root, but the filesystem will be rwxrwxrwx (almost) all the way..

Re:A few things

[Sophrosyne]

I have been using windows based PCs since DOS first hit the scene (I still have the original box somewhere) and then over Windows 3.1, Windows 95, and Windows M.E.
In like 14 years since I got my first 286-- till today running windows 2000 on a celeron, I have not had one virus!
I have had a ton of problems in that time though, killed one hard drive, and have reinstalled my systems a few hundred times... but still not one virus yet.
I use Mac OS X now, but I make sure that whoever uses the PC tries to do so in an intelligent way, like not open e-mail attachments unless it's a picture or a word document from someone they know.
We all make mistakes from time to time, but there is no reason to have viruses on your computer, and no reason to blame it on anyone but yourself.

Re:A few things

[theLOUDroom]

I have been using windows based PCs since DOS first hit the scene (I still have the original box somewhere) and then over Windows 3.1, Windows 95, and Windows M.E. In like 14 years since I got my first 286-- till today running windows 2000 on a celeron, I have not had one virus!

What's your email address? :)

I use Mac OS X now,

Damn.

We all make mistakes from time to time, but there is no reason to have viruses on your computer, and no reason to blame it on anyone but yourself.

Not true. Ever hear of Outlook? Every N months someone find a vulnerability in it so you don't even have to run the virus yourself. It just auto-installs!
Besides, I have a few hundred viruses on my computer. They're a very cool way to learn neat assembly tricks (I know this isn't what you meant).

unless it's a picture or a word document from

Word macrovirus anyone?

Re:A few things

[nolife]

What does your percieved knowledge of computers have to do with someone elses?

Could you act as a lawyer in a court case? Could you replace or repair your own HVAC system? Could you replace that timing belt on your car? Could you do a water analysis to determine bacteria levels?

These people that do the above are using computers on a daily basis and they do not give a crap about your computer godness, they just want to be protected from these viruses.

Re:A few things

[Sophrosyne]

I didn't intend for that to come off as a computer snob, because I'm not- but the easiest way to protect yourself from viruses is prevention- Yeah it's true Windows has been insecure like outlook, or IE... but there are enough good options on the Windows platform so that, as a user, you can avoid trojans and viruses. Perhaps it was just luck on my part not getting a virus. Viruses are as much a social problem as they are a computer phenomenon, and like most nasty social problems they can be avoided through proper prevention. In the end a computer is only as good as it's user.

Re:A few things

[rat7307]

In like 14 years since I got my first 286-- till today running windows 2000 on a celeron, I have not had one virus!

That you know of.......j00 m4y b3 0wn3d...

I have been using windows based PCs since DOS first hit the scene...

I have never seen a Windows based DOS pc.... thats a very strange comment.. :-)

Sorry, its been a slow day.....

Re:A few things

[red elk]

"It's amazing to me that people will even *consider* it part and parcel of dealing with Windows that they can't even fathom there are alternatives (i.e. virus free ways of dealing with things), sad really!"

Why do I deal with Windows?
One word: Games

Once the linux community can build games in a timely fashion that can compete with Windows, I'll switch :)

Re:Then and the art of grammar?

[Anonymous Coward]

It goes with him saying that root and non root issues aren't really issues since most attacks occur externally. Yes, smartass, they do happen externally, and what do you suppose the external attacker wants most, full control? I think so....duh!!

Interesting and Insightful

[evilpenguin]

Well, I think this interview shows the man has his head on straight. He understands the real issues that keep "joe six-pack" from buying and using Linux and he understands why there is is little ISV support for Linux. He has a strategy for solving it. I don't know if it will work. I don't know if it is any good.

But $200 PCs from Wal-Mart with Linux pre-installed is a big step on the way to adoption.

I do not know Lindows (yet). I don't know if I think it is evil or not. But I bought one of the cheap PCs to find out. I figure that if I hate it, I can put another distro on the box.

I, frankly, look forward to to seeing Lindows on PCs actually in Wal-Mart stores. You see, I'd rather have a substantial number of the people who don't care what their OS is running Linux (or at least having the choice) than being locked in to a Microsoft-only world. It will lead to better hardware and software support for the OS. Nothing this man does can take away our Free Software or our other distros. If some of the people today locked in to Microsoft become locked in to Lindows, does that really hurt anything or anyone?

I disagree with him about the "running as root" issue. I understand his logic, but a "root only" Linux box is a Linux box that might very well come to need its virus scanner! Non-priv'd users are a big part of why Linux viruses are NOT a big issue.

Anyways, I know I'm rambling. I'm not likely to ever buy a Lindows subscription. I'll end up putting Debian, RedHat, or SuSE on the box first (heck, maybe my first Gentoo box, who knows). But I think there is a supply of users for whom a product like Lindows is theoretically perfect. My mother-in-law, for example.

Those of us who care about Free Software as a freedom issue wont be hurt by Lindows. And we might be at least indirectly helped.

Interesting views. Good interview.

Re:Interesting and Insightful

[BeBoxer]

I disagree with him about the "running as root" issue. I understand his logic, but a "root only" Linux box is a Linux box that might very well come to need its virus scanner! Non-priv'd users are a big part of why Linux viruses are NOT a big issue.

Um, actually I don't think this is true at all. The biggest "virus" problem in Windows land is the various email "virus". Technically worms, but the point is the same. And these abuse the easy code-execution abilities for Microsoft mail clients. If Ximian Evolution automatically executed any .pl or .sh attachement you'd have the same problem on Linux.

With respect to true viruses, which infect files, privledges help in theory, but aren't going to help much in practice. Why? The system is spending all of it's time running as one user, and that user is quite capable of infecting their own execution environment. A virus could simply drop a copy of itself onto the system and tweek the users LD_LIBRARY_PATH in order to get itself executed at will. Sure, the user isn't technically changing the system binaries but the effect is the same. Well, you say, other users are safe from the infection right? That would be true if the system had any other users. But on a single user system, "infecting" the single user means that 100% of the users on the system are infected.

Sure, not running as root keeps the virus from actually formatting the disk. But since a virus is quite capable of trashing the users settings, environment and documents it's kind of a moot point. On a single user system "rm -rf ~" is just as effective as "rm -rf /". The problem is really that standard Unix privledges are far too coarse to be of any real use on a single user system. They are incapable of protecting the user from themselves (or more accurately, their processes.) Hopefully the work the NSA is doing on Linux will lead to a system where fine-grained privledges can actually be used to protect the user from themselves. But until that gets developed, I think Lindows is taking a perfectly reasonable approach.

Re:Interesting and Insightful

[IamTheRealMike]

Non-priv'd users are a big part of why Linux viruses are NOT a big

Oh, I don't think so. Your typical email virus doesn't need root privs, and if it wants to email random documents it can do that pretty easily. There's nothing wrong with having a root/user separation but unfortunately the balance is all wrong. Why do I need to be root to use "beep" (well actually it's setuid on most boxes). There are a whole load of things that root is needed for when actually for a desktop box, it just gets in the way.

Interesting views. Good interview.

Yes, I was impressed as well. Good on Mr Robertson, he gets an astonishing amount of dirt thrown at him around here, maybe that will change in future.

Re:Interesting and Insightful

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is that, although data may be lost, the operating system and its programs are still in a working condition. The user may not see that the system is working, but that system will be easier to fix. That is the big point: if someone can go in and fix the situation, it makes things easier for that person (i.e. phone support or remote assistance might be easier). But, if no support is found, the user can still reinstall the OS. An easy-to-use distro should make it harder to obliviate the home directory and possibly even offer automatic backups and a 'click-here-to-restore' icon. Having the home directory wiped is better than having to sit through another install. Lindows is not the best way to go--just look at the way OSX treats root access.

Re:Interesting and Insightful

[Alapan]

Recently, I did a survey about basic computer usage amongst my fellow university students (doing BA degrees only ...). Over 60% of them said that they do not care about what OS they use, as long as it is: 1) User friendly 2) Fast 3) Reliable 4) Availablity of common applications (Office programs, Internet, Multimedia etc) Lindows provides most of the above - and I really admire that fact. I don't agree with running everything as root - even on my standalone linux machine (with no! connection to internet) I don't run everything as root. There are other ways of getting round the problem - maybe use acl enabled filesystems like RFS and allow instalation as root but configuration as normal user. I am not the type that will ever use Lindows as my primary [its too simple :)] but I know a lot more that would love to use something like that.

Re:Interesting and Insightful

[Anonymous Coward]

I am typing this right now on one of those $200 Microtel / Lindows boxes.

So far the experience is OK, and almost everything runs well. KDE is dog-slow though.

It does scare me a little to see that the 'C:' drive in the file manager goes to / . Fortunately they provided a recovery CD.

I appreciate the low-cost alternative to MS / Apple, and would recommend this box for someone who does basic web browsing and email if they don't have much cash to spare.

Truth be told, I'll be installing FreeBSD on this box tomorrow.

Re:Interesting and Insightful

[Reziac]

Even if Lindows didn't run as root, it would be easy enough to social-engineer a newbie on ANY version of linux: He gets an official-looking email telling him about an important update, but it has to be installed from the root account... And here are the friendly-sounding instructions on how to do it. (Of course the "update" is some worm that turns his PC into a zombie, but the user may never have a clue it's there.)

After having had any ordinary disty (not running as root) tell him a few times that he can only adjust his whatever-device from root, the average user may well believe the official-looking email, and follow the instructions, to his sorrow.

Given that, virus protection for linux systems doesn't sound so needless anymore, eh?

Running As Root Considered Harmful

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think he gets it. User processes and system processes should not be running as the same id. Running everything as root is simply a terrible technical decision.

Where did that question come from?

[Otter]

Re: "Could you please update me on your efforts to patent your one-click-software-update solution?"

Is there any factual evidence for such an effort, is the poster confusing Lindows with Amazon, is he completely clueless or did a bunch of crack-addled moderators mod up a troll?

Re:Where did that question come from?

[jpaz]

Is there any factual evidence for such an effort, is the poster confusing Lindows with Amazon, is he completely clueless or did a bunch of crack-addled moderators mod up a troll?

Yes.

Re:Where did that question come from?

[agentk]

Nah, that poster was just waiting for Robertson to say "no" so he could file *his* patent...

Re:Where did that question come from?

[neitzsche]

"evidence" - well no, no evidence per se. (Since when does one need evidence to post a question on /.?)

I do not have any secret recordings of Michael Robertson outlining plans for focusing his efforts on legal (instead of technical) matters.

But his colorful history does show that he seems to excel in the legal arena. OTOH, his technical decisions lead to very belabored discussions about whether users should run as root or not.

I am happy with his answer to my question.

I am glad that my question was moderated up, AND he deigned to answer it.

Perhaps if I had carefully prepared a question, I would have asked how or if he intends to legally "help" the linux community. He was given the source code to a simply excellent operating system, as well as tons of application code for free. With some amount of effort, he is now able to call it his own. Does he now intend to fight legal battles that "little guys" cannot? (The Microsoft (TM) battle is the one example that I know of.) Does he feel that he owes the linux community anything?

But I didn't. That's what I get for being in a rush to post rapidly after the call for questions appeared.

BTW Otter, are you a Lindows employee or just an advocate?

Lastly,
is he completely clueless or did a bunch of crack-addled moderators mod up a troll?
I've never done crack myself (can't speak for the moderators) and it's been a long time since I've had any mind-altering chemical stronger than the caffeine in my coffee. I certainly do not consider myself (nor my question) a troll. I'm sorry that you do.

Re:Where did that question come from?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mr Neitzche,

Could you please update me on your efforts to butt-rape your labrador?

Thanks.

ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

Virii are a tiny problem today on Linux

"Virii" is not a word. The word is "viruses".

Re:ugh

[Havokmon]

"Virii" is not a word. The word is "viruses".

heh. But the Democracy of Language says, "If enough people use it, it will become a word".

Where do you think language came from in the first place?

Re:ugh

[roka]

Yep, you are right.

For more info see Wikipedia:
Despite frequent claims to the contrary, the only correct English plural of the word for any of these senses is viruses. The Latin word does not appear to have had a plural. Virii would be the plural of the word virius, and viri was the plural of the word vir, meaning man. See [1] for more on this.

Re:ugh

[Akor]

correct link is here

I'm impressed

[u38cg]

While I don't agree with everything he says, I have to say he's far better informed and making far better decisions than I thought he was.

For the first time, someone is pushing a Linux distribution at customers with regard only to what customers want, not what geeks feel like providing.

He has a serious handle on the things that will crack open the door to mass acceptance; pre-installation...simple installation - criticise the ethics of CnR all you like, at the end of the day it is designed to work seamlessly without specialist knowledge, and precious little else manages it.

He also seems to have a good handle on what freedom means in a practical sense; the ability to control your computer - witness the Xbox bounty, leaving in apt-get, and so on.

Lindows won't ever be my cup of tea, but I suspect that in a few versions down the road it will be the ideal Christmas present for Granny.

Why the Walmart Thing is Bogus

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not so sure that the lindows/microtel boxes are anything but cheap white boxes that people install their pirated copies of windows software on....no one likes talking about this, but I'd imagine that many of those lindows machines being sold are being taken home, run once or twice as a linux machine , and then wiped and installed as a windows machine.

Call me a pessimist, but the people who have the numbers (lindows and microtel) aren't likely to release them. How many people sign up for click & run vs the numbers of machines sold....

Re:Why the Walmart Thing is Bogus

[pecosdave]

Look again. You can get the machines without Linows, thats probably the case with the non-Lindows machines, but why would you want have to figure out how to get Lindows off of a machine to put Windows on? I know it can be difficult for newbies to remove Linux type file systems with a Win98 CD. I've walked more than one semi-experienced tech through having to do it myself.

Re:Why the Walmart Thing is Bogus

[mahdi13]

Buy a Lindows machine, format it and install Windows...this is not a good thing to do (or easy for those that don't know howto "fdisk /mbr" but for every Lindows machine sold it is +1 for Linux and 0 for Windows.
If they don't sign up for the CnR, that doesn't mean they are not using the Lindows. They could be like me and want to run other apps from the apt-get sources (not hard to enter ftp.debian.org in the /etc/apt/apt.sources

I do hope to see these sitting on the shelves at Wal-Mart soon, with a running display model to show people. Hope they have an image on hand for when people like me come along, open a terminal and "rm -rf /" =)

Re:Why the Walmart Thing is Bogus

[Anonymous Coward]

We've bought two of these. One was given to my mom to replace an ancient computer she used to use, the other had debian installed and is being used as a counterstrike server.

These aren't the fastest machines in the world (CS server can't handle above 12 people really) and I doubt it is attractive to install windows on them, really.

Re:Why the Walmart Thing is Bogus

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be cheaper to go to the corner computer store and throw a system together. I realize things are a lot more expensive (after exchange) in the US than in Canada but sheesh... I can pick up a case and the same mb in the microtel boxes cheap.

Re:Why the Walmart Thing is Bogus

[Anonymous Coward]

You would have to unalias 'rm' first, ot else be presented with quite a number of interactive removes.

Re:Why the Walmart Thing is Bogus

[RoLi]

no one likes talking about this, but I'd imagine that many of those lindows machines being sold are being taken home, run once or twice as a linux machine , and then wiped and installed as a windows machine.

Probably, but also many will find out that just using the preinstalled apps is easier than to hassle with installing Windows, installing MS Office, installing ICQ, installing a virus scanner, etc. etc.

If you are not a gamer, Linux is perfectly usable as a desktop, and in many respects easier than Windows (because it comes with so many preinstalled (or easily available through Click-n-Run) applications - no CDs, no installs, no hassles)

But even if almost all Microtel boxes would end up with Windows - This also benefits us because it shows that there is a market for non-Windows-preloaded boxes and gives us hope that other PC-vendors will no longer force us to pay for Windows we don't use anyway.

Re:Why the Walmart Thing is Bogus

[Lumpy]

sorry but no matter how you people at microsoft think. if a customer bought windows with their last computer and they buy this new computer and INSTALL their copy of windows on it before throwing away the old junk.....

IT IS NOT PIRATING... or any copyright violation.

I know of several people that have done this and just because it violates some obscure part of the EULA that is not bindable or encofreable does not magically make it pirating and copyright violation...

This is what is happening contrary to the liemongers like you want everyone to think.

Dammit, 99.997% of all home users do not need anything more than windows 98.. so they are not going to go buy XP when they have a perfectly legal copy of 98 sitting there from that old Pentium that is worthless and is going in the trash.

Re:Why the Walmart Thing is Bogus

[StormReaver]

"I'm not so sure that the lindows/microtel boxes are anything but cheap white boxes that people install their pirated copies of windows software on."

I doubt it. The Microtel/LindowsOS boxes are not powerful enough to run anything beyond Win98 comfortably (and I'm skeptical they'll run Win98 comfortably). And they are not powerful enough to play most of the Windows games -- most certainly not most 3D games.

These Walmart/LindowsOS machines are very entry level machines designed to run just the basic apps (email, web, word processing). The people who buy these machines are not likely to know how to install an operating system. Even if they know people who can, it's unlikely to happen simple because the machines are quite underpowered.

Re:Why the Walmart Thing is Bogus

[cyberformer]

This is why Windows XP has product activation --- so that people can't install their old copy on a new machine.

Re:Why the Walmart Thing is Bogus

[jasonditz]

Well I for one bought a Lindows/Microtel box, kept Lindows on it, and have not signed up for Click n' Run.

If not using Click N' Run is proof of piracy they'd better stop letting people use apt-get.

Re:Why the Walmart Thing is Bogus

[tonymus]

That was my thought last year when I bought a Microtel PC with Lindows preinstalled. I thought I would play with it for a couple of days, then wipe it and put on an old version of Win98 I wasn't currently using.

The first time I loaded it, it immediately detected my network settings, and I was on the internet in under 2 minutes. That impressed the hell out of me. Win98 would have needed a network driver and some tweaks to finally get it going.

I also liked the idea of using Click-N-Run; installing programs under linux can be painful, but Click-N-Run really does install with one click.

To sum up, I became a Lindows Insider, and I don't regret the decision. I came home tonight to find my technophobic wife surfing the web on Netscape, and realized that, as long as its easy to use, who cares whose name is on the OS?

Re:Why the Walmart Thing is Bogus

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I bought one of those $200 specials (actually the wintergreen box from tigerdirect.com) with Lindows preinstalled. I'm no newbie to computers, but I hadn't really had much hands-on with linux before this. I had trouble getting Lindows to do what I wanted it to do (file and print server for Windows laptops on a home network), so I downloaded Mandrake and got that working. While I could have installed Windows on the box (legitimately or otherwise), I would not have considered it unless I had completely given up on Linux. Sure, setting up a win'98 box for file and printer sharing is easy, but I wanted something I could leave on all the time and not have to reboot it every time I actually went to use it.

So I never signed up for click&run, but I didn't pirate windows either. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I don't think you can just assume mass piracy on the part of Lindows customers.

