Slashdot Mirror
A Gut Check On Gutsy Gibbon
jammag writes "Linux pundit Bruce Byfield looked inside the pre-release of Gutsy Gibbon and found what he calls 'Windows thinking.' His article, Divining from the Entrails of Ubuntu's Gutsy Gibbon, notes that Ubuntu is the dominant distro, having achieved a level of success that might be leading to complacency. He opines: 'Only once or twice did I find a balance between accessibility to newcomers and a feature set for advanced users. At times, I wondered whether the popularity might be preventing Ubuntu from finishing some rough edges.'"
TFA:
Ok, not being able to install additional packages at installation is a big deal, but calling it a "security issue" is a little silly. No ports are listening on a default Ubuntu install. It doesn't need to be "secured".
I don't understand how not having sudo means the attacker has to gain control of two passwords. Does that even make any sense? They only need ONE password either time, the root password, or the password for a user that has sudo privs.
I'm glad someone is really giving a critical eye towards Ubuntu (which can only result in further improvements), but talking out of your ass isn't going to get anything done.
They call me the wookie man, I guess that's what I am
Ubuntu isn't successful because it's an operating system for advanced users only (like Gentoo). It's successful due to being user friendly to people who are Windows users who are curious about Linux.
With Linux I've noticed that user control is inversely proportional to user-friendliness. Operating systems like Ubuntu are made with user-friendliness in mind and that comes at the price of user control. It's quick and easy to set-up and use which garners alot of favor from the Windows crowd.
Similarly, Gentoo gives the user complete control over what applications, drivers, daemons are installed but is by no means user-friendly.
The writer of TFA really did a whole lot of whining about how little control he had over the installation and initial software packages. What did he expect? It's Ubuntu.
The game.
I think the main problem the reviewer is having is that he wants thinks to be like linux used to be. The reason I like Ubuntu is that it tries to escape from that. For example:
- By default, the user never has to select any partitioning options, or even know what it is.
Well, most people don't know what partitioning is.
- Want to choose which software to install.
Once again, new linux users won't know the names of all the programs they might want. Ubuntu installs what I consider a reasonable selection. Talk of knowing exactly what is installed sounds more like server talk, for which you probably want Ubuntu server, which does install a much smaller selection of packages by default
- Doesn't send hundreds of confusing messages past at high speed on boot-up (me paraphrasing)
Well good, particularly because most start-ups have at least one thing which looks to the untrained eye like a failure
Other problems, including fonts, are possibly more valid. I'd be interested to know what an Ubuntu expert's opinion is on them.
Combination - fun iPhone puzzling
Who's to say that any name is lame or not? More importantly, who cares? A cursory glance beyond whatever moniker a distribution has is really needed before a decision is made to adopt it. If you judge based on a name, you probably shouldn't be in a position to decide anyway!
If you are really worried about the name as it relates to non-geek circles, use their numbering scheme instead. Gutsy Gibbon is Ubuntu 7.10 (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/GutsyGibbon).
Personally, as long as the Ubuntu guys continue to churn out an excellent product, I could not care less about the name.
df -h
Presumably you don't allow the root user to login at all. The only way to get to root would be with su. His statement, I'm guessing, is based on that premise along with having to break into a normal user account first, before being able to su to root. Of course, that doesn't take into consideration the numerous possible attach vectors that do not require first breaking a normal user and then breaking root.
For years I've never installed sudo because I liked the forced separation of privileges with different passwords. However, in an environment where numerous users need escalated privileges for different things, I have revised my thinking and enjoy the ability to provide fairly fine-grained controls on who/what people are able to access when raising privileges for specific tasks. Short of implementing SELinux, sudo gives me what I need for right now. I can see a day where SELinux will be more appropriate for some things, but until then...
Don't believe me? Check out the "Ubuntu Development Code Names Wiki", from which future codenames will be chosen!
I actually wonder why there is still this big iron thinking about root and "unprivileged users", especially around a desktop distro like Ubuntu. I am the only user of my system. If someone breaks into my normal user account and deletes all files there it is the worst possible scenario. If it is done from root, there is not much of a difference. And unprivileged users can also serve as spam bots, they have all the access to a heap of scripting languages and whatnot -- so really, what is the difference?
Just because it happens to be Unix, some people seem to have a sysadmin reflex that tells them root is more worthy than others.
No!
Not having to make choices at install time is EXACTLY the reason that ubuntu is good. After a couple of simple questions, you are up and running with a very well configured system with the best one of each type of app installed that most people want. You dont have a huge stack of apps installed that you dont need.
If that idea doesn't suit you, then I think you need a different distro. Dont go raining on ubuntu because its executing its plan well. (And by the way, that plan is exactly what the general population want/need).
> but isn't that Windows mentality?
No it's pre-release software...
I just want to say that in *my* four years of using Gentoo I have never had anyone on the Gentoo forums, irc channels, or any of my colleages (academia or private sector) ever say that Gentoo compiled code is necessarily any faster than delivered binaries. I never had anyone recommend anything but -02 and -pipe for compiler options. What Gentoo does give you is the ability to easily get exactly the system you want. Nothing more, nothing less. Whether any particular piece of binary code is faster on Gentoo is purely on a case by base basis. People use Gentoo for choice, configurability, and on occasion performance.
From the Gentoo home page:
Thanks to a technology called Portage, Gentoo can become an ideal secure server, development workstation, professional desktop, gaming system, embedded solution or something else -- whatever you need it to be.
If there's the option to do more stuff, you have to be very careful to design a UI which will lead ordinary users away from choosing that option. Worse are the "power users", who will try to explore every single option, whether or not they understand it.
It's a deliberate break from the "GNOME or KDE" question you get asked at install time. If you don't know and don't care, you get GNOME. If you know, there's always a way to get more choice -- you could download Kubuntu if you want KDE, for example.
And if you really know what you're doing, you could download the Alternate or Server install CD, install from that (a more powerful installer anyway), and add packages as you need them. Or you can do a normal install, and remove packages, add other ones in later.
In fact, I believe it's possible to "upgrade" a system between Ubuntu and Kubuntu and back.
Now, granted, maybe it would be a good thing to have all of this power as a convenient GUI option. But the choice is there, if you know where to look.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Get the "alternate install CD" or "Server install CD" or, at the boot menu, choose the non-GUI boot option. The installer is still basically the Debian installer, and you can do all sorts of things from the ncurses installer. The server install puts down a minimum system, upon which you can either then install the "ubuntu-desktop" package to get the default desktop, or install the individual packages you want (either for a secure server or secure desktop that you know all about)
.iso, IMHO, fall into the category of people who dhould be accepting default answers. Esp. if they're running a beta release of an OS.
The "limited choice" installer is the one that runs in graphical mode after the end user has already chosen the *default* boot option - indicating that they're interested in defaults. People who want more options will examine the first menu they're presented with, or download something other than the "desktop live CD".
Reporters who don't take the time to read "what's on the CD" before they download the