Not really... (Re:ARK Linux hacked?)
on
Ark Linux
·
· Score: 1
Sorry for the redundant post, but since it's a redundant thread and needs clearing up...
Our server was not cracked.
We placed too much trust in people interested in Linux being mature - therefore we decided to go with an open support system - everyone can ask and answer questions, and we don't censor posts.
Unfortunately we placed too much trust in people - this guy (originating from 68.13.232.26, located in Atlanta) abused the no-censoring policy to insert HTML redirects.
We've learned from it, about 15 minutes after we found out about the incident, we started stripping HTML tags and banning this guy's IP block.
I can understand it's fun to deface a website that boasts about its security - but defacing a publically editable website is pathetic. I thought our community was more mature than that.
Oh well, it's never too late to learn.
Not really (Re:ARK Linux hacked?)
on
Ark Linux
·
· Score: 1
We placed too much trust in people interested in Linux being mature - therefore we decided to go with an open support system - everyone can ask and answer questions, and we don't censor posts.
Unfortunately we placed too much trust in people - this guy (originating from 68.13.232.26, located in Atlanta) abused the no-censoring policy to insert HTML redirects.
We've learned from it, about 15 minutes after we found out about the incident, we started stripping HTML tags and banning this guy's IP block.
I can understand it's fun to deface a website that boasts about its security - but defacing a publically editable website is pathetic. I thought our community was more mature than that.
Oh well, it's never too late to learn.
Re:Ark Linux web site is a farce with pr0n on it
on
Ark Linux
·
· Score: 5, Informative
What you've seen is the result of someone from the IP 68.13.232.26 (ip-68-13-232-26.ok.ok.cox.net), located in Atlanta, using Phoneix 0.5 on Windows 2000, abusing the fact that we've tried using an open support system.
The idea behind the system was simple - anyone can ask questions, and anyone can reply. Pretty much like a Wiki. So in a way, we got hacked - but since there was no protection for this area of the website, I wouldn't call it a security problem in the distribution. And we learned from it - the support system is now censoring bad posts. I find it sad that these things are necessary, when ideologically, we'd much rather fight censorship.
We made one mistake - namely that we trusted people wouldn't abuse it. This guy used malicious HTML tags to redirect the support system to his crap site.
Dear "hacker", you can be proud - you just circumvented nonexistant security blocks! I'll vote for you at the l33t h4x0r of the month contest.
Yes, you'd better hurry and volunteer - the more contributors we get, the faster we can release.;)
But there's an infinite amount of positions available, and you don't need any special knowledge - you don't need to be a programmer to help with beta testing, documentation, website design, graphics,...
Re:how to make linux desktop good for masses
on
Ark Linux
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Ark Linux will not be a Windows clone, though we don't hesitate to clone parts of the Windows UI where it makes sense.
"Microsoft does XXX" is neither "XXX is good" nor "XXX is bad".
Ark Linux aims at providing everything the average home user needs - the desktop, office suite, media player, net access tools, a couple of games, etc.
For developers, there's the Ark Development Suite, a collection of development tools and programming languages (about 200 MB) - comparable to Visual Studio (with obvious differences - e.g. we support additional languages like Python, Objective-C, Perl,..., but don't support C# (yet - Mono isn't ready for prime time)).
Of course, Ark Development Suite is 100% free too - the only reason it isn't included in the base OS is that 95% of the targeted users won't need it.
I know I probably shouldn't be replying to trolls, but this is too tempting:
It is obvious that you haven't had a look at Ark Linux. Except for the filesystem layout (which is mandated by the FHS/LSB anyway), the toolchain (gcc, binutils) and the package manager (rpm), Ark Linux has little in common with Red Hat Linux anymore.
It's not just the matter of adding some more packages, it's also a matter of designing an easier to use installer, removing some complexity, and creating a good (for newbies) default config.