BTW: I would recommend Lindows to others. The problem I had would have been easily overcome if I had known a little more about SMB and SAMBA. You don't have to run as root, you can set up user accounts and passwords. Once you know what you're doing, you can make Lindows do anything any other Linux distro will do.

Re:Why the Walmart Thing is Bogus

[codermotor]

Actually your post should have been moderated as +5: Funny! ;)

In fact, the Corporate version of XP Pro is easily obtainable and installs and runs just fine without any authentication required. I suspect that there are more pirated copies of XP Pro in Home-userland than legitimate retail versions (corporate use notwithstanding).

And yes, both SP1 and OfficeXP SP1 can be installed (via some slick little trojan authentication apps) on the pirated XP.

Re:Why the Walmart Thing is Bogus

[pqdave]

Exactly the opposite for me--I've seen enough of Linux that I'm pretty sure I'd be happy with it, but every install I've tried has had a different problem that has discouraged me from switching. A pre-configured Linux system will let me figure Linux out at the luser level first, and I'll be reasonably confident that the problems I'm having are mine, and not driver or configuration issues. $200 is a fairly low price for that, considering that in most respects it will be a significant upgrade from my current box.

Someone is really trying to take Linux mainstream!

[1337_h4x0r]

Instead of saying "well why should we pay you for apt-get" and such, why can't we embrace this, work to extend their apps and do what we can to make this work? Isn't this what we wanted? A non-MS alternative that everyday people can use? I don't understand the hostility towards Lindows thats prevalent on /.

OT: C is a great language

[i_am_nitrogen]

Just as C lived on long beyond its usefull life, for some applications, and managed to give us a cornucopia of exploits which could have been easily avoided with a sane language ...

Yeah, this is probably a troll... but I feel it's necessary to point out, for the sake of those that might read that and believe it, that the fault lies not with the language, but the programmer. C is the best language where object oriented design is not necessary, and direct control over memory and hardware is essential. Just always remember to use the bound-limited versions of library calls, i.e. snprintf vs. sprintf.

I'm a victim of the "Virus Protection" bit.

[pecosdave]

One of my past employers demanded that I install a virus scanning program on my Linux box that wasn't even connected to the network after a big Windows virus took out most the workstations at the company. I used it simply for reference when walking customers through fixing their own issues. Stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid.

I'm Impressed

[AlabamaMike]

Hats off to this CEO. First off, I'm very impressed by his stance on patents. To find a CEO today that shares his vision of "non-obvious" patents is a chore. I like to think of most CEOs as "IP Raiders." Next, his comparing Microsoft's code base to a ratty housing project is also on point. It's good to be reminded how a company with both the monitary resources and marketing might can actually "mold" reality into something that shelters their position. The virus problem in Windows isn't all MS's fault, but there's more than enough blame to go around. Finally, his point on the XBox is very important, and I am enthralled to see it stated so well. Closed PC architectures are an upcoming menance, and if history is to be our guide here it's clear that we have no protection from our government(s). MS got off scot-free from the anti-trust action (something not even the Bell System was able to do.) They'll probably get away with this as well, but at least we'll have a choice with gentlemen like Mr. Robertson out there. A giant thank you to him for his response, and props to the /. community for coming out with some excellent questions.

-A.M.

Optimism

[sonarniche]

Even tho Lindows gets a lot of flack, Im impressed there's a CEO in this country that actually has personal beliefs and moral stakes that drive his ambition as much as business sense.

I just gotta wonder how long trying to be a good guy can last.

PT Team???

[Amazing Quantum Man]

instead of having them laundered by a PT team.

So either his answers are for a WWII patrol boat, or they need physical therapy???

Biggest Show On Earth

[jtkooch]

Michael Robertson is the PT Barnum of the software world. He doesn't use publicity to sell Linux, he's using Linux to sell his publicity.

Rather than putting together a quality product and selling it on it's merrits, he generates buzz by baiting Microsoft.

And in the end, he's no better than the beast he claims he's trying kill; Click-N-Run is as assinie MS's license policy, and the compuers being sold by Walmart.com are not the good deal that people make them out to be because they essnetially throw away computers.

Re:Biggest Show On Earth

[Znonymous Coward]

No, Michael Robertson is the 2nd biggest show on earth. Bobby Trendy on the Anna Nicole Smith show the the biggest show on earth.

Lots of good stuf, lots of FUD

[prgrmr]

Most security compromises are external attacks, not root vs. non-root issues

If we make Linux harder to use then other operating systems, users will not embrace it. Users just want to get their work done, they don't want to be computer experts and they shouldn't have to be.

The Microsoft stranglehold on OEMs must be cracked to change the dynamics of the PC business. Until this happens, no desktop Linux company should be considered a viable longterm company.

...the world they grew up in. 95% of the world has grown up in a Microsoft virus-infested project. Microsoft has cleverly positioned it as a solely external problem so they don't have to incur the cost to fix it. Bravo to Microsoft for good marketing which has saved them billions in support.

On one hand, Kudos for being forthright and all that. On the other, what the heck is up with all the FUD? Computers are not applicances, and we are a looonngg way from being there. Marketing them as such doesn't change that, and only creates a segment of the market similar to what the auto industry has to contend with: People who buy a car and never so much as change the oil let alone tune it up or check it up; then they bitch and moan when they start having problems and ultimately trade it in on something else they aren't going to take care of before they are anywhere near 100k on the odometer. Catering to these people (i.e. substantiating the MS BS by pandering to it) isn't going to help any vendor in particular, or the industry in general.

Re:Lots of good stuf, lots of FUD

[Daetrin]

People who buy a car and never so much as change the oil let alone tune it up or check it up; then they bitch and moan when they start having problems and ultimately trade it in on something else they aren't going to take care of before they are anywhere near 100k on the odometer. Catering to these people (i.e. substantiating the MS BS by pandering to it) isn't going to help any vendor in particular, or the industry in general.

The automobile industry is quite happy that people upgrade cars far more frequently than is really necessary. Please explain why hardware vendors wouldn't be equally happy with a similar trend for computers.

Re:Lots of good stuf, lots of FUD

[prgrmr]

Hardware vendors, sure. Software vendors? I doubt it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the issue here was software and computer security via software, which is not a "plug-and-play" compatible function.

Subsidized hardware vs. consumer control

[Octagon Most]

I have a differing opinion on this concept of consumers having "control over their computers and the ability to decide what software they want to utilize." Surely this is not a popular opinion around here, but shouldn't we accept as legitimate the concept of subsidized hardware based on a subscription? This is most typified by wireless phones. Anyone can get a free mobile phone by signing up for a wireless service contract and agreeing to pay the fees for a specified period of time, typically one or two years. Part of those fees goes toward the initial cost of the device that the user got for free or a subsidized cost. Now even if we don't like it can't we accept that the X-Box is priced the same way? The X-Box buyer gets the unit cheaply (subsidized if you will) because of the condition that it is locked to specific software - authorized games that generate fees for Microsoft.

Instead of arguing that consumers should have some inherent right to do as they wish with any hardware they buy shouldn't we fight for the option to purchase such unrestricted hardware at an unsubsidized price? It's unrealistic to suggest that Microsoft or any other company provide cheap, even below-cost, hardware and not recoup their development costs. And it wouldn't look like such an attractive project to get Linux running on a $2000 unrestricted version, would it? I just think it is fair to accept that it is not just restricted hardware locking you into an evil vendor, but rather subsidized hardware purchased with an explicit service contract.

Re:Subsidized hardware vs. consumer control

[scubacuda]

While my knee jerk reaction is to always say "fuck anything that doesn't give me complete control over my hardware," I'll have to say...that's the best godamn defense I've heard in a long time.

Re:Subsidized hardware vs. consumer control

[Anonymous Coward]

"Surely this is not a popular opinion around here, but shouldn't we accept as legitimate the concept of subsidized hardware based on a subscription?"

Of course not, since this reduce consumers choice.

"Anyone can get a free mobile phone by signing up for a wireless service contract and agreeing to pay the fees for a specified period of time, typically one or two years."

In many countries like Finland this kind of stuff is illegal. That's why cell phones are very popular here:
- you can choose a cell phone and service provider independently
- you can replace your cell phone with a new one when you like and keep your phone number
- you can switch to the better service provider any time

Re:Subsidized hardware vs. consumer control

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is the deal:

If Microsoft (or any producer of low margin and/or subsidised hardware) wants to lock consumers into a contract agreeing that the consumer does not actually own the hardware, they should make the consumer sign a contract at the time of purchase.

As it is, you pay the money and take home the Xbox. That Xbox is YOURS to do with as you please. Any suggestions of implicit non-ownership of purchased hardware is an attempt to errode contract law and shift the balance of power to the seller.

Re:Subsidized hardware vs. consumer control

[Anonymous Coward]

Wireless providers require a contract.

Re:Subsidized hardware vs. consumer control

[brauwerman]

No.

When you get your "free" cellphone, you're paying $500 for a phone plus 1 year of service. There's no subsidy. If you but a console, the vendor is _hoping_ that you buy a lot of games to recoup the costs, and the closed nature of the system is a trap lain for you to guarantee their profit.

If a console manufacturer wants to cover hardware costs with software sales, and do it fairly, your console should cost $500 and include vouchers for 10 games, so customers know what they are getting.

Re:Subsidized hardware vs. consumer control

[gimpboy]

this is what contracts are for. if microsoft wants you to do this, they should have you sign a contract enumerating your rights and theirs. i personally think that you should be able to molest any hardware you purchase unless you sign something stating otherwise. i dont think companies should be able to empose restrictions after you've purchased hardware. with cell phones the restrictions are made upfront.

when you get your "free" cell phone, you agree to pay for their service in the form of a contract. calling the cell phone "free" is really misleading. i was in radioshack the other day buying a cable or something. the guy behind the counter asked me if i want a "free" cell phone. i asked him if it i was required to purchase a plan with it, he said that i was. interesting how people define free.

companies who base their business model on services or future sales based on obfuscation of their hardware get what they deserve. if they want a more concrete revenue stream, they should have a contract.

Re:Subsidized hardware vs. consumer control

[$hecky]

You have got to be kidding. Seriously. Your phone analogy fits the Xbox like socks fit a chicken.

When you "purchase" a subsidized cell phone with a service contract you sign a contract. When you buy an Xbox, you don't. You don't agree not to take it apart, hack it, play non-Xbox games on it or not to use it in an anti-Microsoft advertisement showing why your console is better.

If MS wanted to attach the Xbox to games (or whatever else) with a contract, they have that freedom. They can make the contract as restrictive as they want. But they don't. So I don't have an obligation, legal or moral, to buy any games at all, or to use it the way MS wants me to.

In the absence of an explicit contract, I can use the Xbox any way I choose (within just bounds of the law). I own it. That's not a consumer "right" like fair use; that's a right to property-- the same right I acknowledge by buying my Xbox from the retailer instead of stealing it.

There's (thankfully) no valid law that says a company should be guaranteed a profit by virtue of an "implied" contract of any sort. Profit, personal, corporate, or otherwise, is not a thing to which terms like "fair" apply. I sure as hell don't have an obligation to make a poorly-planned business venture profitable.

Screw them if they sell it below cost-- that doesn't obligate me to anything. I mean, if they gave me one for free, with no contract, would I be obligated to pay for their service or buy games? You might as well tell me that if you wash my car without my permission I'm obligated to pay you.

Re:Subsidized hardware vs. consumer control

[agentk]

You're right, that M$ needs to recover initial losses with licensing fees. This is how the console game industry has always functioned. It's exactly how Nintendo was so incredibly successful (that, and choosing REALLY GOOD games to license!)

But with M$ in the game (basing the X-Box on PC architecture obviously because of their existing PC expertise and codebase) we now have a bridge between two sectors that were previously only indirectly related (through the chip manufacturers)-- Namely, the general purpose, rather open PC world and the closed game console world. If the latter encroaches too much on the former, we lose some freedom.

Re:Subsidized hardware vs. consumer control

[BubbaTheBarbarian]

There is only oneproblem that I have with this take...

Companies TELL you that the phone is free as long as you are part of the plan for x amount of time. MS does no such thing, then freaks out when the hardware is modded. If MS had had a condition around it being subsidized hardware, then I think thier position would be more defendable, but as it stands right now without such, they just look like bullys.

Maybe there is something I am missing in the X-Box EULA...nah...

We should have asked...

[scubacuda]

..."What percentage of Lindows boxen do you think that the public buys just to install another OS on? And of those boxen, how many do you think have pirated versions of Windows on them?"

Re:We should have asked...

[spitzak]

As several others have pointed out, WalMart also sells "blank" boxes. If I wanted to install a pirated copy of Windows I would certainly choose that machine instead.

Re:We should have asked...

[smasherbob]

Yeah, I mean, geez... a $200 piece of shit is just PERFECT for running my sweet new pirated copy of Freelancer!

He's joking, right?

[SlashChick]

You know, it's pretty funny that something that Microsoft has been trying to move away from for several years (lack of a true multi-user system) is something Michael is touting as a "feature." Since when is it a "feature" to take away something that is not only more secure, but also the default in the latest version of every OS (from Windows XP to Mac OS X)?

Michael says "[T]here's less need to share computers and have multi-user accounts with all that overhead and complexity." I don't buy it, Michael. If this is the case, why aren't we still seeing Windows 98's one-user system? XP comes with a really slick multi-user interface that allows people to easily change passwords, set computer accounts as Limited or Administrator, and even has the ability to switch users and keep multiple users logged on at the same time. Ironically, in this case, Microsoft is the one giving choice to users, where a Linux vendor is taking it away. (And if you say it's unfair to compare Lindows to Windows XP, I say that if someone's going to buy a new computer, they're either going to get Lindows or an XP box, so it's very fair to compare it.)

Michael continues by saying "There are some key areas of hardware support which no desktop has today which users consistently bring up including: USB wireless support, Plug & Play USB drives (flash, hard drive and CD/RW), firewire and ACPI (power management for laptops)."

Which is, of course, bullshit. Both Windows 2000 and XP (especially XP) have great support for all of the above. Even Windows ME (which is probably one of the worst versions of Windows ever) has built-in support for USB drives. In fact, even Mandrake and Red Hat automatically pop up a dekstop icon when you plug in a USB drive. Who are you kidding, Michael?

Of course, then he has to spout off about Microsoft Office pricing: "...Microsoft Word costing $349 and Microsoft Office priced at $399."

Michael, I don't know where you're buying your software, but I picked up my copy of Microsoft Office for $180. That includes Publisher, Word, Excel, and Outlook. Want Powerpoint? Buy Pro; it's $100 more. Sure, Microsoft may have bad business practices, but 4 programs I use often (most of them daily) for $180? That's $45 each. Windows XP Home from the same site (or many others) is $86.95, and I picked up my fully legitimate copy of XP Pro for $125. Wait... so, Michael, explain to me why Windows XP Home (fully licensed for as long as you own your PC) is $86.95, and Lindows is $99.00 for one year of access?

Look, I'm no Microsoft zealot, and I administer a ton of Linux servers (just read my /. journal.) But this guy is a slimeball. I completely agree on the cost-effectiveness of Linux on Web/database servers, where Microsoft's product is $725. But his version of Linux for the home user is not only less secure than Windows XP (and he can't find a good reason for that, other than that earlier versions of Windows had the same crappy security), but it's more expensive than Windows XP Home!

I fully support Linux, and I think it's caused Microsoft to really have to make better products. Lindows, however, is a joke, and it makes the community look bad with its lax security and nickel-and-diming of the average consumer. I feel sorry for anyone whose sole experience with Linux is Lindows.

Re:He's joking, right?

[geomon]

Hmmm.... A slimeball?

He has at least put himself out there to be critiqued. When did BillG ever put himself out for questioning (re: business practices, trashing open source, purchaser ownership issues)?

The fact that you have grist for the mill makes him less of a slimeball than some CEOs I've read interviews from.

At least he doesn't front a company convicted of a crime in a federal court.

Re:He's joking, right?

[_xeno_]

XP Home defaults as having everyone run as an Administrator. In the home edition they are really intended to allow different users to have different settings. (So one user can have a mountain wallpaper and another can have a garden wallpaper.) This is why by default accounts have no passwords and trying to set a password on the account offers up a scary dialog box asking if the user wants to proceed.

For home users, always running at "root" level is the right thing to do. The computer is supposed to be a tool for them, it shouldn't be restricting what they can do with "Permission denied" messages. (These just scare users, anyway. It's hard to teach users the idea of "privileged" accounts, and even if you do, most just demand having their normal account elevated in privilege. After all, it's their computer and they would never do something to harm it...)

Besides, I always run as Administrator on my XP Pro machine anyway. It's far too much of a hassle not to since every half of all programs demand Administrator rights anyway. (And of the remaining half, half of them actually require Administrator rights but just fail silently, or crash outright.) Of course, of all of these, maybe 10% actually require them...

The security features available in XP are mainly intended to be used in a buisness setting. At work where computers are managed by IT, they make sense. But locking people out of their home computers frustrates users more than giving them full access to use and possibly destroy their machines. It'll take time to educate people about how to protect themselves by taking full advantage of the security options their OS offers. But while many simple programs require Administrator privileges (like CD-burning programs, most games (attention publishers who add copy protection schemes to games that otherwise wouldn't require Admin privileges...) and other types of software (Winamp 3 requires "Power Users" or higher, or else it crashes without an error message)...), people will need to be given full access to their computer so that they can use it.

I used to run as a "User" in Win2k, but gave up when half the things I did required me to Run As Administrator anyway. (That and I had to elevate myself to "Power User" to use Winamp3, as mentioned above. I mean, c'mon!)

While running as Administrator/root may not be the most intelligent idea, it is far easier for home computers that Lindows is targetted at. Users want full control over their PC - it's their PC, it's there to do their bidding, and they're going to demand control over it. As long as it can be overridden by users who want that added bit of security, I don't see a problem with having the normal user running as root. It may be "safer" not to, but users want control over their computer.

Re:He's joking, right?

[S3Indiana]

FYI Lindows is fully capable of running multiple user accounts. The answer to the question was why run as root out of the box - simplicity. It's equally simple to add user accounts to the machine if the user is concerned...

Re:He's joking, right?

[KaMiKa-Z77]

That reminds me of my first experience with Windows XP. My cousin bought a PC with XP Home pre-installed and wanted to burn some of her MP3's with her nifty new CD-Writer, so she called me to show her how. She is very much a noob, so using Nero was out of the question. I noticed that she had MusicMatch pre-installed (which was perfect for her needs), I tried to fire it up and it wouldn't because XP needed the user to have Administrator priveleges. WTF? Format. Lather. Install non-MS OS. And there was much rejoicing... yey...

Re:He's joking, right?

[Zathrus]

I don't buy it, Michael. If this is the case, why aren't we still seeing Windows 98's one-user system?

We are. XP Home defaults to it. XP Pro lets you run that way as well... in fact, you have to go through a good bit to set Home up otherwise (and, admittedly, you have to convince Pro to run that way as well - but it's easily done).

