Slashdot Mirror


Automatix 'Actively Dangerous' to Ubuntu

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."

19 of 284 comments (clear)

  1. Old News by solcott · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is old news, well Automatix being dangerous in general I mean not Mr. Gattett's report. Automatix has been referred to by many as a tool to "enhance" Ubuntu by lazy users who do not care about system security or stability since Breezy Badger.

    1. Re:Old News by Stormx2 · · Score: 3, Informative
      Wow, I'm replying to two of your ignorant comments.

      Or in other words, people who quite rightly find installing things like codecs and then having to modify countless config files so the media player and the browser can use them either difficult or, quite rightly, a bloody ridiculous thing to have to do.
      I've addressed codecs in my other post to you. Here's the jist again: open a media file, if you don't have the codec, it will install it. Firefox, and gstreamer-based media players, will automatically make use of the new codecs, no questions asked. This is a non-issue.

      When Linux distros finally sort out the farce that is installing vendor provided graphics card drivers, software and codecs etc, then tools like Automatix won't be needed.
      Under ubuntu: System > Administration > Restricted Drivers Manager. Enter your password when prompted. Mark the checkbox under the "enabled" column. Reboot when prompted. This is about a thousand times easier than trawling the web for a driver on windows, not to mention the often buggy installers (which I've had my fair share of)

      Software? Add/remove programs and synaptic cover this in a way which is far more simple, centralised, consistant and user-friendly than Windows. Software management under most distros is about as good as it gets (e.g. yum, apt, etc). Codecs I've already covered.

      You seem a little misled by these issues anyway. Stop by in your distro's IRC channel and they'll help you through it.
  2. Re:Illegal? by solcott · · Score: 5, Informative

    Illegal for them to distribute, or illegal for the user to download? Neither, in some countries it can be used to obtain illegal software. For example giving residents of the United States the ability to play copy protected DVD's or audio compressed with mp3 without the user paying a royalty fee. Automatix in itself is no more illegal than Firefox or Internet Explorer, they are also just tools that "could" be used for illegal purposes, like viewing child pornography.
  3. Re:I think it screws up when upgrading. by Constantine+XVI · · Score: 5, Informative

    I appreciate your zeal on the subject, but if Ubuntu distributed MP3 without paying for the license in certain countries (like USA), they would be in serious legal trouble. However, in Ubuntu 7.04, it will automatically install the proper decoder for you the first time you try to play an MP3. It works, it's painless, and it's the best we can do until we get someone in Congress (or your respective national legislature) brave enough to destroy software patents.

    --
    "I think an etch-a-sketch with an ethernet port would beat IE7 in web standards compliance."
  4. Automatix not needed anymore by realdodgeman · · Score: 3, Informative

    After the launh Ubuntu 7.04 Automatix isn't worth using anymore. Codecs are easily installed with add/remove, as is most of the other software in Automatix' repositories. And the few programs that you can't find in add/remove are mostly published as .deb packages. Google has even made a .exe like installer for google earth.

  5. Slashdot Spin, as per usual... by gunny01 · · Score: 4, Informative
    There nothing inherently illegal about Automatix: it just allows you to break the DMCA.

    The article is a technical crictism of Automatix, how it doesn't follow proper package rules, etc.

    This is the conclusion to the article, which sums it up pretty well

    Automatix exists to satisfy a genuine need, and further work should be
    carried out to determine whether these user requirements can be
    satisfied within the distribution as a whole. However, in its current
    form Automatix is actively dangerous to systems - ranging from damage
    to small items of user configuration, through removing user-installed
    packages without adequate prompting or warning and up to the (small
    but existing) potential to leave a system in an unbootable state.

    The current design of Automatix precludes any reasonable way to fix
    some of these problems. It is attempting to fulfil the role of a
    high-level package manager without actually handling any sort of
    dependency resolution itself.

    A more reasonable method of integrating Automatix's functionality into
    Ubuntu would be for the Automatix team to provide deb files to act as
    installers for the software currently provided. These could then be
    installed through the existing package manager interfaces. This would
    solve many of the above problems while still providing the same level
    of functionality.

    In its current form Automatix is unsupportable, and a mechanism for
    flagging bugs from machines with Automatix installed may provide a
    valuable aid for determining whether issues are due to supported
    distribution packages or third party software installers.


    Automatix is barely needed anymore. You can do just about anything through the standard repos these days.
    --
    kill all the fucking niggers
    1. Re:Slashdot Spin, as per usual... by theantix · · Score: 4, Informative

      "There nothing inherently illegal about Automatix: it just allows you to break the DMCA."

      Incorrect. Distributing w32codecs and other proprietary software without permission violates traditional copyright law, not just DMCA provisions.

