Having used apt-rpm and yum for years on Fedora, and Yast for a month or two on Suse, the biggest advantage I found with synaptic/apt on Ubuntu was speed. Updates and installs take a lot less time.
I agree to a point, there's no single wow-factor in Ubuntu, it's just all nicely thought out and many small tweaks add up to a nice whole.
Until I switched to Ubuntu a couple of months ago I'd been using Redhat / Fedora as my primary desktop since Redhat 8. I also gave Suse a try for a couple of months in-between.
I really liked Suse for about a week before things started randomly breaking and I got very frustrated with Yast's slowness.
Fedora improved a great deal each release, but there were still niggling annoyances.
I think the top advantages for ubuntu are having such complete core repositories (if you include universe and multiverse) where you would have to go to 3rd party repos for Fedora or Suse, having Synaptic ready for use and the modification of the Gnome app manager to use apt.
sure, but then the arbitrarily executed code would be running as the user that the password is for.. That is, the system is already compromised and having the running user's password is a moot point.
While I wouldn't quite put it as trollfully as you have, I would agree with you that it wouldn't be my first choice for a server OS. That'd probably be Debian stable.
Yes this is an extremely serious bug, but not for your average home user.
Your average home user doesn't run sshd (it's not installed by default) and even if they do, I doubt they're handing out remote shell access. Barring that, this bug is only an issue if someone has physical access, and if they do then there's no security anyhow.
The people this is really an issue for is anyone running Ubuntu as a server and allowing remote shell access, and for them it's an extremely serious issue I agree.
Because Suse just started falling apart basically.
I was only using the core packages, but after a couple of months things just randomly stopped working. An example was that the yast icon in the gnome menus stopped working for no apparent reason. i'd have to launch it from the command line. There were plenty of other things. Soundcard just stopped working for example.
Also YaST is horribly horribly slow.
No such problems with Fedora or Ubuntu.
Also although it's also guilty of 'we're going to do it our way' I found Fedora's changes were far less invasive than Suse's.
Still, Ubuntu trounces them both on the desktop IMHO.
Some games now aren't comfortable in 1Gig of RAM when features are turned up high. Battlefield 2 is an example of this, with the recommendation being 1.5-2Gig if you're setting the graphic options to high. There's a lot of geometry in a BF2 level and you can get hiccups when you turn your head if you haven't enough RAM.
I think the main things in order are:
A recent card revision. That 6800 ought to do ok as long as you're not maxing the quality settings.
A video card with a decent amount of RAM. Currently that's 256Meg, although some games have ultra settings that will make use of 512.
System RAM. A gig should be fine for most situations less is likely to cause issues. 1.5 to future-proof a bit or use absolutely top end features.
Processor. As long as it's fairly recent you should be fine. Anything over 3Ghz equivilent will be comfortable.
>> Ease of use, ease of finding apps, ease of installing said apps
I really have to say, install Ubuntu, enable Universe and Multiverse and fire up Synaptic, then come back here and say that;)
Plus the fact that 99% of drivers come pre-installed.
There are still areas that are unnecessarily difficult I'll grant you. Multimedia configuration for a start, but I've now reached the point where if someone I'm going to have to support, my parents for example, wants a new OS, I'll try to move them to Linux. Once it's set up right I think it'll work much better for them.
This of course assumes the apps are available, but tbh for most PC users I think they are. Open Office 2 is dandy, Firefox, Thunderbird or Evolution, media players, PDF viewers, instant messaging and so on and so on, it's all there.
Plus, as a Gnome user, I personally now find most of the apps I use to be far superior in terms of interface to the equivilent Windows apps.
It still has to catch up in some areas, but I think Linux has already overtaken Windows in many areas, and yes I do mean for the desktop user.
You still need the software installed at boot for it to work.. So it's obvious you have deniable encryption. The trick is as someone said before, perhaps you, to have multiple layers of slightly dodgy things that you can reveal. If you only reveal 1 layer then there would have been no point you using denicable encryption, so you need at least a second layer to reveal.
If the user has the choice then there's no problem, as the key isn't *required* for the code to be fully functional, it's just provided as a mechanism to allow the user to make a choice about whether to use the code.
Much like with systems like apt-get where you can specify you only want to install signed software or you can decide you don't care and install with gay abandon.
So GPLV3 effectively prevents digital signatures from being used to determine if a binary may be from a source the user trusts!
No it doesn't. You can provide a digital signature that verifies that binary is from 'Bluehat' without the signature being required to run the binary.
The key difference here is that the former informs the user who is then free to make a decision about whether they want to trust a non-'Bluehat' binary, and the latter tells the consumeruser he isn't allowed to run a binary that's not from 'Bluehat'.
Slashdot Mirror
(*^o^*)
kill me now...
Having used apt-rpm and yum for years on Fedora, and Yast for a month or two on Suse, the biggest advantage I found with synaptic/apt on Ubuntu was speed. Updates and installs take a lot less time.
I agree to a point, there's no single wow-factor in Ubuntu, it's just all nicely thought out and many small tweaks add up to a nice whole.
Until I switched to Ubuntu a couple of months ago I'd been using Redhat / Fedora as my primary desktop since Redhat 8. I also gave Suse a try for a couple of months in-between.