Yeah, so you can setup additional users. Whoop de doo. You can do that on Lindows or any other Linux install too.

Which is, of course, bullshit. Both Windows 2000 and XP (especially XP) have great support for all of the above.

Way to take things out of context!

Read the question. Read it carefully. It was specifically asking about features missing on Linux based desktop distros. There was nothing about Windows systems. Hell, by the same token you should be flaming him over the virus protection tidbit -- since there's been virus protection for DOS/Windows systems since at least DOS 3.3!

And while there is sporadic support for everything listed, it's certainly not as clean as it is under Windows... which is what he's trying to get at.

Of course, then he has to spout off about Microsoft Office pricing

He was making a point about where MS gets its revenue from. And the prices given were MSRP. You want to bitch and kvetch about that? Then bitch at MS for absurd MSRPs. Hell, bitch at the entire freaking world, since virtually nobody has MSRPs that actually relate to reality.

Your comments about actual price and relative value stand though, and are good points. I disagree about the relative security of the two products though... I run XP and Linux at home, and while there are exploits for both, I'm far more concerned about breaches on my XP desktop than my Linux server... although since I never use Outlook and have switched to Mozilla from IE my concerns have decreased significantly.

Re:He's joking, right?

[pmz]

Since when is it a "feature" to take away something that is not only more secure, but also the default in the latest version of every OS (from Windows XP to Mac OS X)?

I just installed Win XP "Home Edition" for the first time recently...administrator access appears to be the default. At least as far as I can tell.

XP comes with a really slick multi-user interface...

Are you sure it's as multi-user as you think it is? Just because there are multiple names to log on as doesn't ensure it's a true multi-user system.

Ironically, in this case, Microsoft is the one giving choice to users...

Whenever Microsoft appears to be offering you a choice, you'd better watch your back. Have you read the Win XP EULA, lately?

Michael, I don't know where you're buying your software, but I picked up my copy of Microsoft Office for $180.

That sort of price used to be educational-only. I wonder if Microsoft is actually responding to market pressures rather than creating them. If this is true, then Lindows.com, OpenOffice.org, Mozilla, Apple, and others are really making a greater impact than I thought.

But his version of Linux for the home user is not only less secure than Windows XP...

It's certainly more secure against microsoft.com. Have you double-checked your automatic updates configuration...how about your media player configuration? I saw a few rather disturbing default settings in there, especially in the media player. Trust me, Microsoft is not your friend.

Lindows, however, is a joke...

Time will tell. I'm just glad there's at least one more choice beyond MS and Apple for "joe six-pack".

Re:He's joking, right?

[Dahan]

Michael, I don't know where you're buying your software, but I picked up my copy of Microsoft Office for $180.

I suspect he's buying his software from a legitimate vendor, not someone who sells OEM software in violation of Microsoft's licensing agreement. Perhaps you disagree with the concept of software licensing, but it's rather disingenuous to point compare a gray market price to regular retail.

Re:He's joking, right?

[jetkust]

Windows XP Home from the same site (or many others) is $86.95, and I picked up my fully legitimate copy of XP Pro for $125. Wait... so, Michael, explain to me why Windows XP Home (fully licensed for as long as you own your PC) is $86.95, and Lindows is $99.00 for one year of access?

Hey I love how you convieniently "misword" stuff to make it sound as if it costs $99 for a year access to the Lindows OS, when the $99 is the price for the OS and a one year access to Click&Run (which you don't have to buy). Lindows by itself is $49. Plus whats all this rubbish about some deal you got on Windows XP? The retail (and most common) price for Windows XP Home is $199 and Pro is $299. Everyone knows that. Who are you, the Media?

Re:He's joking, right?

[spitzak]

One of the reasons so many Windows programs require Administrator privledges is because that is the default. I think this is the primary worry: if Lindows as designed becomes quite popular to the point that there is commercial software released for it, that software will likely require root, and Lindows (and Linux in general) will be unable to fix it, no more than MicroSoft has been able to fix it.

Believe me, MicroSoft would love to have the default be non-Administrator, they would probably just make the control panel and so on be effectively setuid, but the fact that they did not do this originally means they are stuck with this design. We don't want to see the same thing happen to Linux.

Re:He's joking, right?

[Monkeyman334]

"in fact, you have to go through a good bit to set Home up otherwise"

Now that's just a lie if you've ever used WindowsXP Home. When my deadbeat brother moved back into our house he started using my computer and installing all sorts of stupid stuff because he didn't know any better. Within 10 minutes I had a password on my (admin) account and enabled a guest account with no privileges to the registry. Now he can't use or install anything except IE, Outlook, and MSN Messenger. Complete with his own Outlook, IE, and Messenger profiles without having to go to each of those programs and adding it myself. Easy.

Re:He's joking, right?

[mcrbids]

Since when is it a "feature" to take away something that is not only more secure, but also the default in the latest version of every OS (from Windows XP to Mac OS X)?

I just set up Win2000 the other day for a client. The radio button was already set to default login Administrator, without a password. What's he taking away? Lindows can be set up with multiple users, just like Win NT/2K/XP, or OS X.

Michael continues by saying "There are some key areas of hardware support which no desktop has today which users consistently bring up including: USB wireless support, Plug & Play USB drives (flash, hard drive and CD/RW), firewire and ACPI (power management for laptops)."

Which is, of course, bullshit.

Of course? Perhaps you haven't seen the many computers I have that don't. Sandisk (for compact flash) refused to work until an updated driver was obtained from the website. Your one computer is not constitute a reasonable representative sample.

Of course, then he has to spout off about Microsoft Office pricing: "...Microsoft Word costing $349 and Microsoft Office priced at $399."

Don't confuse your purchase price with the "list price", which alot of people pay. Call up your local Office Supplies place and get their price. (Spoiler: In this case, it's $459!)

I picked up my copy of Microsoft Office for $180. [saveateagle.com] That includes Publisher, Word, Excel, and Outlook. Want Powerpoint? Buy Pro; it's $100 more. Sure, Microsoft may have bad business practices, but 4 programs I use often (most of them daily) for $180? That's $45 each

Lindows charges $99 per year for everything. That includes an update service, and too many software packages. Also, your Lindows system doesn't stop working after a year, you just don't get the "one-click updates" from Lindows!

To use your example, you get everything that you mentioned above (Open Office) installed, along with games, updates, patches, the operating system, and lots more, for $99, as well as unlimited use thereafter...

Now, let's use your (admittedly optimistic) prices for MS stuff:

• Windows XP $125
  
• MS Office w/PPT: $280
  

Microsoft's total: $405
Lindows' total: $99

How is this guy being a "slimeball"?

Re:He's joking, right?

[Nimey]

...there's been virus protection for DOS/Windows systems since at least DOS 3.3!

Um, MS-DOS 6.0 was the first version to include an antivirus scanner. It had an optional Win3.1 frontend.

Re:He's joking, right?

[kesuki]

administrator access appears to be the default. At least as far as I can tell.
The default 'user' is in the administrator group. the 'true' administrator account (able to fix foobared permisions etc) is safe-mode only, and requires a password. ditto on xp.
If lindows could manage to get permisions so a wheel group user could do everthing needed they could 'imitate' the same behavior. a psudo-root user that can do almost everything unless the flags are set wrong on a file...

I'm a bit shocked ...

[pantropik]

I was expecting a lot of CEO-speak and doubletalk (redundant?). You know, "productizing" and stuff. I wasn't expecting his answers to come across as candid and conversational. He didn't "boost" Lindows nearly as much as I figured he would. Maybe I'm just easily fooled ...

One of the questions that really caught my attention was the one about apt-get.

Does apt-get break ClickNRun? I'd be willing to bet you'd end up with a seriously mangled system if you dist-upraded using apt, added some packages, then tried to use CNR. Does anyone know how this is handled?

Re:I'm a bit shocked ...

[mdfst13]

If you dist-upgrade to Sid or Sarge, it can break LindowsOS. CNR runs perfectly fine on Woody AFAIK (yes, there are a couple people running CNR on Debian boxes just to prove that they can). You can also mess things up by adding Sid or Sarge sources to your sources.list (LindowsOS defaults to Woody sources).

Note: you don't have to use CNR after the dist-upgrade to mess things up. You can also have problems using a program that accesses glibc (or another library that is radically different from LindowsOS to Sid/Sarge) that is not affected by the dist-upgrade (something third party like StarOffice or MoneyDance).

I think that you will find that you have many of the same issues when you dist-upgrade from Woody to Sid or Sarge. Maybe that's why a dist-upgrade is not usually recommended on a production box (in fact, you probably shouldn't be running a distribution called testing or unstable on a production box anyway).

In general, the focus in LindowsOS is to make the GUI simpler and safer to use. If you are using the command line, it is assumed that you know what you are doing well enough to recover from your mistakes. If not...LindowsOS reinstalls really quickly :)

Hope this helps answer your question.

root and Lindows and Windows

[oaf357]

It's easier to say here's root then to restrict users. That's why it's done because a Lindows desktop is essentially designed for one user. The cost of one Dell gets you 4 Lindows OS PCs. So it makes sense, in a way. Remember Lindows is for the desktop, only.

Windows 9x/ME/XP have been doing this for years and it's obviously worked quite well. But, those OSes are designed for ease of use so everyone becomes "administrator" so that they can do whatever they need to do.

Re:root and Lindows and Windows

[Wumpus]

I once saw somebody using Windows 95 accidentally move his C:\Windows directory into another top level directory in explorer. He panicked, and rebooted. Bye bye Windows. His hand just slipped - mice are funny like that, and the icons are small, especially on a hi-res display.

Restricting access to dangerous places to root, and granting access to dangerous operations to suid root wizards that are less likely to make stupid mistakes is the way to go, but it's easier to just make root the default account.

Some 'disagreements'...

[Infernon]

If we make Linux harder to use then other operating systems, users will not embrace it.

I disagree with this. Making something more secure doesn't necessarily make it harder to use. I'm not touting windows or anything, but if you look at the users and accounts applet in XP's control panel, you'll see that any meatball with a mouse can set logons, etc. Whether or not that entails 'security' is up to whoever wants to decide, but it's a hell of a lot better than giving the keys to everyone.

Default user as root is bad, forget "usability"

[trandles]

It may make it easier for people to use their Lindows computer if they are root by default, but it also makes writing email viruses for linux extremely easy. The number one big gripe about windows machines is the ease with which email is used as a way into the system. Thanks to Robertson and Lindows linux will soon have the same knock against it.

Re:Default user as root is bad, forget "usability"

[mustangsal66]

Not true. I have 3 desktop Linux machines, running three different Window managers, and 3 different email clients. The ease of MS email viruses, is the predictability of the email clients actions when faced with a little chunk of code.

Add on top of that, am I running Slackware, Deb, RH, Suse, Mandrake or some other dist. Where are my executables.

I'd love to hand my mother a Lindows machine, and just let her use it.

I can see the first wave of Lindos email viruses.

Click Here to configure
ok now click here to Compile Virus for your computer.
Ok almost done... Click to here to test virus ........Virus successfully built......

Ok last one... Click here to install Virus.

Re:Default user as root is bad, forget "usability"

[lactose99]

Running as root makes NO DIFFERENCE whether or not you're capable of getting an email virus. If you're running as a default user, an email virus can still potentially remove your entire home dir with everything in it. This is quite likely MUCH MORE devastating to your average Joe-user than having his system files deleted.

If a user has access to a networked system, he has the potential to receive some email trickerly that will wipe-out everything he's worked for, regardless of whether or not he's the superuser when he does it.

Re:Default user as root is bad, forget "usability"

[trandles]

You miss the point. A normal user can already blow away their own files by typing "rm -rf *" The issue is that someone can click on a shell script attached to an email and start up a program that can bind to a privileged network port...or start a sniffer...or any number of nefarious things. As far as I'm concerned crackers couldn't give a darn about any of my data. They want to own my machine to use it for another attack.

*cough*liar*cough*

[NanoGator]

"I think it's critical that consumers have control over their computers and the ability to decide what software they want to utilize. I look at the Xbox as simply a personal computer. This is why I funded the Xbox reward."

"Coincidentally, when I put money up for a project like this, suddenly I become a good guy with the Slashdot Community. It's cheaper than a Superbowl ad! (Plus there's a chance I'll never have to pay! woot!)"

Re:*cough*liar*cough*

[Anonvmous Coward]

"Coincidentally, when I put money up for a project like this, suddenly I become a good guy with the Slashdot Community. It's cheaper than a Superbowl ad! (Plus there's a chance I'll never have to pay! woot!)"

Overrated? It was funny! I mean seriously dudes, isn't it convenient that MS was the butt of this bounty and not the Playstation 2? I'm sure rationalizations can be cooked up, but when all's said and done, it's pretty clear that the bounty was an attempt to poke at MS.

Frankly, I'm not sure I'd like the idea of investing in a company who intentionally tries to draw legal fire from Microsoft.

Re:*cough*liar*cough*

[Wumpus]

isn't it convenient that MS was the butt of this bounty and not the Playstation 2?

Or is it because of this?

Re:*cough*liar*cough*

[JUSTONEMORELATTE]

Close, but no cigar. (although your post is +1 Funny, not -1 Overrated)

Popularity with the /. crowd doesn't get you sales, it only drives up your bandwidth expense. We're all a bunch of cheap-ass bastards that expect cheetos and Mtn Dew delivered on a silver platter for free.
Oh yeah, and OGG support too.

--

Re:*cough*liar*cough*

[Anonvmous Coward]

"Or is it because of this? [playstation2-linux.com]"

I thought about that, then rejected it. You can't burn a PS2 disc to boot Linux off of. You also have to spend $200 for it and get rather limited functionality compared to a full-on distro. You have to hack the PS2 (sound familiar?) to get a free/useful Linux distro going.

The hard drive and Intel processor bit would have been a better arguement. :P

I still agree with NG, that was a publicity stunt, not some form of consumer protection. Pity his comment was modded overrated.

Re:"Closed Architecture"...My Eye

[Brandon Sharitt]

Microsoft wants you to have to pay them to make software for their platform. Lindow's Click-n-Run is more of an online store which you can use if you want to and make things easier. It would be very easy to compile your binaries to integrate with Lindows and install with out click-n-run.

Interesting

[John Miles]

Just always remember to use the bound-limited versions of library calls, i.e. snprintf vs. sprintf

I just wrote a whole vsprintf() implementation from the ground up because I didn't know there was already a "_vsnprintf()" function in the RTL (MSVC 6 in my case). When the hell did they add that?

(Yes, as a matter of fact, I do live in a cave...)

Re:Interesting

[ckaminski]

IIRC, 1994. I think it's always been in MS's 32 bit CRT.

Obligatory Comment on the Editorial Write-up

[llywrch]

Roblimo writes:

>But I assure you, he wrote these answers himself instead of having them laundered by a PT team.

Hmm. Most CEOs wouldn't think of having a bunch of PT Cruiser drivers write their speech material, but may have a Public Relations consultant or two help them write what they say. Obviously Robertson has done neither.

I guess both Robertson & Roblimo both think outside of the box.

Geoff

I get bad vibes about Lindows

[vivek7006]

In the beginning, Lindows made tall claims like the ability to run *all* the windows application. Somewhere down the line, they figured out that it was not going to be easy, so they just chickened out. I may be wrong, but I get a feeling that they just want to make quick and dirty money and then vanish.

Re:and if this were a Microsoft or MS-friendly CEO

[st0rmcold]

This is true, he even admitted to selling anti-virus software just for comfort, and the software prolly dosen't even do anything except show a splash screen.

He is the same as any other CEO, even MS, but people overlook that cuz only MS is evil, no one else is trying to scam you in this biz, of course not!

Microsoft just happened to be the best scam artists in the market, does not mean they are the only ones, and if it was somebody else that we would be better off!

Re:"Closed Architecture"...My Eye

[Fammy2000]

I don't think we can fault MS for the "closed architecture" on the Xbox. Nintendo created that standard a long time ago. Every company since has followed that in the (television/portable) video game market. Atari unknowningly had an open arch with the 2600, and that led to the creation of the "third party" software company.

I agree that there shouldn't be a restriction on who gets to do development on a platform. What ever happened to the hobbyist (sp?) XBox dev kit?

Is "Root or Non-Root" Old Think?

[reallocate]

Isn't it about time to ask if the very notion of a "root" user is baggage from Unix that, just maybe, doesn't fit well into a single-user desktop paradigm? Or, the whole concept of mapping privilege levels to different groups of users?

A single-user machine has, (ahem) a single user. Surely, we can keep these machines secure without bolting on concepts developed to resolve other problems?

Re:Is "Root or Non-Root" Old Think?

[MKalus]

How single user is a machine these days?

I mean really, does everyone in the family have their own PC? Or do you share it?

I think if the latter is the case, multiple user accounts make sense.

M.

Re:Is "Root or Non-Root" Old Think?

[GigsVT]

Today, a machine is rarely single user.

To turn Michael's argument on it's ear, "a computer is a lot less useful if it isn't on the network".

So I want to let my friend download some files from me over the network or the Internet. If my machine doesn't support more than one user, I have to give him my password and give him access to my whole system!

In a modern operating system, I can just give him an account, and then drop the files I want him to get into his home directory. Very simple, and doesn't expose any more of my system to tampering than needs to be exposed.

Re:Is "Root or Non-Root" Old Think?

[eaddict]

There are 4 people in our house and 4 PCs (not counting the laptop). Most of my techie friends also have a 1-1 correspondance. Wait, my sister lives alone and has one.... my niece lives with 3 other folks and they have 3.... hmmm I think I suspect a pattern. Computers are addictive and they are NOT really a spectator sport. My girls got tired of watching each other playing on our PC so we got them thier own. They 'parallel play'.

Re:Is "Root or Non-Root" Old Think?

[Anonymous Coward]

So I want to let my friend download some files from me over the network or the Internet. If my machine doesn't support more than one user, I have to give him my password and give him access to my whole system!
In a modern operating system, I can just give him an account, and then drop the files I want him to get into his home directory. Very simple, and doesn't expose any more of my system to tampering than needs to be exposed.

Nonsense. You are assuming that the concept of "multiple users" needs to extend to the entire OS. Not true. I only have 1 user account on my Win98SE machine, yet I can run a third party FTP server that allows me to assign different access privileges to multiple users.

Re:Is "Root or Non-Root" Old Think?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, in KDE, you would simply right-click on the folder and share it via kpf. Then your friend could d/l the files from any platform with the browser (or wget/curl) of his choice.

Giving him a user account would be insane. kpf is "Very simple, and doesn't expose any more of my system to tampering than needs to be exposed."

Re:Is "Root or Non-Root" Old Think?

[voodoo1man]

But are they simultaneous (time-sharing) users? The thing about the kind of PC sharing you describe is the trust everyone has in the other users of the system. Multiple accounts would make more sense for keeping application preferences, and I guess you can have everyone in the wheel group and configure the devices and other things to work that way.