      --
      501 Not Implemented
  6. Re:Illegal? Misleading and Misconstrued FUD by cortana · · Score: 4, Informative

    Erm, did you even read the analysis? Automatix craps untracked files all over the user's system. It makes to effort to interoperate with Ubuntu's package manager (dpkg) and is even prone to race conditions that could leave the system unbootable!

  7. Re:"...could provide..." by imroy · · Score: 4, Informative

    If it's so simple to make the package provide the functionality, why hasn't anyone done it?

    They have. There's Debian-Multimedia, which has been around for a few years. I know there's one or two specific to Ubuntu, five minutes Googling will probably find one. I've been using D-M for years now and have not had a problem. Automatix is an ugly hack and should be avoided at all costs.

  8. Re:I never understood by cortana · · Score: 4, Informative

    They already have; the repositories are called 'restricted' and 'multiverse' (the former is supported by Canonical, the latter is not).

  9. Re:Why? by kebes · · Score: 4, Informative

    The summary is misleading... in particular the use of the word "illegal."

    Automatix is a utility that automates the installation of a bunch of software that is considered "must have" for people just switching to Ubuntu. For instance, it installed Firefox, mplayer, wine, DVD playing software, and multimedia codecs. (Actually the installer would just give you a list of things you could install, you select the ones you want and click "next.")

    I don't really understand why this is being characterized as "illegal software." The packages are already in the usual repositories. The utility would just automate the installation for you. If you live in a country where installing one of those packages is somehow illegal (is this actually the case?), then that's your responsibility. The tool is just an automator intended to ease the transition for new users. It really provides nothing above and beyond the standard packaging interface, except that it was easier (in some people's opinion) to tell new users "install automatix" rather than telling them to open the package manager and list the software they should install.

    In any case, the whole argument seems rather pointless. Automatix was created a few years ago, at a time where installation of things like multimedia codecs was perhaps non-obvious. New users were flooding forums with repeated requests like "my mp3s don't play! why?" and "how can I play DVDs on this Ubuntu thing?" Automatix was created as a simple response to that.

    In the meantime, Ubuntu has, from what I can tell, cleared up these issues. Installation of codecs is straightforward and pretty obvious. The package manager is very user friendly. In short, there is no need for Automatix. Basically, Automatix was an ugly hack. It's always been recognized as such, and developers have always discouraging people from using it. On the Ubuntu forums, the standard advice is no longer "install Automatix," since it is recognized to be a non-optimal solution.

    So, in short... I think this issue has already passed us by.

  10. Re:Illegal software installer? by MrFlannel · · Score: 4, Informative

    The 'illegal' part of this thing is nothing but a footnote.

    The important thing is that it's a stupidly dangerous (to your system) piece of software, that most members of the Ubuntu community are trying to inform everyone about. A lot of community sites swear by it, and when anyone argues they give the 'it works fine for me' argument.

    This is not the mentality we want to have as a linux community. The automatix team refuses to make their software better, and launced a few all-out assaults on the communities that warn against it. Even going as far as to say (on their website, up until a few months ago) if you go ask help for automatix in their IRC channel, and claim that the people in the ubuntu channel sent you there, they (automatix team) won't help you. Which is stupid in and of itself, but that's the mentality that the automatix people have exhibited time and time again.

    Because of this, and in some random attempt to clear their piece of software (and argue about it's proper terminology whether 'package manager' or 'packaging script' or whatever), and to get their lead developer (arnieboy) unbanned from the ubuntu forums (for trolling, more or less), they went to the Forum Council and petitioned, the forum council rejected some stuff, and said that they shouldn't make a decision on the technical merits (since they're not technically qualified or whatever). I imagine this is the fruit of their lack-of-verdict, someone higher up (who was qualified to assess its technical merits) finally took a semi-official look.

    I wish I had links for the meeting, here it is: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MeetingLogs/ForumCouncil/2 007May18/Logs

    --
    Clones are people two.
  11. Re:I think it screws up when upgrading. by jlarocco · · Score: 4, Informative

    I listen to music constantly while on my computer. It took me several hours to figure out how to install MP3 support when I first tried Linux. Even then, I couldn't play my videos either, which annoyed me. I dropped it because i had no reason to switch yet. My sister was forced to use linux when I lost my windows disks. The only reason she gave me for not wanting to keep it? She couldn't use flash on 64bit linux, which prevented her from listening to music on Purevolume. She even told me today that she misses the OS, but wished she could use flash. Music means a lot to some people.

    To get Flash working on 64-bit Linux, try searching your distro's software repository for "nspluginwrapper". Technically it's a bit of a hack, but from a user's perspective it's fairly transparent at getting 32-bit browser plugins to work on 64-bit platforms.

    Debian, at least, has it.