And in case you're wondering, no, I don't hold a grudge against Red Hat, I think their distribution has its uses and a pretty good core system, but I also think it could be better - therefore the need for a new distribution. Red Hat and anyone else is invited to work with us on making Linux better suited for the desktop - they're free to copy what they like about Ark Linux, and we'll copy what we like from them.
You can't do the things newbies need if you keep developing an existing distribution, because the experienced people would hate it -- therefore we concluded that we need a different approach to appeal to newbies.
Yes, apple did get it mostly right with OS X - but they didn't get the license right - hence the need for another one to get it right.;)
Re:That's some seriously awsome support.
on
Ark Linux
·
· Score: 1
Well, our support system was designed to be open and trust based - you register, and you can ask and answer questions.
We've intentionally avoided adding any censorship - but it looks like some people are simply too immature to deal with an uncensored system. Some idiot added an html tag redirecting people to that crap site.
I've removed this, and I'm also extending the support system to not support html tags - it's a pity some people are obviously too immature to deal with freedom.
Oh, and yes, dear "asdf", you can be proud. You have just cracked a system that didn't have any protection in the first place. You're a really really truly l33t h4x0r! Nobody managed to do that before! I'll be nominating you for the Nobel price in cracking.
Re:But can they make money?
on
Ark Linux
·
· Score: 1
No. Ark Linux is a Free Software project, not a company.
The fact that we're selling CDs is because we want to give people with bad connectivity (Europe is full of people with pay-per-minute dialup connectivity) a chance to try Ark Linux.
Re:Linux, BSD, and everything need one thing....
on
Ark Linux
·
· Score: 1
That's pretty much what we're trying to do with Ark Linux - we're even going a step further and, in the default setup, removing the login process (you can still opt for a multiuser system if you want it).
By default, everything runs as the user "arklinux" - a normal user with special rights to launch some stuff (package installation etc.) as root without having to bother about passwords.
Yes, some people will hate this idea -- but Joe Newbie needs it.
Re:how to make linux desktop good for masses
on
Ark Linux
·
· Score: 1
With the exception of Open Office, you've just described Mac OS X.
Mac OS X is indeed a pretty nice OS, if you don't care about licensing. Ark Linux is, in parts, inspired by it -- but it's 100% Free Software (and being a community project, that's not going to change).
Re:how to make linux desktop good for masses
on
Ark Linux
·
· Score: 1
Thanks - you've just described what we're trying to do with Ark Linux.;)
The best way to make linux "easy to use for the masses" is NOT going to be by adding yet another distribution of it. Personally it would help if all the "desktop linux" companies pooled their resources and made one, standard linux desktop running on one, standard gui interface. Adding another linux distro just makes things more confusing for the masses.
Interesting point, but not necessarily a valid one. First of all, Ark Linux is not a company, it's a Free Software project.
Second, yes, in a perfect world, we'd have one standard Linux that does everything right -- but we don't live in a perfect world.
In a non-perfect world, competition is a good thing - but I agree that a relatively small number of distributions would be preferrable over several millions (and we haven't reached the 1000 mark yet, I think) [not counting special purpose distributions of course].
Linux on the desktop is still fairly new (not counting techie desktops, of course - they need a totally different setup anyway), so it's quite likely that the best approach is to try different approaches to figure out which works best.
As for extending an existing distribution to implement our ideas, that's a hard task. We believe that a new user will be greatly confused by 500 editors, 50 MP3 players, and 4 different desktop environments - so for a newbie distribution, we pick the right/easiest tools for the job (disclaimer: "right" is a subjective term, and nobody can claim he knows all the software on the net. No offense meant to applications we left out) -- which is something a traditional distribution wouldn't do, because many experienced users would revolt if their beloved tools were gone in, say, Debian 4.0 or Red Hat 9.
More choice isn't always good. I would rather see ONE good desktop linux package than ten substandard ones.
We've taken a look at a huge number of distributions out there, and none matched what we think is the right thing for newbies - so if we aren't mistaken, maybe Ark Linux is that one good desktop linux?