Re:Is "Root or Non-Root" Old Think?

[GigsVT]

Sharing the files to everyone is not the same as letting one person get the files.

Also, you can't ever upload via kpf.

Giving them a login only takes two simple commands and then they can upload/download, login, whatever you want them to do. The only port that needs to be open is ssh.

Re:Is "Root or Non-Root" Old Think?

[agentk]

The thing is, home computers are not single user, they are used by everyone in the family. My mom doesn't want my really slick background image, 12 dock apps, super rad window styles, my email settings, my web bookmarks, and I don't want my directory filled with her files either.

The multi-user paradigm is still very useful-- even if all those users can still access some root stuff (change settings, install programws, etc).

Lindows should use this "power" feature!

Re:Is "Root or Non-Root" Old Think?

[reallocate]

I'm not discounting the effectiveness of Unix-based privileges and file protection for an OS like Unix. In other words, for a multi-user, multi-tasking system. If you have multiple users simultaneously accessing the same files on the same hardware in an untrusted environment -- something UNIX was designed to do -- all that is necessary. But it's all a bit of overkill for a machine that will never be used by more than one person at one time.

If all you need to do is set up a single machine in a trusted environment to create individual logon accounts, allow each user some freedom in controlling the appearance of their own "desktop", etc., you don't need to drag along all that Unix stuff.

Unix is great software, but it isn't always the best answer for everything.

Why they will succeed (or fail)

[nuggz]

Our goal is to do all the heavy lifting for them for a fair price and build a profitable business. If we can't offer value beyone what they can get from apt-get then they shouldn't give us any money.

Wow a one line business plan, and a corresponding one line risk. If more companies did this, maybe the dot-com crash wouldn't be a problem.

We should do something useful that people will pay for.
If we don't do it better then cheaper alternatives we won't make it.

Great, more power to him.

[stile]

Frankly, I don't give a crap if he's providing a non-MS alternative to "normal" people. I run linux because I'm a power user, and it does exactly what I want -- no more, no less (and it's free). When I was 16 and using linux, I was all about the "down with Microsoft" movement. But now, I realize just how much work is going to go into bringing Linux to the masses, because the fundamental philosophies of Linux are not compatible with today's end user.

I think that Lindows is doing a good thing here, and I say, more power to them. But I also think that it probably still has quite a long way to go. When it gets there, we'll end up with something that runs on a Linux kernel alright... but it won't be Linux like we know it. That's not bad at all, because the standard user won't be happy with Linux in the slightest. That's not bad either, because Linux was made for and by power users.

So I don't feel the need to spread the Linux gospel to non-geeks at all. I'll let someone else make his money doing that. Then again, I'm not hostile to it either... nor am I hostile toward Microsoft, except in that I'm forced to purchase their OS bundled with many standard kinds of computers. The point is: I've found what I'm happy with, and that's pretty much all that I care about.

Re:Great, more power to him.

[RoLi]

So I don't feel the need to spread the Linux gospel to non-geeks at all. I'll let someone else make his money doing that. Then again, I'm not hostile to it either... nor am I hostile toward Microsoft, except in that I'm forced to purchase their OS bundled with many standard kinds of computers.

Don't you realize that non-geeks using Linux is the only way to stop the forced Windows-preinstalls?

Re:Great, more power to him.

[KoolDude]

So I don't feel the need to spread the Linux gospel to non-geeks at all

Good for you. But if you want the major commercial software companies like Adobe, MS(?) to come down and write competitive applications, Linux has to have a wide market acceptance. I think *that* is a sufficient incentive to feel the need to spread Linux to non-geeks.

Re:Great, more power to him.

[pyrrho]

the fundamental philosophies of Linux are not compatible with today's end user.

Except they are... the general philosophy really is... it's the philosophy of the end user that counts. As linux gets more end users... the statistical average of the "linux" philosophy will seem to shift, but in reality it hasn't, because the point is "use if for what you want, how you want, and change it as you see fit."

Which is really just a paraphrasing in my words of the rest of your post, I think. :)

Re:Great, more power to him.

[stile]

Don't you realize that non-geeks using Linux is the only way to stop the forced Windows-preinstalls?

It affects me rarely. I usually build my own desktop machines (much cheaper anyway). Only when buying a laptop do I have a problem. And really, it's pretty necessary to have windows around occasionally in my field (computer programmer), because sometimes I need to run a tool or development environment only supported in windows. A pretty hefty tax to pay, yes, but I'll use it anyway.

Again, I'll just let someone else fight that battle (you?).

The root issue

[niom]

I don't understand why so many people get their panties in a bunch because Lindows runs as root. Remember this is intended to be run as a single user system, and by people who are not tech-savvy.

If the normal-use account is compromised, what is the big advantage if it's not the root account? It would be real easy to deceive the user into giving up his root password, and that would not even be necessary to do the most damage, namely deleting/infecting/trojanning the user documents.

What is lost to the hacker/virus if it can't get root? Not being able to run a webserver at port 80? Not something to make so much noise about, I think.

Re:The root issue

[sgtrock]

Remember this is intended to be run as a single user system, and by people who are not tech-savvy.

Actually, whether Robertson realises it or not he is NOT selling a single user system, he is selling a single household system. This means that you have Mom, Dad, the kids, Granny, the neighborhood kids, the dog, and who knows who else over playing on and working with the thing.

This is a big deal. I'm a single dad with two small kids. I share a PC with them. Note that I'm not a professional admin. I know I don't lock down my boxes as well as they could be. I do the best I can, though. The Win2K image has ZA on it, we don't use Outlook for email, etc. I started them on Win2k when they were 4. I migrated them (well, except for games) over to their own Linux accounts when they were 7 (the youngest) and 11. Both of them have managed to muck up the Win2K install in the past.

Both have managed to muck up their own apps and/or data on the Linux side a few times. The difference is that when they've done it on the Linux side I haven't had to rebuild the box!

This is why I think even a Joe Sixpack distro should have a distinct user and admin separation. I do think we need a better way of making that distinction obvious without scaring people away. I wish I had some ideas there, but I don't. :(

Re:The root issue

[niom]

Actually, whether Robertson realises it or not he is NOT selling a single user system, he is selling a single household system.

I meant user as in user account, not as in physical person. If you want security and user separation, traditional Linux systems are there for you. Why reinvent Mandrake?

However, please remember that computer geeks are a minority. There are many users out there for whom any system administration requirements are excessive. Lindows provides those users with a valid option: as easy as Windows 95/98/ME, at least as functional, and with better security because there are less remote holes for Linux. No need to diss Lindows because we geeks wouldn't run it; it's not directed at us.

Quanta?

[Ktulu_03]

web development tool that is tightly integrated for creation and management such as FrontPage or Dreamweaver
I have used Quanta for over a year now, and it is a great tool for creation and management of a website, especially with kiofish now a part of KDE.

Re:"Closed Architecture"...My Eye

[revery]

He lambastes MS for their "closed architecture" Xbox when Lindows' Click-n-Run is essentially the same thing. Sure, you can run other appps

It not even close to the same. You can't run other apps on the X-Box. Lindows lets you run apt-get if you want, but if you don't know how/don't want to take the time you can pay them to handle the process for you...

On the X-Box you have to crack it to run unlicensed code. On Lindows you always run as root, on the X-Box, you can't run as root at all...

They're capitalizing on Linux being hard to use!

And you probably didn't build your house all by yourself, and you probably pay a mechanic when you don't know how to fix your car, and you probably don't cut your own hair, or cook every meal at home. Every business capitalizes on the something being hard/inconvenient...

Sheesh, give the guy a break. What changes would you make to his company that would increase profits from selling Linux to the masses?

--

Was it the sheep climbing onto the altar, or the cattle lowing to be slain,
or the Son of God hanging dead and bloodied on a cross that told me this was a world condemned, but loved and bought with blood.

How hard can it be...

[jamesc]

... to make a SetUID root installer that only works for the install CD and their .deb repository?

Let the user run unprivileged and free of worries about corrupting the system. That would be a real value-add and improvement over Win9X. Think about it Mr. Robertson....

Re:How hard can it be...

[afidel]

In a home system the users home directory is MORE important than the system files. How many people give a flying f' if they have to reinstall the OS?? Most won't if it's fairly easy, they WILL care if their financial spreadsheet or other important doc is deleted, and that is the much harder problem to solve. This is not a distro targeted at servers or multiuser workstations, it is a distro for single user home pc's, if they trash their home dir they are probably going to reinstall anyways, so why add the extra hassle.

Re:How hard can it be...

[jamesc]

In a home system the users home directory is MORE important than the system files. How many people give a flying f' if they have to reinstall the OS?? Most won't if it's fairly easy, they WILL care if their financial spreadsheet or other important doc is deleted, and that is the much harder problem to solve. This is not a distro targeted at servers or multiuser workstations, it is a distro for single user home pc's, if they trash their home dir they are probably going to reinstall anyways, so why add the extra hassle.

What extra hassle? Joe Sixpack wouldn't and shouldn't know the difference if Click-N-Run used a SUID root installer, or he was running as root all the time. He picks apps off a menu, they download and install, he's good to go. End of story.

Remember, especially with the WalMart sales, Lindows is targeting people who don't want to reinstall their box. They want to treat their computer like a toaster. So, it had d@mn well better protect itself from external malware and from Joe himself. Ever had to rebuild a WinXX install after a luser deleted "unnecessary" files like autoexec.bat or anything from system32? Now imagine how thoroughly Joe SixPack could screw up a *nix box given root access....

Your point about the user's data being the most important thing on the box is valid, however. Maybe Lindows or Xandros should implement home directory backups to protected tarballs via a cron job or some annoying widget that pops up occasionally. They'd need a reasonably nice restore program too.

Re:How hard can it be...

[afidel]

Yes, perhaps something like Windows XP's system restore. You could have all system changes done through a central controll panel where the previous N generations of files were maintained in a timestamped depository. Then if something goes wrong you can boot to a panic disk and restore to a previous dates settings. Combine this with data backup and optional data rollback and you would have a truely nice addition to the Unix as a desktop experience(TM).

Sure it is a troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Painfull truths are the best trolling material ...

A design based on run-time policing of type safety and bound-limits for more than a couple of easily misused library functions is inherently more secure. Especially in an environment where all programs run by the same user share so much as with *nix ...

I would pay $99 a year

[gsfprez]

If Apple would fix the problem with my aunt's single-user iBook wanting a password everytime a software install comes up. That would save me so much money in time, it would be insane.

Most users are deathly afraid when the system puts up a window telling them to do somthing and does not explain to them why they are doing it. I can't fathom what it would be like to put a Linux box in front of her. Lindows is something i'm actually concidering becuause it DOES run in root, and she can make changes and add software without having to call me to see if its "okay" to type in a password every time she wants to install something.

of course, otoh, it does slow her down from installing 500 apps a week that she gets in spammail with executables... which is why i took her PC away from her running 98...

The service i really want to see is $99 a year for users to be able to call Apple/some linux company evey time they have a dumb-ass question of the hour. So instead of my cell phone going off at work, Apple could field the "what's with this iPod updator window? I don't know how to close it!!!" (its quit, just like all other 100 programs you run on Mac OS X.. don't freak out, damint.)

Re:I would pay $99 a year

[mnmn]

Your headache really is switching the OS for your aunt too many times. Let her get used to OSX for a while now, dont let her try Lindows, Lycoris and Knoppix before she calls some other tech guy who reinstalls win98.

Re:I would pay $99 a year

[Migrant Programmer]

Well, good thing your aunt has a Mac. AppleCare seems to be the service you really want to see..

AppleCare products

Do any of you...

[Anonymous Coward]

so called "Linux Geeks" want anyone else other than yourselves to run Linux? If so, that is not the impression I see.

The amount of bitching and complaining I hear on these boards when Anyone Tries to Promote your Operating System of Choice is near that of the female office personel I work with complaining about their coffee being too hot.

Instead of complaining, bitching, moaning, flaming and generally acting like kids, you need to

STAND UP and Make Suggestions and Offer Help & Insight into a solution to the problem at hand.

No wonder mickeysoft has a stranglehold on the desktop. Ya'll are soo busy complaining amongst yourselves you have no time to spend Fixing the Problem at Hand!

shesh

joseph

Re:Do any of you...

[MrPink2U]

Don't take the words of the few as gospel. Not all of us are closed minded like some of the purists who frequent here.

I for one welcome any new users and am more than happy helping them out. Every user that tries out (or maybe even moves over to) Linux is a good thing.

For people like my wife, thats why.

[pecosdave]

She has a "I just want to be able to turn it on and have it booted" mindset. She's had slow computers forever, would turn the computer on, grab a drink, whatever and comeback to a machine on the desktop. Her mother got us a nice 1.8 GHz notebook for Christmas that I've decided not to even bother using because of that mindset. Any little change I make has her screaming at me because I changed her working environment, but she wont let us use that multiple user setup because it required intervention before hitting the desktop. So I haven't installed Linux, thought I could do that within her requirements because I could set Grub to default to Windows. The fact the thing boots in about 25 seconds doesn't seem to matter. I'll just stick my old 450 MHz Celeron Notebook with SuSE 8.1 Pro installed exclusively until I can administer clue to user. Clue to user is a difficult thing to administer to a user you share a bed with.

Re:For people like my wife, thats why.

[spitzak]

All recent versions of Linux, Windows, and OS/X have a "log in as this user by default on boot up" as a feature, so this is not an argument against multi-user anymore.

For SOME applications

[Anonymous Coward]

If efficiency is of great importance, or you need to have a portable assembly type language because you need to have a fairly intimate knowledge of what the hardware is doing when it runs your code then sure ... something like C is well suited for the task.

Re:Someone is really trying to take Linux mainstre

[bigpat]

" I don't understand the hostility towards Lindows thats prevalent on /."

My guess is that it is mostly a snobbish reaction to the Walmart connection.

Everyone here on slashdot still treats Dell with kid gloves even though they cowtowed to Microsoft by burying their Linux offerings deep in the bowels of dell.com. People rejoiced when Dell said they would start selling computers with Linux pre-installed. Nowhere is their an option to choose between microsoft or linux on a product configuration screen that I have ever found. Yet even after this half-hearted linux support, still there is great geek loyalty to the brand.

Let's face it we all like our brands and until our favorite brands buy in to linux we will not be happy. Seeing Linux on Walmart's shelves will just make us feel like linux is a cheap alternative and not the better system it really is. Maybe people could start calling dell instead of ordering on line and when they start asking the salesperson to configure their PC with Linux we might see some action.

Re:"Closed Architecture"...My Eye

[ArhcAngel]

The difference is, if you try and run apt-get you can and are encouraged to do so. If you try and run any app/game/OS on the XBox that isn't MS tested and mother gates approved you will get a C&D letter from Microsoft if not thrown in jail for violating the DMCA.

flame me if you will..

[Squarewav]

but, I kinda agree with the root issue, when I use winxp I run it in single user mode (i.e. as admin) why? you ask couse I want to be able to put files anyware I want, c:\downloads c:\shared d:\movies ect.. I dont want to fuck around with file permissions or having everything stuck in "My Documents" much less login as admin just to install software. I know what your thinking "But you'll get viruses up the ass", you know what for the past 8 years that I've been useing windows, I have never gotin a windows virus( knock on wood). When I run linux however I do have a user and root acount mostly couse many programs bitch if you try running as root

virus protection

[skt]

That is a good interview.. an interesting find about the virus protection too. I think this goes to show that the average computer user and the media just do not understand the basics about computer viruses. I see this quite a bit, where users are deleting jdbgmgr.exe and wondering how somebody got access to their email and sent bulk messages (klez). I wouldn't expect the average email-sending, web-browsing, .doc-writing user to understand technical details about viruses, but maybe there is a problem here?

The media doesn't help much either, by making announcements without consulting someone before warning their viewers/listeners about the latest virus threat. Also, ignorant or uninformed techs can be quick to blame every problem on a "virus" when they do not know the answer to something.. And then there is the word of mouth method that Robertson mentions.. I had not thought of that one but it makes a lot of sense.. uninformed users telling each other of how their computer was destroyed by a virus when in fact the computer may have stopped working for other reasons.

So as a result, virus scanners seem to be required now to operate a Windows computer.. even inside of corporations where email is scanned at the mail-server level. I would say that scanners for other systems are probably not required yet, but they will be if the platform ever becomes popular. Linux-based systems have a lot going for them though to make viruses less of a threat right now though, fragmentation of communications software and better security histories for some of the more common ones (mozilla, netscape 7) come to mind.

My opinion on scanners for the corporate desktop is that the users should not know that the scanner is there. Any modern scanner can do automatic updates in the background.. nobody is going to see it or messages from it unless some virus manages to sneak passed the email server which scans for viruses and is updated even more frequently than the workstations. The only kind that have been bypassing the servers that I have heard about are the social, hoax viruses.. jdbgmgr.exe and such.

Not stupid, scared.

[RatBastard]

Your employer is not stupid. He/she/them is/are scared. While they might not know that Linux has only one or two virii, or that having a computer not connected to the LAN makes it harmless to other systems (mostly) they DO know that a virus just hosed them. Your employer is not run by techs, it is run by bussiness people. They were not hired for their computer competence, but theoir management abilities (if they have any, but that's another rant).

If they are smart enough to demand virus scanners on every computer in the company they are not stupid. The stupid ones just go one with business and hope the virus doesn't come back.

I would no more expect management to make the best software decisions than I would expect you to be able to hire and fire employees.

Re:Not stupid, scared.

[Zeriel]

If they're smart enough to demand virus scanners on every computer in the company, they're still dumber than the managers who respect that the technicians know MUCH more about computers than they do. My CEO tells me his requirements, I tell him what to buy, 'cause he knows he's not as tech-savvy as I am. He tells me my budget, and I work with that, because I know he knows more than I do about what our bottom line is. Any manager with no technical training who overrules his technicians is an idiot. Period.

Re:Not stupid, scared.

[pecosdave]

(off topic reply)
I have a T-shirt with your signature file on it, only it doesn't credit Homer.

Re: yes, yes, the root issue

[ubiquitin]

Robertson really waffles on this one and it is only a matter of time before it comes full circle and bites him in the a$$. Having user-space applications run by root by default is trouble. Microsoft operating systems have struggled with viruses for the last decade precisely because system and userspace permission lines have been blurred, aka sacrificed, in the name of ease-of-use. When you have all users running as root all the time, what you've really got is a large distributed read/write file system out there just waiting to be written to. In that context, it is almost hard to hold virus-writers accountable, as the OS vendor and end-users have conspired to build a network in which self-copying executables are tolerated. MacOSX has a sane approach, which continues to evolve (there are authentication sessions planned for WWDC). The added advantage of having application-space locked down by default is that end-users can't muck things up as easily, but I'll grant that this necessarily involves the end-user having to wear both hats: sysadmin and end-user. My take is that privelege awareness an inevitable part of being a netizen. Accordingly you either leave the barn door open and let all the animals come and go in chaos as they please, or you build fences and enjoy network civilization from the inside. Good fences make good neighbors.