I really liked Suse for about a week before things started randomly breaking and I got very frustrated with Yast's slowness.
Fedora improved a great deal each release, but there were still niggling annoyances.
I think the top advantages for ubuntu are having such complete core repositories (if you include universe and multiverse) where you would have to go to 3rd party repos for Fedora or Suse, having Synaptic ready for use and the modification of the Gnome app manager to use apt.
sure, but then the arbitrarily executed code would be running as the user that the password is for.. That is, the system is already compromised and having the running user's password is a moot point.
While I wouldn't quite put it as trollfully as you have, I would agree with you that it wouldn't be my first choice for a server OS. That'd probably be Debian stable.
No I believe you're wrong.
Yes this is an extremely serious bug, but not for your average home user.
Your average home user doesn't run sshd (it's not installed by default) and even if they do, I doubt they're handing out remote shell access. Barring that, this bug is only an issue if someone has physical access, and if they do then there's no security anyhow.
The people this is really an issue for is anyone running Ubuntu as a server and allowing remote shell access, and for them it's an extremely serious issue I agree.
Because Suse just started falling apart basically.
I was only using the core packages, but after a couple of months things just randomly stopped working. An example was that the yast icon in the gnome menus stopped working for no apparent reason. i'd have to launch it from the command line. There were plenty of other things. Soundcard just stopped working for example.
Also YaST is horribly horribly slow.
No such problems with Fedora or Ubuntu.
Also although it's also guilty of 'we're going to do it our way' I found Fedora's changes were far less invasive than Suse's.
Still, Ubuntu trounces them both on the desktop IMHO.
Some games now aren't comfortable in 1Gig of RAM when features are turned up high. Battlefield 2 is an example of this, with the recommendation being 1.5-2Gig if you're setting the graphic options to high. There's a lot of geometry in a BF2 level and you can get hiccups when you turn your head if you haven't enough RAM.
I think the main things in order are:
A recent card revision. That 6800 ought to do ok as long as you're not maxing the quality settings.
A video card with a decent amount of RAM. Currently that's 256Meg, although some games have ultra settings that will make use of 512.
System RAM. A gig should be fine for most situations less is likely to cause issues. 1.5 to future-proof a bit or use absolutely top end features.
Processor. As long as it's fairly recent you should be fine. Anything over 3Ghz equivilent will be comfortable.
Personally I use Ubuntu, but forced to choose RedHat or Suse on the desktop it would be Redhat every time.
The logs could be served from another box.
Or perhaps just published after the challenge.
+1 Dry!
>> Ease of use, ease of finding apps, ease of installing said apps
;)
I really have to say, install Ubuntu, enable Universe and Multiverse and fire up Synaptic, then come back here and say that
Plus the fact that 99% of drivers come pre-installed.
There are still areas that are unnecessarily difficult I'll grant you. Multimedia configuration for a start, but I've now reached the point where if someone I'm going to have to support, my parents for example, wants a new OS, I'll try to move them to Linux. Once it's set up right I think it'll work much better for them.
This of course assumes the apps are available, but tbh for most PC users I think they are. Open Office 2 is dandy, Firefox, Thunderbird or Evolution, media players, PDF viewers, instant messaging and so on and so on, it's all there.
Plus, as a Gnome user, I personally now find most of the apps I use to be far superior in terms of interface to the equivilent Windows apps.
It still has to catch up in some areas, but I think Linux has already overtaken Windows in many areas, and yes I do mean for the desktop user.
Where did (s)he say anything about a monopoly?
Quite a lot of them live in the EU though.
Interesting and informative thanks :)
Seems to be bugged, I get that message whatever email address I put in.
Unfortunately making back-up copies has never actually been legal in the UK...
Though it is clearly tacitly accepted
Dude! It's got ZOMBIE NINJAS!!
That's awesome!
You still need the software installed at boot for it to work.. So it's obvious you have deniable encryption. The trick is as someone said before, perhaps you, to have multiple layers of slightly dodgy things that you can reveal. If you only reveal 1 layer then there would have been no point you using denicable encryption, so you need at least a second layer to reveal.
Sorry I guess I don't read enough /. to know TMM's posting habits ;)
The comment about stalking came from the fact that someone's obviously gone to the trouble of creating an account to shout inanities at him/her.
However in TMM's defence their original post was fairly entertaining, so it's not quite the same as your average "FP!!!!1" post is it?
Wow, stalking someone on slashdot... Seriously mate, a life might be in order...
I did what?
If the user has the choice then there's no problem, as the key isn't *required* for the code to be fully functional, it's just provided as a mechanism to allow the user to make a choice about whether to use the code.
Much like with systems like apt-get where you can specify you only want to install signed software or you can decide you don't care and install with gay abandon.
OSX isn't a BSD derivative, it's got a Mach kernel with a bit of BSD tacked on the edge + BSD userland tools.
So GPLV3 effectively prevents digital signatures from being used to determine if a binary may be from a source the user trusts!
No it doesn't. You can provide a digital signature that verifies that binary is from 'Bluehat' without the signature being required to run the binary.
The key difference here is that the former informs the user who is then free to make a decision about whether they want to trust a non-'Bluehat' binary, and the latter tells the consumeruser he isn't allowed to run a binary that's not from 'Bluehat'.