And since it's all Free Software, anyone else may build on it. If some other distribution agrees with our approach to something and reuses our code, we've helped making that one good Linux -- even if it turns out not to be our own.
The installer is an important change, but not the biggest one - if you want to see for yourself, download the current alpha version and check it out.
Since we didn't intend to go public yet (see my other posts), we haven't put much time into generating/updating the website - instead, we're improving the code.
We're still borrowing a lot of the core OS (such as the gcc packaging) from Red Hat, but everything on top of that is totally different.
Re:good luck
on
Ark Linux
·
· Score: 3, Informative
once it's as easy as windows it's going to crash like windows too.
No, because we're trying not to repeat the design flaws of Windows.
Some of the things that make Windows unstable, and what we're doing:
In Windows 95, 98 and ME (the most unstable ones of the bunch), every user can overwrite/delete system files. Installing application X overwrites the DLL application Y installed, causing application Y to be unstable. soname versioning is a vital part of all Unix-like OSes, and we're definitely keeping that, avoiding the windows DLL mess. As for overwriting/deleting system files, it's a security vs. usability tradeoff, and I think we've found a good compromise: The system runs as a normal non-root user with special privileges (via pam) to run package installation tools and some system config tools as root without being prompted for a password.
All drivers etc. run in kernel space, frequently causing a badly written driver to crash the entire system. Ark Linux uses the same drivers as any other Linux out there - so we won't lose the stability. The biggest part of the graphics drivers etc. is in userland, so it can't crash the OS
Windows is not open source, therefore its code does not get any peer review. Ark Linux is, and will always be, Free Software. In fact, it's a not-for-profit community project.
Re:Four years and half too late.
on
Ark Linux
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Ark Linux did not exist four and a half years ago. In fact, we didn't want to go public yet - we don't like preannouncing vaporware (though the current alpha version is actually usable, if you can overlook the rough edges) -- so there wasn't much need to update the website etc. until someone decided to notify the media of our existance.
The 4 1/2 years reference from the original poster refers to the creation of the Mandrake distribution, which started with similar goals, but developed into a different direction.
Mandrake is a good distribution, and suitable for desktop use if you know what you're doing a bit - but Mandrake is an all-purpose operating system, and therefore too complicated for many newbies (this may be hard for us geeks to understand, but people do get confused at the notion of 50 editors, 4 desktop environments and 20 MP3 players).
Ark Linux will focus on being a home user OS, and just that. IMO, if you want to please too many totally different needs at the same time (and "server", "techie workstation" and "newbie home user" are 3 _very_ different needs), you have to make too many tradeoffs.
Yes, the announcements on slashdot, osnews, ofb.biz and pclinuxonline came as a total surprise to us.
We aren't 100% ready for the user base we're trying to address yet (there are a couple of installer bugs left, and we're lacking a good internet access config tool -- that's why it's called an alpha), so we tried to remain low profile [and didn't put much effort into the website] -- but now that we've been taken to the public, there's not much of a point in continuing along those lines.
There's also not much of a point in putting up screenshots if you know the look will change before you intend to tell the public.
Who knows, maybe we'll find some new contributors (maybe even for website design and graphics?;) )
What's involved in translating programs? Is there a process that can be followed to make the inevitable easier?
We recently hired a translating company to translate the strings of a project into several languages - and found out gettext's po files were too "complicated" for them (apparently some people are scared of anything ASCII).
Since the project is using Qt anyway, I converted it to using Qt's translation mechanisms, and gave them a CD that boots a basic Linux system with Qt Linguist -- they could handle that.
I suppose if we want more translators to help us out, we need a similar tool for po files - any volunteers for hacking up Qt Linguist to support both formats?
Another significant point is that in OSS, everyone has access to everyone's code - someone writing a driver for a graphics card won't have to know much about the internals of the kernel or the libraries (s)he's using, but can check the source of the kernel and libraries if (s)he needs a better understanding of a specific function.