Re:and if this were a Microsoft or MS-friendly CEO

[Enramot]

so, you think of linux as the devil then.

Re:I would pay $99 a year more reasons

[pecosdave]

I would pay $99 a year not to have to

1. locate obscure libraries everytime I want to install something

2. compile obscure libraries that require me to download more obscure libraries everytime I want to install something

3. Install more Gnome components every time I want to install an application that doesn't appear to be a Gnome app for use on my KDE system

4. Compile every program I want to use because binaries aren't available for my distro, but they are for Red Hat, oh did we mention you're going to have to download and install some obscure libraries for that?

Ahhh!!! I don't have broadband at home anymore since moving, and my notebook doesn't have the hardware I need to do what I want, so my software update cycle goes something like

1. decide what I need
2. "borrow" company bandwidth to download it to my notebook
3. Copy software from my notebook to my home machine
4. Find out I need obscure libraries
5. Go back to work, get obscure libraries, source only, binaries not available
6. Take libraries home, not able to compile because they require more obscure libraries
7. Go back to work, get more obscure libraries, different distro. Install anyways
8. Move files from other distro to proper place in my system
9. Fail to compile, need newer/older version of obscure library.

Grrrrr. I like Linux, but Windows has its temptations.

Wine

[IamTheRealMike]

Ok, I can see the root/non-root issue is going to be discussed to death. Anyway, I just thought I'd point out that Robertson seems to see Wine only as a way to run MS Office, when in reality it seems to be used far more for other, non-Microsoft apps. Although it's better to have free software (note, not the same as native), there's so much stuff out there that isn't practical on a day to day basis yet. Wine is a useful answer to that. I hope on day he returns to the fray.

Re:and if this were a Microsoft or MS-friendly CEO

[ThePretender]

no, my meaning was clear to the person who replied first. Try reading the subject, then the message. Put the two together, form meaning, take your time. You'll figure it out.

If not: (I meant that some people here perceive Microsoft as a merchant of the Devil)

I have an idea.

[ianjk]

After reading through some of the comments and the negativity towards "lixux on a single user PC" idea.. I got an idea. Make your own OS. Make it hard to configure. Make it so nobody without years of experience can use it. Make a manual that spans 23 volumes and 5 Appendicies. Make it so you have a different user for every command. Make the install process a week long venture. Make it so checking your email and visiting your brother's website involves a series of commands that involves taking breaks to rest your hands. Make it so you have to reconfigure the whole system anytime new hardware is added. Make it so you are the only one smart enough to use it. Remember they are trying to make it easier for the non techie to use/run linux.

Re:run by techs,

[pecosdave]

it was an ISP. The CEO wasn't a computer genious but he could dial a modem via hyper term, and fix quite a few of his own problems which is more than I could say about a lot of the "techs" we had on the support floor. Everyone in a management position in that company had various levels of technical knowledge except for the sales people. I think being a sales person had being non-tech as a prerequisit sometimes....

Re:and if this were a Microsoft or MS-friendly CEO

[Anonymous Coward]

Try reading the subject, then the message. ... You'll figure it out.

Answer: God bless Slashdot. </irony>

Is it just me?

[ArhcAngel]

Or are there some EXTREMELY angry/anti-Lindows posters today? I understand the underlying issue about why it is unwise (Insane) to make the default account root but I completely understand why he says he does it that way. If you really stop and think about it how many people (non technical) do you know who would ditch Lindows in a heartbeat if they couldn't do something they currently can do in Windows. They EXPECT things to work like windows. Just like they EXPECT to have anti-virus software. A few years ago, when the Melissa virus stormed the net, I worked in a Novel/Lotus Notes environment. We got phone calles ALL DAY LONG for several weeks from people saying they were infected with Melissa. I had to explain to them that since Melissa only affected MS Outlook they couldn't be infected but were simply receiving emails from people who were infected. Many of them still insisted I come look at their systems. That is why Lindows works the way it does. No geek in their right mind is going to be enticed by this distro because it was NEVER EVER EVER targeted at you. Stop whining that it perverts Linux/OSS and help them succeed where every other attempt has failed. Is it so wrong to expect payment for services rendered?

WRONG

[geekoid]

"which is probably one of the worst versions of Windows ever"
I have use windows 2.O. that is the worst OS, ever.
Yeah I know its a GUI on DOS.

then comes bob.
then windows ME

Sounds like one of the good guys...

[zulux]

Let's see:

He selles a decent computer for $200 bucks.
He sponsors the XBOX hack.
He thinks that consumers *OWN* their own purchases.
He's helping the public to get aquainted with Free Software.
He fights the bogus Winodws trademark.
He thinks one-click patents are stuipd/silly.

He'd be welcome in my house for a beer.

Re:Sounds like one of the good guys...

[Crispy Critters]

He fights the bogus Windows trademark.

He is goal is to get people to use his distro rather than Microsoft, and so he gives it a name identical to the name of Microsoft's operating system except for one letter. No sane person can doubt that he was attempting to tie his product to Microsoft Windows by allusion and confusion, which violates Microsoft's trademark. Note that he is selling a direct replacement for Microsoft Windows under this name, which is different from using a form of the word "windows" somewhere in the name of your product.

He'd be welcome in my house for a beer.

He'd still be welcome in my house for a beer, too. I could give him the address and he could walk over after work some day :-) Or someone could organize a /. party at Crazy Mels down the street.

Re:Sounds like one of the good guys...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you look at the history of the 'Windows' trademark, you'd see that for a couple years it was turned down as being 'too generic', and they had to settle for 'Microsoft Windows'. Thus, the 'Windows' trademark is clearly bogus, and therefore 'Lindows' does not infringe.

Re:Sounds like one of the good guys...

[angle_slam]

He sponsors the XBOX hack.

The XBox hack is stupid. If you hate MS so much that you want to use Linux, why install it on an MS machine.

He fights the bogus Winodws trademark.

Another publicity grab. Whatever you think of the Windows trademark, the fact is that by naming his product Lindows solely to poke at Windows. When people say Windows, they mean MS Windows, it is that simple. A trademark is something (a name or symbol) that identifies the source of a product. The name "Windows" identifies MS as surely as three stripes identifies Adidas and the swoosh identifies Nike and "This Bud's for You" identifies Budweiser.

Re:Sounds like one of the good guys...

[Squarewav]

He selles a decent computer for $200 bucks.

He selles a rather crappy computer for 200$ and then charges 99$ a year to install free software on it

He's helping the public to get aquainted with Free Software.

He's helping the public to get aquainted with Free Software, by charging for it

He fights the bogus Winodws trademark.

He ripped off the name of a popular OS then calimed that it ran most of the software for that OS

Re:Sounds like one of the good guys...

[dh003i]

Please, Windows is a joke for a trademark. Look at all the things that are already called "Window". X-Windows. Windows in applications. Windows is a very generic term in the computer field. MS' trademark on it is pure bullshit, because it describes exactly what everyone calls those GUI boxes -- windows. People were calling them windows long before MS ever got their bogus trademark.

Yes, he's using a name similar to Windows. Good for him. The courts ruled it's ok, so you're full of shit and so is MS. Things that sound "like" trademarked words shouldn't matter -- especially if the trademark was bullshit in the first place.

Re:Sounds like one of the good guys...

[zulux]

When people say Windows, they mean MS Windows, it is that simple.

Obviously you're not a computing professional.

I had "windows" running on a 6809 processor-based workstation before Mircosoft even had multiple prosesses in their toy OS.

The XBox hack is stupid. If you hate MS so much that you want to use Linux, why install it on an MS machine.

A 'hack' doesent even have a central nervous system, let alone a brain - your admonition of it's state leaves me to conclude that you same could be said of you.

PS, I don't hate MS - they *used* to be the good guys, when a decent OS cost $1500 minimum and a decent word-processor cost $1000 - they sold their stuff for 5% of those amounts. It wasen't the best, but it was cheep.

Now the market has caught up.

Re:Sounds like one of the good guys...

[I_redwolf]

No, the only people that call "X" X-Windows, are people who don't know that X is a Window System. I don't know who started the X-Windows thing but don't repeat it.

Re:Sounds like one of the good guys...

[Anonymous Coward]

One letter? He didn't call it Microsoft Lindows. The name of his software is LindowsOS. Windows is a generic term used to represent those little boxes you see on your favorite OS's desktop. Lindows it self is a combination of the words Linux and windows.

You are the only one who is confused. So get back to work coding that next BSOD in Windows Server 2003 before Bill finds you on /. again.

Re:Sounds like one of the good guys...

[myklgrant]

And he (Lindows anyways) sponsors KDE-Look, your source for KDE themes etc. who fell on hard times recently. Maybe I misjudged him.

Re:Sounds like one of the good guys...

[insecuritiez]

...Or someone could organize a /. party at Crazy Mels down the street.

Actually it's Cozy Mels down the street. But if you organize a party with Robertson I'll show up.

Re:Sounds like one of the good guys...

[Politas]

He is goal is to get people to use his distro rather than Microsoft, and so he gives it a name identical to the name of Microsoft's operating system except for one letter. No sane person can doubt that he was attempting to tie his product to Microsoft Windows by allusion and confusion, which violates Microsoft's trademark. Note that he is selling a direct replacement for Microsoft Windows under this name, which is different from using a form of the word "windows" somewhere in the name of your product.

Oh, come on. You're not trying to tell me that anyone could be confused enough to purchase "Lindows", thinking that it was actually "Windows" they were buying? That's the purpose of trademarks. Lindows does not damage the "Windows" trademark at all.

Re:Someone is really trying to take Linux mainstre

[Anonymous Coward]

Just configure a Dell server. You can certainly have Linux preinstalled.

Gain power over Windows, root or not!

[rice_burners_suck]

The point is this: There are big organizations like Microsoft, the RIAA and MPAA around, whose management thinks their company has a God given right to eternal perpetually increasing profits. When they don't make "enough" billions of dollars, they make up for it through court litigation and by getting all kinds of Big Brother legislation passed, like the DMCA.

Free Software is one of the keys to placing control back in the hands of those who should have it: The consumer. The more installations there are of Linux, BSD and anything else that is free and open, the better off the consumer will be, if only because the overall community has more power to avoid getting locked in to Microsoft solutions that are all designed to keep you stuck to their products.

Lindows is definitely a good thing in this respect. There are issues (technical, political, intellectual or otherwise) that you might not like to use Lindows. Perhaps you don't want to run as root all the time. But consider this: IT IS IN YOUR BEST INTEREST THAT AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE USE LINDOWS, root or not. Juan Q. Público is never going to care about the "nuances" of computer science.

As recently as last year, I tried to help out a medical doctor who is a relatively technology literate businessman. I explained that I should do this and that to set up a reasonable security policy, which will require that he change somewhat the way his staff uses their computers at his clinic. Fully knowing the problems of computers, he told me in so many words, "I don't care about security." That's right. All of this stuff (software, computers, security, passwords, etc.) doesn't mean jack to him. He wants his business to be successful and gain value. If he has to spend a few thousands each year to correct problems, that's acceptable as long as the risk is relatively low in comparison to that of incurring overhead due to security requirements. The best security is frequent backups anyway. Everything else is just there to prevent more sophisticated attacks, which won't so badly affect home users. They already have gigabytes of shit on their computers... all kinds of sounds and videos, viruses, porn advertisements, "enlarge your penis" SPAM containing viruses that they click on anyway... it couldn't get much worse than that, root or not.

So, yes, security will remain a huge problems in computing for a long time to come, mostly because most people don't know or care enough to do something about it. When they lose their data and come crying to me, I'll continue to say what I've repeatedly said for ten years: "Did you make a backup of your data? No? Well, the only way I can fix this is to blow everything off your hard drive and reinstall everything. Sorry." C'est la vie.

They want virus protection? Give 'em virus protection! No viruses in Linux?! Oh, well... just put in a framework that runs fsck in the background once in a while to make the disk spin. A false sense of security might be the root of all evil but at least it will make them feel better about using Linux instead of Windows.

It is STILL in our best interest, though, that more people use Linux. It will create a market for us developers to make a profit. It will create interesting challenges in figuring out security policies that benefit the user without making computer use any more difficult. It might require that we rethink security altogether and come up with methods different from those we use now, which would perhaps be more flexible and powerful. Who knows. But the important point is that in order for this wonderful thing to continue, fucked up legislation like the DMCA needs to stop happening, and for that to happen, Linux needs to gain in power, whether by smart computer scientists or stupid shmoes like Joe Sixpack.

Re:Gain power over Windows, root or not!

[jayrtfm]

>>>As recently as last year, I tried to help out a medical doctor who is a relatively technology literate businessman. ......... he told me in so many words, "I don't care about security."

he does now:
http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa/

http://www.hhs.gov/news/facts/privacy.html
Civi l and Criminal Penalties. Congress provided civil and criminal penalties for covered entities that misuse personal health information. For civil violations of the standards, OCR may impose monetary penalties up to $100 per violation, up to $25,000 per year, for each requirement or prohibition violated.

The question for root access is GOOD

[OMG]

You should know one thing about user interfaces:
Tell the users what is dangerous. They _want_ to know that.

So the root "barrier" is actually good. I tell everybody I install Linux on their PCs: As long as you do not enter the root password you cannot break the system. You can only harm you own files."

That makes them very confident in trying stuff out. Because they KNOW it's not dangerous and it won't do big stuff. (OK, the data is still very important, but most of the time you f**k up the system while playing in the registry, right ?).

So I think that root barrier is a bonus. Everybody trying to install a printer should be able to know and enter the root password. On the other hand this barrier also makes the system more fool proof (I have guests sometimes).

Wow!

[theLOUDroom]

I was expecting different answers from some whom so many on /. mistrust (myself included).

While I don't agree with everything Robertson has said, I do find the reasoning behind all his answers to be respectable.

He seems a lot more "in touch" with what's going on than I would have expected and I think his comment on Linux shipping with PCs is a very good point. Basically this is the best slashdot interview I've seen in a long time. Rational, well thought out, answers to important questions, and well worded too. Nothing like that prick Shatner.

I'm not trying to kiss this guy's ass, and I still don't trust him, but I think he just demonstrated a pretty good understanding of the whole Linux on the desktop issue/situation. (Despite some of his comments showing his knowledge of what's out there to be a little out of date.)

Sexist pig!

[BorgCopyeditor]

" or if dad is the administrator "

Sexist pig!

:)

Re:Sexist pig!

[SCHecklerX]

nah :)

Note, I talked about johnny screwing up Dad's files originally. If he had screwed up Mom's files, I'd have used her as the administrator in illustrating the system trashing :)

I use this example because my dad used to constantly complain about my little brother installing stuff on the family computer, after I had gone to college and could no longer be the 'sysadmin' of the house.

root@

[Sean Clifford]

Yeah, I think running as root out of the box is kinda Nimrod. However, how many newbies are going to get frustrated trying to do something simple like reset the system clock or install a printer? "What's this root thing it keeps bitching about?"

Shrug. You have to ask yourself how many newbies (and the allegedly experienced) are surfing /. as root right now?

Re:root@

[geomon]

Your use of the name 'Nimrod' as a pejorative is just too funny when you read about Nimrod.

Re:root@

[insecuritiez]

I'm running as root as we speak. I learned Windows by messing things up and fixing them, and I have messed up my distro and fixed it and I will continue to run as root because when I want to try something I'm going to try it. So if I normally used userx but had to su every time I wanted to try something what would be the point. I'll learn linux by breaking it and root is letting me do that.

Re:"Closed Architecture"...My Eye

[RatBastard]

They're capitalizing on Linux being hard to use!

Well, no shit, Sparky! You figure that out on your own or did you get help?

• Symantec/McAffee et al are capitalizing on Windows being prone to virii.
• Opera is capitalizing on the fact that people are getting sick of IE.
• Game publishers are capitalizing on the fact that people get bored and want to play games.
• Logitech is capitalizing on the fact that we all need mice to use our comuters.
• AMD is capitalizing on the fact that many people think Intel chips cost too much.
• Programmers are capitalizing on the fact that they can write software and other people can not.

That's what capitalism is all about. You supply a service or product that other people need or want. You make it good enough to do the job and sell it at a price the public is willing to pay and you might just make money at it. There isn't anything wrong with solving problems for a fair price.

Re:Someone is really trying to take Linux mainstre

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what people _say_ they wanted, but when it comes down to it, most linux geeks don't want "joe six-pack" joining their exclusive club.

The (unlikely) event of MR's scheme succeeding wildly will mean that millions of Lindows PCs will be sold, to average people. A large percentage of those are going to trailer-park dwellers. Out of those, a large number of teenagers will start to hack around on their Lindows machines for lack of something else to do after school. (It's not as if there's an overabundance of games, etc. available for Lindows/Linux). Some of them will find it interesting enough to pursue it more, and get good at using Linux. The next thing you know, you'll have a segment of the population competently using Linux who probably never heard of Linus Torvalds... The horror!

Roberts makes an ironic observation

[WebCowboy]

To a /. reader I'm sure this is far from a profound insight but it's refreshing to see CEO's who are clued in:

Microsoft wants to move to a world where THEY decide what software a computer runs because that will allow them to extract the most money from consumers. They'll position this product with a comforting sounding name like "trustworthy" computing and tout the benefits [...] It will ultimately give Microsoft control over a user's computer. This is why we do not, in any way, limit what software users can install.

The fact that Microsoft is leading the charge in this direction is somewhat ironic. Microsoft rose to prominence based ENTIRELY on an industry that came to being because of enthusiasts who believed in bringing availability and control of computer hardware and software to the masses. The personal computer was invented chiefly to wrest control of computer resources from institutions (and their black-suit and white-labl-coat cladded minions) and place it in the hands of the end user.

Nearly 30 years ago, computer users had to pay through the nose for timeshare services what was allowed was decided based on corporate policy and the whim of system administrators (and even the mainframe vendors!). Running your process or batch on the big IBM iron was a privlige you paid dearly for and you were grateful for it (kinda sounds like grandpa walking to school barefoot in the snow but it was kinda true). Computer enthusiasts were tired of it and brash upstarts provided hardware (MITS) and software (Microsoft) they could purchase and use as they saw fit.

Fast forward to today. What a sad situation when a once brash young upstart--one that totally owes its successful existence to PC users past and present--turns into the "enemy" and betrays its customers by angling to control what people can do with the machines they own.

Microsoft is becoming a throwback to the 70's and earlier--like the companies that sold mainframes or timeshare services that called all the shots. With the arrival of the PC revolution none of those companies were the same again (and most don't exist at all). Microsoft has always been good at looking out for competition and the next big thing, and when they miss the boat (as they did with the Internet) they'd hop a raft and paddle out to it to stage a mutiny. I wonder if they're losing their touch now. They're responding to a new threat with an old business model.

And--irony of ironies--it looks like IBM is clued in enough to be a willing player in the game (even if they still are heavily invested in mainframes and proprietary computing).

Interesting times...

