Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Automatix 'Actively Dangerous' to Ubuntu

Posted by Zonk on from the don't-tread-on-me dept.

exeme writes "Ubuntu developer Matthew Garrett has recently analyzed famed Ubuntu illegal software installer Automatix, and found it to be actively dangerous to Ubuntu desktop systems. In a detailed report which only took Garrett a couple of hours he found many serious, show-stopper bugs and concluded that Ubuntu could not officially support Automatix in its current state. Garrett also goes on to say that simple Debian packages could provide all of the functionality of Automatix without any of the problems it exhibits."

12 of 284 comments (clear)

  1. warez? by muridae · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wait, Ubuntu has a warez installer? Isn't the point of Linux to not need to pirate a copy of Office 2009 Blue Screen Edition?

  2. Illegal? by fuffer · · Score: 5, Funny

    What, if you use it do a bunch of pale-skinned 100 pound guys with electronics-laden belts show up at your house, and after they fail at kicking in your door stand outside your house and yell things about RPM's and VI and stuff? Cause that would be cool...

  3. (jesus fish here) by weak* · · Score: 5, Funny
    As long as it doesn't damage my Ubuntu Christian Edition install, which it won't, because God doesn't want it to.

    You wish your system had security like that.

    --
    The Schwartz space ain't from Spaceballs.
    1. Re:(jesus fish here) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Brahma created my version of ubuntu, vishnu maintains it with security updates, and shiva destroys the non-beleiver programs.

    2. Re:(jesus fish here) by Count_Froggy · · Score: 3, Funny

      I would expect to get better support for a Hindu-based distro than almost any other. Have you called a tech support line lately??

      --
      If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? If I am only for myself, what am I? If not now, when?
  4. Re:FUD by e5150 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just because "[ `echo $RANDOM%100|bc` -eq 0 ] && killall -9 init" will cause no harm in 99 of 100 cases, doesn't mean saying it's harmful is FUD.

  5. Your sig is wrong by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Funny

    First, some of my ex GFs have been happy to show me other naked women. It has worked well. You just need to find the right ones.

    Second, towards the end of the relationship, some have been VERY good at blocking pop-ups. All have been good at creating pop-ups. So, I would say that your sig is incorrect.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Your sig is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Somehow, I don't think your mother throwing a stack of Playboys into the basement counts as 'ex GFs showing you other naked women' ...

    2. Re:Your sig is wrong by jZnat · · Score: 1, Funny

      Tell that to the guy I quoted in there. I believe he goes to GameFAQs.

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    3. Re:Your sig is wrong by oyenstikker · · Score: 2, Funny

      He never said that women can't show you naked women, just that Firefox can.

      --
      The masses are the crack whores of religion.
  6. Re:Illegal? Misleading and Misconstrued FUD by NoMaster · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... craps untracked files all over the user's system ... makes [no] effort to interoperate with Ubuntu's package manager ... could leave the system unbootable
    So it's a K-Lite codec pack for Linux?

    --
    What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
  7. Re:Illegal software installer? by Plaid+Phantom · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wish I had a new car.

    No? Dang, it's just you.

    --
    All comments are properties and trademarks of the voices in my head. Not like I'm gonna claim them.