People trying to write a device driver for Windows have to rely on incomplete and partially bogus documentation - and a device driver can take the entire OS down with it...
Right, the number of people is not the only thing that counts... Part of the problem of Microsoft is that they make a strict separation between support and programming - bugs that are reported to Microsoft are usually not even noticed by their programmers. Some of the common Windows crashes occur only on very specific hardware under very specific circumstances - if it's hardware that isn't used in Microsoft, or if nobody at Microsoft uses the functionality, the programmers don't even notice there's anything wrong. That's how bugs could survive from MS-DOS 1.0 to Windows 98... With Open Source Software, people who get a crash under very specific circumstances can either fix it, or get someone to look at it (the people on the various linux [support] mailing lists all have access to the source, and a lot of them are familiar enough with the code to fix something). Another thing that needs to be added is that people who work on Linux care about it - on the other hand, I've known a number of Microsoft programmers who say Windows sucks and use Linux or *BSD at home.
If distributing virii is illegal, people will eventually have to stop using Windoze...;) After all, by copying anything from a Windoze box, you run the risk of distributing an unknown virus...;) Come to think of it - it's coming from Finland, where Linus comes from... A conspiracy???;)
The free release of Star Office was a good move [though it should have been more free, not just $0], no matter what their real motives are. StarPortal, being a network solution, CAN'T be used everywhere (think of all the poor Europeans who have to pay $.03 per minute of Internet connections to their monopolist phone companies), and therefore they won't be stupid enough to drop the "normal" solution. They will probably use it to advertise StarPortal, but that's ok with me, as long as we get SO for Linux. In the long run, if Sun is really trying to force Solaris on everyone, will that hurt us? I don't think so:
Linux will continue as long as there are users. There will always be users.
Interface-wise, Solaris and Linux are not too different - if they really manage to make Solaris the #1 OS, that's much better for us, as we'll just have to recompile and make minor changes to get a Linux port, instead of having to do complete rewrites (as in porting Windoze stuff)
I don't know if Sun wants to be a friend of Linux - but intentionally or not, right now they are.
Mandrake is as GPLed as possible (some packages like Qt aren't GPLed of course, but they're included in other distributions, as well). All of our own contributions are GPLed. About Mandrake6 being more stable than RH6, well, we fixed a number of bugs [but probably introduced some others - nobody is perfect]. Especially the fact that we're using a newer glibc should be a gain. In general I'd say the difference in stability is not very big.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry for the redundant post, but since it's a redundant thread and needs clearing up...
Our server was not cracked.
We placed too much trust in people interested in Linux being mature - therefore we decided to go with an open support system - everyone can ask and answer questions, and we don't censor posts.
Unfortunately we placed too much trust in people - this guy (originating from 68.13.232.26, located in Atlanta) abused the no-censoring policy to insert HTML redirects.
We've learned from it, about 15 minutes after we found out about the incident, we started stripping HTML tags and banning this guy's IP block.
I can understand it's fun to deface a website that boasts about its security - but defacing a publically editable website is pathetic. I thought our community was more mature than that.
Oh well, it's never too late to learn.
We placed too much trust in people interested in Linux being mature - therefore we decided to go with an open support system - everyone can ask and answer questions, and we don't censor posts.
Unfortunately we placed too much trust in people - this guy (originating from 68.13.232.26, located in Atlanta) abused the no-censoring policy to insert HTML redirects.
We've learned from it, about 15 minutes after we found out about the incident, we started stripping HTML tags and banning this guy's IP block.
I can understand it's fun to deface a website that boasts about its security - but defacing a publically editable website is pathetic. I thought our community was more mature than that.
Oh well, it's never too late to learn.
What you've seen is the result of someone from the IP 68.13.232.26 (ip-68-13-232-26.ok.ok.cox.net), located in Atlanta, using Phoneix 0.5 on Windows 2000, abusing the fact that we've tried using an open support system.