Re:Roberts makes an ironic observation

[Darth]

In my opinion IBM is absolutely clued in. They understand that openness and consumer freedom in the personal computer market is necessary. The fact that they are invested in mainframes and some proprietary solutions doesnt affect this because those solutions are in a different market. There is no conflict of interests between the two segments of IBM.

The major corporate areas that they are selling as400s and proprietary solutions to need (or at least want) something that the open consumer market will not provide because the consumer market has different needs.

Microsoft views the computing world as a bunch of feet that need to be shoehorned into one type of shoe regardless of where you plan on walking.

IBM is not viewing the computing world as a bunch of feet that need different shoes for different uses and environments.

IBM is trying to provide all the types of shoes. Microsoft keeps offering the same shoe with a different tread pattern and different coloured laces.

Re:Roberts makes an ironic observation

[DietHacker]

"Fast forward to today. What a sad situation when a once brash young upstart--one that totally owes its successful existence to PC users past and present--turns into the "enemy" and betrays its customers by angling to control what people can do with the machines they own."

Is history repeating itself really such a "sad situation"? As opposed to expected...

My point: MSFT might be the barrier ingenious titans must cross to get to the next "big thing" - whatever that is.

any sign of intelligence on /. regarding root?

[dh003i]

This is not a distro targetted at advanced users. As a pretty advanced user, I'm not going to be using Lindows (I installed Gentoo a while ago...that'll put hair on your nuts). Let me check...yep, just making sure, there is no law mandating that any of us 133t's have to use it. Phew. Freedom of choice still exists. But this company is doing a good thing. Incidentally, it's refreshing to see a CEO out there who doesn't use newspeak and cares about something other than $$$$.

Try to understand -- he's not making an OS for advanced computer users. He's not taking away the option to create user accounts. You want an account -- you can ADD one. By the way, all you jerk-offs should NOTE that when you finish installing Gentoo -- a pretty technically orientated distro -- there IS NO USER. ONLY ROOT. That's following the protocol of the install-guide. Look at the Gentoo Install Guide. Nowhere along are you forced to create a user-account, and the install guide doesn't even cover creating a user account, though it does suggest doing so, and references you to their FAQ (I've recommended that they cover how to create a user account at the end of the install guide). So, if you're going to bash Lindows for not having a user/root separation by default, you can only do so consistently if you also bash Gentoo. If you choose to bash Lindows but not Gentoo for this, then you are a hypocrite and are just doing this because you want to bash Lindows because it's easy.

Now, maybe Lindows install process should at some point prompt the user, "Do you want to create a user account?" with no default (I say no default, because if there's a default hard-liner jerk-offs on either side are going to bitch). There would be a Yes and a No option, each explaining the merits of both approaches. Simply put, the word "Easier" should be placed next to "No", and "More Secure" next to "Yes". Because average user's are incapable of reading long paragraphs (see Joel on Software), just leave it at that simplified explanation. Alternatively, Lindows could go the Gentoo route and simply advise users to create a user account after the OS is installed, maybe bring up a step-by-step wizard for how to do it after initial install.

Now, I feel that Robertson has done some good things with Click-'n-Run. I naturally think it would be better if it's GPL'ed, but these guys are a business and have to have some model for making money. Click-'n-Run is their model. They will make money because people will pay for the Click-'n-Run service, and also through their contracts with Walmart (in addition to selling Lindows). If you can think of a way for them to GPL Click-'n-Run and still get $99 a year from people who use it, then please SUGGEST that. Since Robertson wants to have good community-relations, I'm sure he'd appreciate it. He has blatantly said that his business model relies largely on Click-'n-Run succeeding, and that means $99 from it per year for customers using it. The only thing I can think of would be adding a portion of code to Click-'n-Run that only allows it to be run if the user has paid the $99 for that year (by checking some database, whatever) and distributing it under a modified version of the GPL with an additional clause specifying "may not be redistributed/modified with that check disabled".

In regards to other areas, I think he's pretty-much on the 8-ball. Very good analysis of patents -- btw, what moron asked him the question about patenting Click-'n-Run? There was never anything to suggest Lindows wanted a patent on that. And what group of crackpot moderators moderated that one up? There could have been a more useful question posted.

Quite frankly, I think Robertson has a good plan to bring a GNU/Linux distribution to more home users. This means more exposure for GNU/Linux, which means more users will know how to use it, which means more software support and more hardware support, and probably more FS and OSS. Because of the commonalities shared by all GNU/Linux distributions, it will be beneficial for all distributions.

All that said, I think that Lindows would be better off using WindowMaker as their WM.

Re:any sign of intelligence on /. regarding root?

[rmohr02]

If you can think of a way for them to GPL Click-'n-Run and still get $99 a year from people who use it, then please SUGGEST that.

Easy--when you pay for Click-N-Run, you get a username and password. You use said username and password when starting up Click-N-Run. Limit each account to accessing Click-N-Run to one computer for a period of a month or so.

Re:any sign of intelligence on /. regarding root?

[dh003i]

Yes, but if you do that, then people can just modify Click-N-Run so that it doesn't ask for said password to connect to the server. Or, even if Lindows requires a password to connect to the server, they could still grab the software, modify it to use different servers (e.g., Debians) and then Lindows would not be getting $99 a year.

Re:any sign of intelligence on /. regarding root?

[starseeker]

"This is not a distro targetted at advanced users."

That's EXACTLY the problem - why on EARTH would you put such a person in the root account to start? Who's more likely to do damage to the system running root, someone unfamiliar with Linux or an expert? For one thing, we WILL get to see a virus or two for Linux if this happens. Social engineering can do terrible things.

"As a pretty advanced user, I'm not going to be using Lindows (I installed Gentoo a while ago...that'll put hair on your nuts). Let me check...yep, just making sure, there is no law mandating that any of us 133t's have to use it. Phew. Freedom of choice still exists. But this company is doing a good thing. "

On the whole, yes. Root install, no.

"Incidentally, it's refreshing to see a CEO out there who doesn't use newspeak and cares about something other than $$$$."

We agree there.

"Try to understand -- he's not making an OS for advanced computer users."

Which is exactly why the default account should not have the ability to destroy the OS with an accidental command.

"He's not taking away the option to create user accounts. You want an account -- you can ADD one. By the way, all you jerk-offs should NOTE that when you finish installing Gentoo -- a pretty technically orientated distro -- there IS NO USER. ONLY ROOT. That's following the protocol of the install-guide. Look at the Gentoo Install Guide. Nowhere along are you forced to create a user-account, and the install guide doesn't even cover creating a user account, though it does suggest doing so, and references you to their FAQ (I've recommended that they cover how to create a user account at the end of the install guide). So, if you're going to bash Lindows for not having a user/root separation by default, you can only do so consistently if you also bash Gentoo. If you choose to bash Lindows but not Gentoo for this, then you are a hypocrite and are just doing this because you want to bash Lindows because it's easy."

Nonsense. If someone is using Gentoo, they are assumed to know enough about things to know that using the root account for everything is basically putting a KICK ME sign on your computer. Lindows users, almost by definition, don't need or want to know that. Most of the time, they won't care who they are running as. Simply make them choose a "system" password for things like installing software and handling device drivers, and leave it at that. Don't even tell them about root, just prompt them for the system password when they try to do something that normally is restricted to the root account.

(By the way, I too run Gentoo.)

Mixed feelings

[Cro Magnon]

I agree that running as root is a security risk. But I'm in favor of "Linux for Joe Sixpack". And if Joe doesn't want to mess with passwords, he shouldn't have to. As long as people who want to CAN set up user accounts.

Ouch.

[SPYvSPY]

I'm sorry that your wife is a screaming, ungrateful idiot. That must suck.

Re:Ouch.

[pecosdave]

Not to bad. I never got hooked on that notebook anyways. Now I don't have to share my old one anymore, she's much more knowledgeable than my of my family and her family, except for her mom which happens to be in upper management at a globably known computer company.

Finally, a good description...

[prozac79]

To understand my motivation it's probably important to understand my belief in personal ownership. I believe that if you purchase a product, you should have the right to change it, move it, or alter it for your own personal needs. The seller should have the right to say that you void the warranty or refuse to support it if you change it, but you should still have right as the purchaser to make that choice. This goes for music, software and personal computers. My belief is that as long as consumers have this right, then they'll use that freedom to make choices which steer our society in a generally positive direction.

I have had such a hard time trying to explain to my non-techie friends why the DMCA and all this copyright stuff is bad news for everyone. His few paragraphs on the Xbox did a great job of summarizing why all this locking, closed-boxed technology leads us down the wrong road. I have to remember this one for the future...

Typical Linux know-nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

There are some key areas of hardware support which no desktop has today which users consistently bring up including: USB wireless support, Plug & Play USB drives (flash, hard drive and CD/RW), firewire and ACPI (power management for laptops). We hope to address most of these in our next release of LindowsOS version 4.0 coming shortly.

No desktop has today? In which world? See: Mac, for starters, as in, OS 8.

Re:I would pay $99 a year more reasons

[Anonymous Coward]

Gentoo (source)
Debian (binaries)

Those are your answers for worry-free s/w install.

Why your post is bogus

[jgardn]

First, you are wrong on many levels.

Just because someone buys the machine and doesn't use CnR doesn't mean they have pirated and installed windows on it. First off, where are they going to obtain a copy of windows? Do you really think they are downloading and burning their own copy of windows?

If they do install windows, most likely they will install a version that they have already bought and paid for and have handy.

If they don't, then they are probably not using the machine at all, or they are satisfied with the one or two free apps they got. (probably email and mozilla).

Or, perhaps, just perhaps, they bought the machine and installed a different distribution on it. As one poster mentioned, it doesn't take much to turn it into a debian machine. As any linux guy knows, it doesn't take much to turn it into any linux distribution.

Don't accuse people of piracy you don't know, and you certainly don't have evidence of. You sound like Bill Gates when you do. Remember, people are innocent until proven guilty in this country, unlike certain other countries.

Re:I would pay $99 a year more reasons

[pecosdave]

Debian or Slackware was actually my next planned step for that reason, I've heard good things in those reguards. Back to the broadband problem, I don't even get decent 26.4 with our crummy phone lines, can't get DSL for that reason, and cable cost x2 what the competitve DSL option does. I had the DSL option of 5 static IPs before moving. Oh well, after paying off a few debts I'll have it again. Houses aren't cheap to move into, and it's not just the house.

Using Root

[Grrreat]

OK, so it's a bad idea to use root. So the best idea is to require an administrative password that is required for some areas that are dangerous. I use this on my PC, but it needs to be implemented in the OS. So that any time you get a message stating that the root account is required a nice pretty descriptive dialog box appears requesting the password.

Re:Using Root

[pecosdave]

good idea. Kinda like using the KDE admin tools. I found KDE to be extreamly helpfull configuring simple things on my system. I know how to SU and KDESU, but the KDE control center has an "admin mode" button at the bottom. I'm afraid this would still elude users.

root versus non-root...

[talks_to_birds]

"...Most security compromises are external attacks, not root vs. non-root issues. ..."

This evades the real root versus non-root user issue, and suggests a major ignorance of the *NIX operating system family.

root is all-powerful.

For a beginning user, this power can be absolutely fatal.

I started in UNIX in 1985; I've been working with Linux since the mid-90's; just 6 weeks ago, while working too hastily as root and with the indiscrminate use of a dot and a star, I managed to chown an entire file system to that of a mere user.

It wasn't the archtypical rm -rf * but it had an equivalent effect: all the files are *there* but almost nothing worked...

That's the real issue of root versus non-root: too much power, used with too little thought.

Poof! All gone!

How's the beginning user ever going to understand what went wrong? And if they do it once, will they ever come back to Linux again?

t_t_b

Re:root versus non-root...

[Anonymous Coward]

The suggestion that any typical Lindows users might accidentally figure out the chown command is preposterous.

Re:root versus non-root...

[vadim_t]

What we need is a transactional filesystem. It'd either work like a database, requiring you to commit a transaction, or have an 'undo' command. Did something wrong? No problem, just run the undo command, confirm what you want to be undone, and your files or permissions are back where they were.

It'd be a really neat innovation.

Re:root versus non-root...

[hkmwbz]

Excuse me, but what novice user will be playing around with chown? And since there's only one user and he is root anyway, what possible damage can he do with chown?

In fact, Lindows seems to be aimed at people who want point and click rather than a command line interface.

How is this worse than Windows 98 or XP Home, where there is only one user, and that user is "all-powerful"?

I don't get it. Why this attitude towards doing something which is uncommon in the Linux world? He isn't aiming his product at "1337 h4xx0rz", but at people who want point and click simplicity! Elitist bastards need not apply.

Re:root versus non-root...

[Anonymous Coward]

Alright, so I am not feeling like I should register to post here.

For what it's worth, I have always viewed Lindows as a sort of.....I dunno, screwed up offering. I didn't like their original business practices and to this day I personally still don't feel it's worth my money.

After reading this interview, I can kind of see Robertson's point and I fully support the decision he's made. The software should be tailored to the users' decisions, not because "I don't feel it's necessary to include that." If you pay key attention to his snippet about antivirus protection, that's exactly the right kind of decision to make. Sure, as of right now Linux doesn't need it. However, people want it, so give it to them. In the future, it could come in handy. This is the kind of model I like--give people what they want. Don't try to force linux down their throats with "This is what you have to learn and have to do to use this software". Linux, being as customizable as it is, should be customized to how they want it to be for a price that they can afford.

However, I will say one thing. Segmentation in the market(i.e. different software distributions of everything) is what really used to slow computers down(having so many architectures that neither could interoperate). You can't say that Microsoft with its 'single architecture--single software' design didn't create a huge benefit for the computing industry. However, who knows, things might be different now. If we could build software around 'standards' that everyone respects and follows, it could work out well for everyone. Unfortunately you will always get people that just want to try to suck money from those that don't know much.

Microsoft's contribution to the industry have not been damaging. However its future course of action(continually extract as much money from users as they can. They call it 'entering new markets' but I call it 'the same market but finding new ways of making money off of it') is questionable.

However, on the software-side of things, I still am a firm believer that Linux has quite a ways to go before it's usable as a desktop alternative to Windows. I would never consider it an 'alternative' for at least the next few years, but maybe Robertson and his company can stay alive enough to make that a reality.

Quick piece of advice for Robertson--kill the bloat in Linux and kill libhell, and u'll be good to go ;)

mp3 as a standard...

[__aarrap2489]

He says:

We fought hard in congress, courts and in the business world to make MP3 a universal standard because it was the best thing for music fans who were our ultimate customers. Today MP3 is a universal standard...

What's wrong with this statement? Is it just me or should the United States Congress be the absolute last place to get informed viewpoints on digital data format standardization? We're still operating in a free market system correct? Then shouldn't the most useful data format become standardized on, rather than the one lobbyists are paid to promote by special interest groups? I'm not complaining about the MP3 format, but rather the process by which it became a standard.

-gnudot

Mod parent up!

[dash2]

A well-thought-out argument? On Slashdot?

Re:Mod parent up!

[BeBoxer]

That's nothing. I actually came to a mutual agreement with someone while discussing creationism on Slashdot a couple weeks ago. Link to me and Zerby chatting. I'm pretty sure thats one of the signs of impending apocolypse or something. People coming to agreement on the Internet, never mind Slashdot. Oh well.

Fair Enough

[SomeOtherGuy]

Kudos to him. Well informed, spoken, and fair answers. I do not have to agree with them all to sympathize. Anyone who has had to offer "support" to a non-computer type in your family or circle of friends can sympathize with trying to do away with as much confusion as possible. (and like it or not, in a single user desktop environment -- having to login or su as root in order to install programs is crazy.) I guess I would lean more towards a system that installed "after rollout or 3rd party apps" into privdir's (or home directories) by default rather than giving full root....because diskspace is pretty cheap anymore -- and in a typical home user environment (single user) the chances of getting the same app installed 20 times in 20 different privdirs is minimal anyhow.

Re:and if this were a Microsoft or MS-friendly CEO

[rkent]

This is true, he even admitted to selling anti-virus software just for comfort, and the software prolly dosen't even do anything except show a splash screen.

I really doubt that's the case. If you read that answer more closely, he says (to paraphrase; the article isn't visible from this posting window) "some of our users see value in not passing on virii that infect their MS colleagues." I gather from this that it flags / cleans messages that have VB attacks attached, even though they don't directly affect your system.

It's a good point; it's nice to not pass on viruses even if they don't harm YOU. Plus now that the architecture is there, you can also install checks for linux viruses as time goes on and they crop up (which they will, and mightily, since Lindows runs as root).

Re:run by techs,

[SomeOtherGuy]

"I think being a sales person had being non-tech as a prerequisit sometimes...."

After being in the professional world and dealing with salesman on a regular basis for 10 years -- I do find it rather amazing that I have yet to meet one that was not TOTALLY ignorant on techy skills. This is way Twilight Zoneish. I have stumbled across techies in all walks of life -- but yet never a salesman. Maybe it is some part of the deal they make with the devil when they are given their golden bullshit talent.

Re: yes, yes, the root issue

[Anonymous Coward]

But let's think about this from a "granny" perspective. Which would be worse to you:

1)Losing your 500 pictures of your grand-kids that are in your home directory ...or...
2)Losing everything on your hard drive?

I don't think most people would see either of those to be any different. Either way, grandma lost all 500 pictures (which are priceless). It doesn't matter to her. What does matter to grandma is whether she has to enter a root password so she can change her screen resolution so she can read anything because of her aging eyes. Unless grandma is running a network server (and I know that is what MY grandma does in her spare time), user vs. root account default arguments are moot.

You really must think about the target audience here.... *nix sysadmins and geeks are not it!

Knowledge is Power

[WebMasterJoe]

Now, I can sorta understand Robertson's opinion about root users, but I think Linux vendors have a certain responsibility, as do their potential customers.

If you want to use a Linux system, you should invest a small amount of time in learning about it. This could cover things like logging in, the file system (/ instead of C:), users and groups, basic shell commands, and "emergency" keyboard shortcuts (like ctrl-alt-backspace). Perhaps the installation screen can show this information, along with a hard-copy included in the box in cheat-sheet style.

Granted, there are a lot of things that should be handled by well-designed tools, instead of forcing the user to type in strange looking commands that start with dots and slashes. But some things should be prerequisite knowledge.

Microsoft avoided that idea, and while their software sells, their users are generally not very knowledgeable. Had they given users a better crash-course, the computing landscape might be much more powerful today. Same thing with America Online - they made connecting to the internet very, very easy. But that ease-of-use has produced a widespread stereotype that AOL'ers are idiots.

The question is, do we want a bigger user base, or a better user base? The Dept of Motor Vehicles makes their users take two tests to get a license, why can't computer vendors ask users to learn just a little bit of info?

Root access by default might be easier, but I think just about everybody out there capable of buying a computer can manage to learn this very important -yet simple- lesson. If this distro were to bring Linux "to the masses" (which I don't think will happen), it will set a bad precedent about user logins.