    Also on Debian, to get MP3 and video codecs add http://www.debian-multimedia.org/ to your list of repositories, either in the Synaptic GUI, or in /etc/apt/sources.list. It's been a while since I first started using it, and I think you might have to reinstall or upgrade some packages that depends on the codecs, but after it's setup it works just like the official repositories.

  12. Medibuntu by alphasubzero949 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Medibuntu is a much safer way to install codecs and some third-party apps than Automatix.

  13. Re:Why? by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 4, Informative

    That stuff is exactly what the "ubuntu-restricted-extras" package is for.

    Rather than screw around with Automatix, perhaps someone should post the following script instructions:

    1. Enable the universe and multiverse repositories. (System -> Administration -> Software Sources ; Check the "Universe" and "Multiverse" checkboxes. ; Press the "close" button. )
    2. Install the ubuntu-restricted-extras package. (Applications -> Add/Remove... ; Set the "show" drop down in the top right to "All available applicatons. ; Type "ubuntu-restricted-extras" into the search box. ; Check that package. ; Press OK. )
    3. (Optional) Activate encrypted DVD support. (Open a terminal window. Type "sudo /usr/share/doc/libdvdread3/install-css.sh" and press enter.)

    I really don't see how installing some random script off a website and then messing with a new GUI program is any easier than that.

    --
    -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
  14. Re:And the reason Automatix exists? by mjg59 · · Score: 3, Informative

    I understand that users don't want to have to change their touchpad configuration just because they're using an ALPS pad instead of a Synaptics one. I understand that users would like their Wacom touch screens to work without having to edit xorg.conf. I understand that users don't want to have to configure their hotkeys in order to get them to do anything useful. I understand that users want their laptops to suspend and resume correctly. Those are issues that I understand and have had the time and skills to do something about.

    I also understand that users want to be able to play their MP3s, their DIVXs and use their ipods. The reason I do less for these people is that I have very limited time (I have a full-time job that's nothing to do with Linux development). Does that mean I want everything to be done via the CLI? Am I ignoring the needs of users? Do I have a fundamental misunderstanding of what people actually want to use Linux for? No, I don't think so. I just contribute where I can with the resources I have. I'd prefer to be able to solve all of these problems, but I'm limited by actually having to do other stuff with my life.

  15. Re:Illegal? by Kjella · · Score: 3, Informative

    (as far as the DMCA says; it could be legal to distribute it as protected free speech, but I don't know if anyone has tried to use that defence since the MPAA backed off in the DVDJon case).

    1) The DVD-Jon case was in Norway
    2) Consequently, it wasn't under the DMCA
    3) It was the public prosecutor that tried and failed twice to convict him
    4) They chose not to appeal it to the Supreme court, but only because there was no point
    5) Since then, Norway and the rest of EU has been forced to adopt the EUCD aka euro-DMCA
    6) Nobody has really tested the current law after the EUCD, at least not here in Norway

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  16. Re:I think it screws up when upgrading. by QuoteMstr · · Score: 3, Informative
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Fluendo's codec is the right approach. It comes in source form, covered under the BSD license, and a binary blob, covered under Fluendo's proprietary EULA, and according to Fluendo's site, but not any legal document I can find, the patent license only applies to the binary version. That claim raises some interesting questions:
    1. What interest does Fraunhofer have in granting a patent license for the binary version, but not the source? There's no difference in terms of how available the software would become, in principle. The number of installations is bounded by the number of GStreamer installations regardless of whether the package is proprietary or not, since it's freely redistributable (after signing a contract).
    2. Given that, realistically, every Linux user in the US can already get a free mp3 decoder, what advantage does Fraunhofer gain by not granting a blanket MP3 patent license for free software?
    3. What's going on with the redistribution contract? It seems to have some interesting interactions with the BSD source license.
      • 1.4

        The Distributor might at some point want to make changes and improvements to the Plug-in Source Code used to generate the Plug-in. Such changes shall automatically be copyrighted to Fluendo and Fluendo shall be notified of these changes, so that Fluendo can include them in the official Plug-in Source Code if they so choose. Any such changes will have to be approved in writing by Fluendo or included in the official Plug-in Source code from Fluendo, before a binary incorporating the changes can be shipped by Distributor.
        Uh, so a distributor can't modify the codec without signing the copyrights over to Fluendo?
      • 1.5

        Distributor shall not license or grant any right on the Plug-in or the Plug-in Source Code in a different way than as described in the corresponding licenses made by Fluendo for each of them.
        Doesn't that make it some weird viral BSD license instead of the BSD itself?
  17. Re:Illegal? by jibun · · Score: 3, Informative
    Yes, the wording was unfortunate. What was probably meant was something like this:

    5) Since then, Norway and the rest of the European Economic Area has been forced to adopt the EUCD aka euro-DMCA
    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Are a to understand how Norway integrates into the EU single market and legal framework.