I really like this guy.

[$beirdo]

This guy's a consumer advocate. That means a LOT to me in these days of corporate sneakiness and underhanded deception.

Say what you will about running as root by default, but isn't that how most of his competing products (read: Windows [^NT|XP]) essentially work?

I think we should support and encourage Robertson and his company!

No protocol I've ever heard of!

[TaraByte]

hyyp? click on the gambas link!

I must agree

[Ender Ryan]

I submitted the "why root" question, and while I think Lindows should use some method to separate the normal user from the superuser, I must admit that overall I am impressed by Robertson's tackling of the problems of putting Linux on the "average Joe's" computer.

I think the default account should be a normal user, and users should be encouraged to give normal user accounts to family members and others sharing the PC, so that one member doesn't destroy the whole system. To "su" to root when installing software, changing configuration, etc., the system could simply have the user enter a keyboard combination that is captured by the OS, eg. ctrl+alt+delete.

That would bring complete ease of use, while maintaining tighter security.

OTOH, after posting the original question, a Lindows user informed me that current versions of Lindows ask the user, during installation, if they want to create accounts for normal users...

my virus protection script

[dboyles]

#!/bin/bash
echo "Scanning for viruses..."
sleep 360
echo "Virus scan complete! 0 viruses detected."

Re:my virus protection script

[IainHere]

Define Irony:

Using "sleep 360" to fake a virus check while using the sig "Complacency is a far more dangerous attitude than outrage."

Vandalism on the sales floor

[87C751]

Yeah, those display machines always catch hell. I see more and more of them with passwords on the BIOS setup (finally) to thwart people (surely not me!) setting one. And back when some BIOS' had MFM formatting capability, well... lets just say (insert major retailer here)'s electronics floor manager may have had a busier weekend than he expected.

Re:Vandalism on the sales floor

[Anonymous Coward]

debug
-o 060 ED

Then you can't type anything else.

Is there something there to patent?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's easy for someone to say they're taking the stance against patenting methods, when they have no patentable methods in their product, no methods that do not already exist in other products (maybe "products" isn't the right word, maybe it should be projects instead).

There are three reasons...

[sterno]

1) Generally most users don't run as root and therfore the damage from viruses that do happen tend to be more limtied.

2) There are less viruses written to run on Linux

3) Linux desktop apps are not as tightly integrated as windows apps. Most nasty windows virus problems are caused because of interactions of multiple applications. A virus gets to you through a microsoft word document that launches your outlook client that sends the virus elsewhere.

As far as the arguments that running as root is a convenience issue, I would point out that OSX which is based on BSD doesn't have users running as root.

Re:There are three reasons...

[Natalie's Hot Grits]

What are you talking about? If it ain't root, its something like it.

we just got 3 new apples in last week. I set all 3 of them up. Every single one of them runs as root by default. What in the HELL are you talking about?

(note, non-root users shouldn't be able to access system level control pannels)

The default user has access to the entire networking configuration, hardware pannels, everything. That at bare minimum is write access to /etc by the default user, which is far from non-root.

I haven't pulled down the consol, but I'm willing to bet that I could write to any directory on the fs. And if I can't, it still doesn't change the fact that there is write access to /etc by the default user.(I can't check now because I don't use macs at home) Sure, it might not be the one true "root" account, but that doesn't change the fact that it has super user powers.

Re:There are three reasons...

[CoolVibe]

OS X control panels do most (if not all) stuffs through sudo. It's safe-ish, and the only thing you can nuke as a privved user in OS X is the stuff in /Applications.

You'd lose your apps, but the OS will still boot up and be fine. You can't touch stuff in /bin, /etc or the other critical places.

Re:There are three reasons...

[meatball_mulligan]

The default user account created for OS X is a member of the Admin group and does have some capabilities beyond a non-admin account, but it's far, far, from root. You still need to use 'sudo' or login as root to do the real serious damage.

Re:There are three reasons...

[bnenning]

we just got 3 new apples in last week. I set all 3 of them up. Every single one of them runs as root by default.

No they don't. The default user account is an "administrator" (in the admin and wheel groups), and thus can acquire root privileges, but is definitely not root.

I haven't pulled down the consol, but I'm willing to bet that I could write to any directory on the fs.

And I would be even more willing to bet against you. Try /System for starters.

And if I can't, it still doesn't change the fact that there is write access to /etc by the default user.

Nope.

Re:There are three reasons...

[Natalie's Hot Grits]

I agree with what your saying. My point is that safe-ish and not safe are effectively the same exact thing. Just because its easier to exploit non-safe systems doesn't mean that its impossible, or even difficult to exploit the safe-ish one.

In the end, I believe OS X is no more secure than running as root (except that joe user can't screw up his own machine, which isn't the real issue people are complaining about here). As it takes the Administrator user to activate the root account, and the administrator user is the default user, a virus could just as easilly get root locally if it is already installed on the administrator's account (which, may I remind you, is the default user).

I agree that a safe-ish approach is good to give people the sence of security. At least it protects the system from its users unintentional fuck up's. But that is about all it does. (And I do agree that something like this is needed to stop support nightmares, and improve stability) But I do not believe that there is anything inheritantly more secure using the safe-ish MacOS X approach.

In my eyes, a good comparison is that in order to imporve Homeland security, lets restrict our local citizens use of this land, rather than the remote terrorists. After all, that is the American Way!

Re:There are three reasons...

[mlyle]

This is true only if you get the administrator's account password so that you can run through sudo, or if you can wait for the user to do a privileged operation and hijack it. As long as Joe User doesn't escalate to administrator privileges, it can only run with Joe User's rights. This is a win; I basically only escalate privilege these days for the occasional software installation.

UCSD going soft?

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't require assembler at UCSD anymore? I'll have to mark down recent graduates next time I interview recent ones. I went to UCSD in the early 80's and got an A in the assembler class after a lot of work. That class was very important to understanding how the machine really works.

I will admit UCSD had problems getting professors to teach the subject. In the 80's they often contracted out to teach the class, and I got a good guest prof. who I learned alot from.

I dunno..

[destiney]

The guy sounds like a idiot to me. Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't there be much less chance for virus infection if users weren't running as root out of the box?

I'm all for Linux gaining desktop marketshare over M$, but I do not believe this guy has what it takes to get there. His reasoning seems spur of the moment, not logical for the most part.

Good answers

[StormReaver]

I don't have to agree with everything (though I agree with most of it) to admire the man's vision and coherency. His answers were so clear and to the point, I can't believe they were anything but sincere.

you got it

[zogger]

You nailed it exactly. I WISH someone would create the most extremely complicated hard to use POS linux "distro" in the world so the elitist "power user" snobs could all go over there on "1337 15l4|\|D" website and argue about it. The ultimate sheer snobbery distro. So complicated you can never quite get it installed or working, but you can get close enough to "almost" make it look like it might happen ..next year..maybe.

I mean DANG I like driving and doing my own mechanics, but I am NOT wanting to go mine the ore, smelt it, forge parts, do all the machining, etc, just to have a car to drive. Enoughs enough on the "complexity is cool" snobbishness, like it's the most important thing on earth.

I would love to never read the words "library whatever.sol.4.U needed" just to install some app. I think anything that can make that happen in open source and free or semi free is a good idea. People aren't so much opposed to paying for something, they just don't want to get raped, and then still have it not work or be insecure. There exists a HUGE untapped market for MODERATE priced, works great, secure computers and whatever OS runs on them. Maybe OSX is it, but it loses on price, and I'm an old mac hand who's been priced out of their market, sorry stevie, too 'spensive for me now. Windows I just could never be "right" with, it always gave me a case of the icky cooties to sit down in front of it, it was just ...wrong, and still expensive. Linux so far is still too complicated and infested with snobbery. I applaud all the de-snobbing efforts. I'll support those guys, the ones who seek to keep it closed to all but the most hard core hobbiests and snobs-naw, no support, that's just too weird a concept.

It's like goldilocks and the three bears, SOMEPLACE there needs to be something "just right" for the majority of users to be comfortable with and to sit down and use the thing without emptying the wallet or getting owned in 10 minutes and not be able to do anything with it and having it obsolete in 6 months.. the computer and software industry is chock fulla busywork it appears and artifical pricing and planned obsolesence examples. it's nuts, it's like complaining is just a normal part of "computerdom" because stuff getst to the point where it almost looks like it's "done" then WHAM, they change it all around, so all your stuff is now obsolete and useless and insecure again. Why is this????

Maybe lindows will do it, don't know, never tried it. I hope something comes along though. I liked what he had to say in the article, he is on to something. His release from what I read isn't perfect, but I can see he "gets it" overall in what most people want with "computers".

Re:Rite of passage.

[zCyl]

Accidentally deleting the entire filesystem is a rite of passage. :)

Yes, but it isn't:

rm -rf /

which is a rite of passage, but instead:

rm -rf .*

The resulting behavior makes sense, but the first time around it definitely catches you off guard in the painful learning sense. (CAUTION: If you try this, only try it at least two directory levels deeper than anything important.)

Wrong.

[Tokerat]

Take a Microsoft Windows XP or Mac OS X machine out of the box and use it and it operates in a similar manner to LindowsOS - the first person to touch it can do whatever they want.

Mac OS X gives you your own UID under the group "admin". This is more than a plain user gets, but is less priviledged than being root/wheel. I'm not exactly sure what the difference is, although I'm sure it's described somewhere. I know I wasn't able to change other users' passwords or do various other root-only things from the shell with an admin group account, for that I needed to sudo (enter my own password at a prompt for 5 minutes of superuser-level access in that session only), or set a root password by doing `sudo passwd -u root' and logging in as root.

Perhaps Lindows should make the nessisary modifications to allow for such a thing? What about setuid'ing for operations that require root? I haven't gotten too familiar with programming under a POSIX type system before, but I have seen that suggested under other cases where permissions are a problem...

Admin user can sudo to root ...

[brianstoler]

On OS X admin users are not running as root but can become root when needed (via sudo or su), either at the command line or because an application requested such access.

One simple example is the Software Update app, which prompts the admin user for his password to do the update, which behind the scenes is doing a sudo to root to update the system files.

I think this is a very cool and flexible system that prevents the user from shooting himself in the foot most of the time (and prevents virii from being able to write to system areas without permission) but makes it fairly easy for the user to become root as needed.

Re: yes, yes, the root issue

[I_redwolf]

This concept is lost amongst many here, it seems the Ease-of-Use people seem to think that a user can't simply enter a password to install a program, or to make changes to their system. Surely it's inconvient if you're doing many programs but this has also been solved by allowing the user to authenticate themselves once. Mac OS X does this Redhat does this and Microsoft does this now. I'm sure many other alternative operating systems are starting to adopt this method. For Lindows to run as root in this day and age is pretty silly and I agree; when that dog comes to bite, it's going to bite hard. Thankfully it'll only affect Lindows users, as everyone else will have a fence up. From a business perspective as well as a security perspective, it's really a horrible decision and the answer supplied is even worst.

Re:Rite of passage.

[ichimunki]

They both happen. Personally I think I got hit by rm -rf .*, but rm -rf / usually happens when you accidentally do something like rm -rf / mydir, where you intended to just remove /mydir. :)

He's marketing to consumers, NOT GEEKS!

[Newer Guy]

There's one flaw in most of the posts I see here. Most of you (with a few notable exceptions) talk this guy down because he does things like using root as default, sells a virus scanner, has a built in firewall, etc. One even asked: " Why the need for a firewall when you can take an old machine, put XXX on it, configure it as a firewall, etc.." The operative word here is YOU. Maybe YOU can do that, but the average consumer shopping at Walmart.com both CAN'T and WON'T do that! Like it or not, computers are mass market items. Microsoft saw this many years ago and made their OS a mass market item too. They even essentially got rid of the DOS command line. Lindows is trying to do the same. Geeks have to ask themselves this: Do I want Linux to become a mass market OS or do I want it to remain a geeky OS?. If your answer is the former, then you MUST EMBRACE Lindows and others like it!! If your answer is the latter, keep running with the command line! Personally, I think there's room for both!! As such, though I run Red Hat on one machine (and spent hours trying to make my on board sound work, only to give up in frustration and spend 50 bucks for a SoundBlaster card) , and Lindows on another (and it found and configured the sound in about 30 seconds), I consider them both to be Linux, and I respect both Red Hat and Lindows for the different, yet so similar things they are trying to do for Linux.

Re:He's marketing to consumers, NOT GEEKS!

[Reziac]

In fact, there's room for the *same* user to enjoy both massmarket and geeky OSs. Lots of old-time DOS users now run Windows because of ease of use and multitasking, but also revert to the command line for all sorts of esoteric stuff. (I do this myself. The very first shortcut I drop on my Windows desktop, from Win16 thru XP, is for a DOS shell. The next is for LIST, a DOS-based hex viewer.)

Don't think DOS was once a "geeky OS"?? Remember this old DOS-head saying? "I don't NEED Windows (or a Mac). *I* can read and write." Sound like any commandline bigots you know? :)

Virii? Don't you mean viruses?

[checkyoulater]

Why do people insist on using the term virii? The last time I checked, the only plural to virus is viruses. I wonder how he would spell the plural of jesus or venus?

Or perhaps it is some l33t h4xor thing?

Lycoris

[Cro Magnon]

How does Lindows compare to Lycoris? They're both aiming at the "Joe Winpack" market.

If Lindows is so secure where are the updates?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a $99 Click'N'Run subscription and
was disturbed that after the recent sendmail
issues their version of sendmail was not and
is still not (from the date) patched.

Same with ssh (openssh)

My solution...

Install RedHat, their free updates are much
more timely..

I asked on the Lindows support pages about
the updates and I get the distinct impression
that they did not fully understand my question.

My money is on Lindows

[Cranx]

This guy has a BIG clue, and you guys would do well to stop playing the fools while talking, and start playing the wise folk and just listen.

If anyone will bust MS's nuts over the desktop market, this guy will do it...and it won't be due to a buttload of crap advise from wanna-be's.

Missed the news lately?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, Unix doesn't have any mail service that has a long history of remote exploits.

Wake the fuck up. Sendmail, which is the most widely used mail relay agent in the world and running entirely on Unix machines, had a remote exploit as recently as March of this year.

Those elitist fuckwads who claim uptimes of years and blindly insist on having better security are probably r00ted DDoS zombies already.

Re:Missed the news lately?

[sbaker]

Sure Linux/UNIX software has exploits - but that's not what we were talking
about. The question was about filtering email viruses. Whilst Sentmail isn't remotely secure, it can't be taken out by something as simple as sending a particular email to it.

I'd never claim that Linux is 100% secure - but I *do* claim that it's immune to email viruses...which is what the virus protection software that ships for Lindows claims to protect you against.

So, you are right - but you are answering the wrong question.

Re:Virii? Don't you mean viruses?

[vertical_98]

Why is the plural of moose, moose and mouse, mice? And why isn't it Funguses, instead of fungi? The plural or virus has always been virii at least in all of my computer experiences.....
But seriously, to my knowledge, even in biology the plural is virii.
Vertical

Insert incredibly witty sig here.

Dammit I think I'll buy it, 200 bux?

[mrmeval]

I have LOTS of people I want to ween from Microsoft, they are not power MS users (yea, an oxymoron).

Most are older folk, you don't want games, don't do much but surf, order stuff, instant message, and pay a few bills.

Heck as often as I rape this system I need a virgin to do all that too. ;-)

I really do like the way this fellow talks, I may be adding something in but all I here is loathing when he speaks of Micro-Soft and that's music to me.

Q: Does Lindows run on thin clients? I might, just might be able to use that.

If You Would Like to See Michael Robertson Speak..

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are interested in seeing Michael Robertson speak in person and are in the San Diego area, please look for the UCSD Business Plan competition, VentureForth @ UCSD.

Regarding root login & other stuff

[dtfinch]

I see no serious problem with a desktop pc automatically logging in with root permissons. This has been successful for over 20 years in the dos/windows world. Desktop pc's can stand to be exploited every once in a while. Server pc's, on the other hand, need to be as secure as possible.

Maybe the reduced hassle is worth the occasional virus or other exploit. People can backup their files, and if their data is so incredibly valuable, they can disable the root auto-login.

Being primarily a windows user (though i'm trying to get away from ms products), none of my computers have ever been infected by a virus while I was using it, without the use of anti-virus software, although I scan them every few months. I have lost absolutely nothing on any of my desktops anywhere as a result of running with root-like permossions. I lose more data to windows crashes than anything else.

Sure, there's the possibility of a virus similar to slammer hitting all lindows desktop pc's with internet ip's and deleting everything on those that are logged in as root, but the losses are much less than if the computer was running in a business environment, and many compilers and utilities can now automate most of the process of strengthening programs against buffer overrun attacks.

It's a choice between security vs convenience, and most their target audience has already chosen convenience. They're only giving users what they want.

If that argument doesn't work for you, here's another one. Think of Lindows as a gateway OS. It gets people hooked on linux, while providing an environment that's familiar to them. Those who want more can then comfortably move to other linux distributions. It's like a ski resort providing a kiddie slope. Without them, you wouldn't have many skiers, even though most skilled skiers would be embarrassed to use them.

Re:Regarding root login & other stuff

[Ziviyr]

I have lost absolutely nothing on any of my desktops anywhere as a result of running with root-like permossions. I lose more data to windows crashes than anything else.

Okay, in your Windows is innately crap mindset you missed the association between these two sentences.

As root you can do whatever to the system, purposefully or otherwise. Under a normal user account you'll tend to fail in an attempt to crash the machine, keeping software from running as root isn't just a security issue.

Re:Someone is really trying to take Linux mainstre

[neitzsche]

I don't understand the hostility towards Lindows thats prevalent on /.

Maybe Lindows/Mr. Robertson got off on the wrong foot with the /. crowd. Remember when Lindows first came out and they (at least initially) refused to release source? Good to see he's (at least partially) come around.

glerk--

[pyrrho]

AMD 1.2 GHz Duron processor
128 MB SDRAM
10 GB hard drive

You don't think this will run Win 98? Yes it will. In fact, it's a speed-demon compared to the machines DOS... I mean Win98 was designed to run on.

But I don't advise it for other reasons.

Re:glerk--

[StormReaver]

"You don't think this will run Win 98?"

I said the Walmart machines wouldn't run anything more than Win98.

When I last researched the Walmart machines, they were way below 1.2GH, 128MB, and 10GB for the $200 price tag. I don't remember the exact specs, but it was something like 500Mhz Via processor, 64MB RAM, 10GB hard drive.

If your given specifications are correct, then Walmart has greatly improved its offering. On the other hand, you won't be getting those specs for $200, Walmart or no Walmart. The motherboard+processor alone will run you about that much.

Re:glerk--

[pyrrho]

$200 lindows machine (no monitor, of course)

You don't really need their apps

[Wee]

But if you want the major commercial software companies like Adobe, MS(?) to come down and write competitive applications, Linux has to have a wide market acceptance. I think *that* is a sufficient incentive to feel the need to spread Linux to non- geeks.

But not everybody needs Adobe or MS or Intuit or whomever to port their apps. I can't think of a single app I've missed while using Linux -- outside of a game; my one Windows box is basically nothing more than a high-end console. In fact, one of the things that pains me about having to use Windows at all is getting all the apps paid for and installed.

I just installed Red Hat 9 on a new machine last night. The only commercial product I needed was Opera (and not really even then, since Moz or Konqueror will both work). I went trolling through freshmeat and sourceforge to get everything else (although RH9 comes with a lot of stuff already). On Saturday I installed Windows XP on another new machine. The only thing I could put on there was a freeware editor, Opera, and the few games I own. If I wanted anything else for that PC, I'd have to hit Fry's and bust out my credit card.

I don't need to go pay for Photoshop when I have The GIMP. I don't need Word when I have OpenOffice. I don't need Quicken when I have GNUCash (or MoneyDance). I don't need commercial software when I have freeware alternatives that work just as well, give or take. You have to do the math for yourself to decide whether "free with fewer features" is worth it, but in my case it always has been.

I dunno. I sure wouldn't mind greater acceptance of Linux. But rather than pointing to ported commercial apps, I'd think that "when you use Linux nearly all the software you want is free" is a selling point in and of itself.

-B

And he helps Debian....

[Xtifr]

For example, see this message on the Debian-Devel-Announce list, where it mentions that Lindows is providing 4.5kUSD to help support a Debian conference. (HP, Trolltech and O'Reilly are also mentioned.)

He'd be welcome in my house for a beer.

Mine too. Heck, I'd probably offer him snacks to go with it. :)

Slightly incorrect

[Fuzzle]

Take a Microsoft Windows XP or Mac OS X machine out of the box and use it and it operates in a similar manner to LindowsOS - the first person to touch it can do whatever they want.

Actually, with MacOSX, you have to activate Root via the NetInfo Manager application. Your default user is not completely restricted, but it is not Root.

Real commitment, Real opportunity, Real codec?

[starvingartist12]

"Finally, video streaming is weak on desktop . None of the big three codecs (QuickTime, *Real*, Windows Media) have shown any *real* commitment to offering support. I think there's a *real* opportunity for one company to commit to gain the upper hand on the others with a true cross platform solution." (*Emphasis mine)

Maybe it's just me, but I think he's trying to tell Real something. =)

Very nice interview

[Anonymous Coward]

I really enjoyed reading it, Robertson has a lot of insight! I also agree with him on all the issues mentioned apart from the WINE question. By supporting WINE you are not automatically buying Office, it simply allows you to run Windows applications in Linux while the holes fill or because you do not want to relearn anything.

Both WineX 3 and the line of CodeWeavers products are really very impressive and will helpa great deal of users.

More distros could use this.

[Thelgar]

The Warehouse part of the Click-N-Run (http://lindows.com/warehouse) adds tremendous value as well. Not only do users get an informative graphical representation for many products, but because listings are based on popularity they can get a listing of the most valuable software as measured by the community.

I'd love to see this feature in Debian, RedHat etc. Just give me a graph on the website showing the most popular package downloads or something.

Re:Rite of passage.

[r3jjs]

Yea, that rm -rf /tmp/.* bit me once too.

Heard the old MFM hard drive start cranking and I dove for the power switch. Some days I miss that Minix box.

His company should help GnuCash...

[Goonie]

If Mr. Robertson really wants a financial app that can do online banking, the easiest way to do so is to fund GnuCash development and, equally importantly, help persuade some financial institutions to work with the GnuCash developers so that they can get online banking support up and running.

Back in the day where some of the GnuCash developers (myself included) were employed by a company, we considered where to focus our efforts. Basically, we had to concentrate on business stuff because that's where we thought there was going to be cash (it didn't turn out that way, but that's another story and not really mine to tell). If somebody had have come along and said - "here's $BIGNUM (or even $MODERATELY_BIG_NUM), we'll schmooze some financial institutions for ya, now go implement online banking and make it work seamlessly", we could have done it (as some of the other developers have demonstrated in Germany with their online financial transaction standard).

The opportunity still exists if somebody wants to take the ball and run with it.

Constructive responses to the article

[DeathPenguin]

A lot of people have come down pretty hard on Robertson for allowing people to use root by default. Here's an idea: Offer solutions instead of just bitching about the problem.

The root issue is of serious concern since not only are files exposed to damage, but services can be run that can compromise security as well. Here's my idea:

1. Classify accounts by access level and make a graphical interface during bootup to set up user accounts. Don't give everyone root right off the bat, but give them something like "Administrator" or "poweruser." Make "root" a checkbox that's unchecked by default, label it with a warning and maybe draw some cute little skulls near by with a can of rat poison when you move your cursor over the checkbox. Have a "read more" option that explains, in gory detail, the risks of creating a user with root privileges and why it should only be used only for (insert creative name for) system tasks. If the user hasn't quit due to boredom after the first sentence and given up on "root" then at least he/she might understand why the root account is so special and tread with caution.

Anyway, back to the watered down root privs. Give these access levels high privileges that will be required for installing software later on (See part 2), but not enough to say, start a telnet server, ping flood someon, or rm -rf / . This will be the default permission. Also, place all users in the same group. Give them suggestions in a drop-down menu like "family" to make the process more recognizable.

Obviously, users aren't going to want to keep track of multiple passwords. And I just know I'm gonna get roasted for this, but make the root password the same as the password entered in for the first user. The idea here is to make the user think twice about an operation that he/she is going to do. When a user does something that requires root privs, ask for confirmation with a password. Maybe even have a little "help" button that explains that when the box pops up asking for confirmation, they're about to perform a task that could be potentially harmful to the system.

Of course this is less secure than it should be and having the same root and user password won't help much if a hacker manages to get in or something. However, for an OS with Micheal's intentions we have to cut the user a lot of slack, dreary as it may sound to all of us.

2. I know this would be enormously tedious and require tremendous effort, but I see it as part of the process of creating a distribution from scratch with Micheal's objective in mind. "Standardize" directories where stuff should go. Yep, that's it. Keep directories like /usr/X11R6 under lock 'n key for "root" only, where modification will require a password, but chmod +777 /usr/local/ (Hopefully all users will be in the same group by default) and other such directories commonly used to install apps. Make sure that all packages in Click 'n Run do not try to write to directories that users are not given permission to.

Unfortunately, my suggestions are crude at best and go off a few assumptions. For one, I assume that people will not try to upgrade extremely important things like KDE without reading some documentation first (How about some kinder, gentler documents that assume no Linux knowledge available from Lindows?). And like Micheal, I also assume that people aren't going to be using Lindows to make a network filesever or something delicate like that.

That's all I have for now. Feel free to butcher / add / mod me up or down, but don't give me any "STFU N00B" responses for sympathizing with Micheal's cause. Apologies in advance if I misspelled some easy words, I'm typing this up on an old laptop with a small screen and crappy keyboard.

A Touch Of Elitism (maybe even anti-intellectual)

[rhizome]

He's in an interesting position by pushing an OS for folks without CS (or generally geeky) backgrounds.

It does not take CS or general geekiness to understand the concept of multiple user accounts and security. Dumbing down the product is a classically conservative design decision on Robertson's part. He has an opportunity to evolve the "user experience" away from Microcentric areas but drops the ball, presumably because it would be a training and support issue (and consequently a barrier to adoption).

After reading that paragraph in the interview I instantly thought about double-clicking a mouse. All through the years of my computer affinity, and specifically since the introduction and popularization of Windows, there is no interface concept more alien to non-geeks than the double-click. I can't tell you how many times I watched people have twitchy machines because they turned the double click gap way up (to match their slow, untrained muscles), or risk RSI by making the double-click a wholly deliberate click:click as fast as they could.

Now everybody is hip to the double-click, but I remember its growing pains and in fact one of them lingers on in the form of "double-clicking URL links" that I see all the time. Coindentally, this is exactly the *quality* of habit that would make the popular computing community a better place: if people learn to use multiple accounts, then they'll try to use that concept everywhere. Support costs for this would eventually go down as people learn and the knowledge is spread around, much like not having to teach people how to double-click anymore.

Call me cynical, but it's going to be a losing battle if Lindows' mission is to get people to use Linux. Linux is an OS for tinkerers and not everybody likes to tinker. Lindows' greater strength is in getting people to install "Something Besides Microsoft Windows" and if users can avoid (the Robertson-touted huge issue of) viruses by learning the concept of security levels and the like, then that is a step toward making Lindows (and by extension Linux) a more attractive option when Joe Grandpa gets a new PC.

To hell with beer.

[j1mmy]

I'd let him fuck my ass like a donkey on crack.

Click-N-Run

[muzza]

Isn't that copy-right protected by Aardman Studios?

There are options...

[Chordonblue]

Lindows 3.0 allows you to set up different accounts with a graphical user template.

It's not that the ability to do this isn't there, it's that by default, you run as root.

Incidentally, if you should setup Lindows from scratch, you are given the option to create users in the very beginning if this is such a concern.

Re:Someone is really trying to take Linux mainstre

[Reziac]

Another point being -- why does an alternative OS *have* to be free? MacOS and OS/2 aren't free, yet many here embrace them as alternatives. There's nothing *wrong* with making an alternative that's commercially viable, and letting the marketplace decide if it shall succeed or not.

As a discussion I was involved in here yesterday served to point out, a lot of linux users are more interested in being leet than in letting ordinary users share their fun. Omighod, the unwashed masses might come tramping through, and then we'd have to find another OS to be leet with! How horrible!!

Root and the Single User

[Dr. Mu]

I have a Redhat box to which I'm consistently logged in as root, a la Lindows. I know it's stupid and dangerous, but -- dang! -- it's convenient. Recently I installed Mandrake on a laptop. Now, Mandrake doesn't suffer root logins gladly, to say the least. So I've given into the su routine -- over and over and OVER. Every time I turn around, I'm typing in the bloody root password just to get something done. Clearly neither approach to administrative tasks is ideal.

I think what's needed, instead of the toll booth that's su, is a speed bump. Allow root privileges, but instead of asking for the root password to do certain things, just pop up a modal dialog box to remind one that a misstep could have consequences: "This is an administrative operation. Shall I continue? [OK] [Cancel]" Perhaps this could be the mode of operation after logging in as the super-but-fallible user, softroot.

use zsh

[zatz]

It doesn't expand globs to include "." or "..".

Lindows is great

[Anonymous Coward]

I am using Lindows since version 1 and it the best, fastest and most robust Linux version i ever used.

Install is under 10 min. in most cases (depends on your hardware) and post configuration is a breeze with CNR. I would recommend Lindows to everyone.
I am not a newbie or beginner, i use Linux for over 7 years now. I also run Debian woody, RH, and Xandros but if you want a clean fast and stable destop its Lindows you are after.
Try it and see for yourself!

I only hope they change the name..

Gambas?? Hbasic!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hbasic
http://hbasic.sf.net

I think Robertson is wrong. He OS is crap. I personbally don't understand this American CEO cult, a strange religion.

Why buy a high cost Lindows + restricted Click'n run Warehouse (perversion of the idea of free software) instead of buying SuSe with Crosssover.

Cheap WalMart PC is awesome!!!

[Arbogast_II]

I have never seen Lindows, but a very dumbed down version of Linux is the only Linux a regular person is gonna use. WalMart is the perfect vehicle for a new kind of PC. If Lindows can get to the point that WalMart is marketing $99 and $199 computers that work for basic tasks for basic people, they could do amazingly well. That WalMart is experimenting with this seems very interesting. WalMart is a company that the Powers That Be in the Computer Industry can't bully. This strikes me as a product that could gore the low end of the computer industry. The Powers That Be wouldn't be happy competing with WalMart, who is probably willing to make a few dollars profit per entire computer system. They have never had a competitor like WalMart. Lindows, a cheap new Via Epia Mobo, a cute little case, a nice TV ad campaign, and available at every WalMart. Instant legitamacy!!! Bring on the $99 McPuter Lindows with subscription service!!! For those crying that it isn't orthodox Linux, get real. All Linux Fanatics ever say is how we need diversity and choices, well, Lindows is bringing you diversity and choice. Personally, I can figure out how to make Linux work, and dont need Lindows. But, if you are just an occasional computer user, a $100 a year for software that works is a pretty good deal. Anyone who knows how to run Linux has invested alot more than a $100 worth of time learning.

The world needs OEM-installed commodity Linux

[uncadonna]

Linux MUST be preinstalled on computers to be a sustainable business. The Microsoft stranglehold on OEMs must be cracked to change the dynamics of the PC business. Until this happens, no desktop Linux company should be considered a viable longterm company.

Yup. Every time I've said this exact thing on /. I get modded down, oddly enough.

The paranoid in me says that M$ is saving up mod points to squelch things they need unsaid, and this is one of them. Actually, I don't believe my paranoid side. I think it's just tiresome hacker elitists, who think anyone who doesn't share their obsessions must be incompetent. Of course, they are wrong, and in this case they are self-defeatingly wrong, because their elitism is damaging the market success of truly open computing.

The only plausible way to detoxify computing in our lifetimes is to get viable competition for Microsoft on the desktop, and the only way that will happen is if the first-time boot into Linux is not a high-skilled operation, and the only way that is going to happen is if the OEM does the install. As long as MS has every mass market OEM (including/excluding Apple as you prefer) in its pocket, nothing will change.

I wonder that IBM doesn't see this, but meanwhile viva Lindows!

Re:The world needs OEM-installed commodity Linux

[TechnoConfucius]

I bought a Sony laptop with Win XP this weekend: 1) Took it out of the box 2) Plugged it in and pressed the "on" switch 3) Typed in my new user name 4) Started browsing via my WLAN Total time taken: 2 minutes. Linux has some way to go to reach that level of convenience for all but a very few, specific, hardware platforms, (e.g. Lindows PCs).

fun stuff

[Dave_bsr]

I've only rm -rf / on one occasion, and it was on a box just to see what happened. w00t...it's fun...deleting...a whole lot of crap...not everything was gone...but ls was...which was kinda funny...try it sometime, on a box you're about to reformat. it's entertaining, and educational.

Re: fun stuff

[zCyl]

not everything was gone...but ls was....which was kinda funny...

If you lose ls, or just about every command, but you are still in a bash shell, the following command:

alias ls='for file in *; do echo $file; done'

Will give you a more mundane replacement ls, using only embedded bash commands.

Re:Someone is really trying to take Linux mainstre

[Anonymous Coward]

Totally agree. Robertson is not afraid to COME OUT and say how harmful the MS machine and Bill Gates has been to .. the WORLD. He doesn't mince words, i-e, calling Windows: "that other OS", like many writers do when reviewing Linux OSs. He comes out and derides MS the way the company and its too too rich boss (who is in a total state of guilt/denial about his wealth) needs to be derided. He understands the connection between open or cheap software and all sorts of government interference--tampering w our electronics, and our internet and phone connections--and will see much more of this interference, and that's why Linux or FreeBSD is a great thing. They are the antidote to this interference, for reasons beyond the scope of my post. Many of you understand that. There's a political subtext to much of what Robertson says: Linux, free/cheap software, has a POLITICAL dimension, deny it or not. It's not about the religion of Linux. I've had my fill of Mac fanatics, too. (How anyone can be a fanatic about a stinking operating system is beyond comprehension--but apparently fanaticism runs in the human genome.) But we need an antidote for MS and Gates. Can anyone get an office job, other than sweeping up and emptying the garbage, without "knowing" at the very least MS WORD? Deny it or not, that's political.

I don't agree

[niom]

Of course usually you don't need to backup your programs, so leaving them unprotected does not mean any more work for you (until you are attacked, at least). That's a point in favor of running as root.

However, I don't agree that backing up your data takes less time than reinstalling and setting up the system. In my experience it's quite the contrary. Even more if you take into account that 1) a good part of the user configuration lives under $HOME (and thus is deletable by a non-root attacker), and 2) the users Lindows is directed at are not likely to do any fancy system configuration. In fact, I'd bet the only system configuration most Lindows users would do is setting up their Internet connection. Almost everything else can and should be detected by the installation program.

Re:I don't agree

[quintesse]

Yes, but 1) is exactly the reason why I would happily back up the 3,9GB of data that lives in my home directory. But even better, 1.8GB of that is downloaded stuff which doesn't need backing up so that leaves me with 2.1GB of data which fits on just a couple of CDs and it will take almost no time with a modern and fast CD burner. I don't even want to think about having to back up the entire 20+ GB that makes up my entire Linux system. With regards to point 2) I think it is not necessary to do any "fancy" configuration, everybody will at least change SOMETHING about the programs they work with and even my parents who are complete computer no-noes use more than just Internet. So the fact that a inexperienced user could easily be taught how to back up the few personal files and settings he/she has in their personal folder combined with the fact that you can be reasonably sure that no virus will be able to mess up the rest of the system seems to me reason enough to keep the separation between root and normal users. And using KDE myself where most programs that need root acces (most of which are programs that a normal user wouldn't normally need to use) ask for the root password using a pop-up dialog there is no need to use a console and "su" which would make it easy enough for most users.

Multi user households

[Felinoid]

Look at the usefulness of your avrage child protection software applocation.
If the kid can bypass it by using contol-alt-del and just kill the content control software (What's admin access when anyone can kill any app?) and brows porn.

It dosen't happen to often today due to the pedophile filled Internet. Tech savy kids see it more as a protection against sickos than against adult content.

Also security provides at least minimal protection against mistakes and outside attack.

On the old home computers famaly members could protect data from other famaly members by taking the flopy disk with them.

Today it's all stored in the computer. What happends if my GF dosen't approve of my music collection?
rm -rf ~/mp3 ?
Nope... It's my user directory. You can't touch me.
And then there is the mother trying to read her ADULT sons e-mail.

Then there's the issue of email viruses.
I know one girl who has to use her mothers computer to get on-line. Her mom keeps openning e-mail viruses.
I'm not saying e-mail attachments can't screw you on Unix but that it's effect is issolated to one user.

The only Destrobution that I can see as valid for running root is Knoppix and other "boot from CD" destros.
The whole "Hay it's on read only media" means you can't modify the operating system NO MATTER WHAT!! I'd say that's a pritty significant advantage.

Which is worse...

[metamatic]

...having to explain how to log in to your aunt once a month when she installs commercial software, or having random malware wipe out her OS so you have to guide her through an OS install once a month?

not the brightest

[resignator]

I would guess 80-90% of windoze users dont even know what version they are running. They simply dont care and just want to check their email or browse the web. Linux users can preach all they want about security but if it involves the average joe smoe having to learning something forget it. Hell most of them think the internet IS internet explorer. I think some of you are underestimating the stupidity of the average american. It really is a bottomless pit. All you need is a few slick ads that flash the words EASY,EASY,EASY in bold bubble font to lure the masses to Lindows. Oh, mabey throw in the phrase, "even a moron can do it!" or "limited time offer!"