The idea behind the system was simple - anyone can ask questions, and anyone can reply. Pretty much like a Wiki.
So in a way, we got hacked - but since there was no protection for this area of the website, I wouldn't call it a security problem in the distribution. And we learned from it - the support system is now censoring bad posts. I find it sad that these things are necessary, when ideologically, we'd much rather fight censorship.
We made one mistake - namely that we trusted people wouldn't abuse it. This guy used malicious HTML tags to redirect the support system to his crap site.
Dear "hacker", you can be proud - you just circumvented nonexistant security blocks! I'll vote for you at the l33t h4x0r of the month contest.
Yes, you'd better hurry and volunteer - the more contributors we get, the faster we can release. ;)
...
But there's an infinite amount of positions available, and you don't need any special knowledge - you don't need to be a programmer to help with beta testing, documentation, website design, graphics,
Ark Linux will not be a Windows clone, though we don't hesitate to clone parts of the Windows UI where it makes sense.
..., but don't support C# (yet - Mono isn't ready for prime time)).
"Microsoft does XXX" is neither "XXX is good" nor "XXX is bad".
Ark Linux aims at providing everything the average home user needs - the desktop, office suite, media player, net access tools, a couple of games, etc.
For developers, there's the Ark Development Suite, a collection of development tools and programming languages (about 200 MB) - comparable to Visual Studio (with obvious differences - e.g. we support additional languages like Python, Objective-C, Perl,
Of course, Ark Development Suite is 100% free too - the only reason it isn't included in the base OS is that 95% of the targeted users won't need it.
I know I probably shouldn't be replying to trolls, but this is too tempting:
It is obvious that you haven't had a look at Ark Linux. Except for the filesystem layout (which is mandated by the FHS/LSB anyway), the toolchain (gcc, binutils) and the package manager (rpm), Ark Linux has little in common with Red Hat Linux anymore.
It's not just the matter of adding some more packages, it's also a matter of designing an easier to use installer, removing some complexity, and creating a good (for newbies) default config.
And in case you're wondering, no, I don't hold a grudge against Red Hat, I think their distribution has its uses and a pretty good core system, but I also think it could be better - therefore the need for a new distribution.
Red Hat and anyone else is invited to work with us on making Linux better suited for the desktop - they're free to copy what they like about Ark Linux, and we'll copy what we like from them.
That's precisely why we're doing Ark Linux.
;)
You can't do the things newbies need if you keep developing an existing distribution, because the experienced people would hate it -- therefore we concluded that we need a different approach to appeal to newbies.
Yes, apple did get it mostly right with OS X - but they didn't get the license right - hence the need for another one to get it right.
Well, our support system was designed to be open and trust based - you register, and you can ask and answer questions.
We've intentionally avoided adding any censorship - but it looks like some people are simply too immature to deal with an uncensored system. Some idiot added an html tag redirecting people to that crap site.
I've removed this, and I'm also extending the support system to not support html tags - it's a pity some people are obviously too immature to deal with freedom.
Oh, and yes, dear "asdf", you can be proud. You have just cracked a system that didn't have any protection in the first place. You're a really really truly l33t h4x0r! Nobody managed to do that before!
I'll be nominating you for the Nobel price in cracking.
No.
Ark Linux is a Free Software project, not a company.
The fact that we're selling CDs is because we want to give people with bad connectivity (Europe is full of people with pay-per-minute dialup connectivity) a chance to try Ark Linux.
That's pretty much what we're trying to do with Ark Linux - we're even going a step further and, in the default setup, removing the login process (you can still opt for a multiuser system if you want it).
By default, everything runs as the user "arklinux" - a normal user with special rights to launch some stuff (package installation etc.) as root without having to bother about passwords.
Yes, some people will hate this idea -- but Joe Newbie needs it.
With the exception of Open Office, you've just described Mac OS X.
Mac OS X is indeed a pretty nice OS, if you don't care about licensing. Ark Linux is, in parts, inspired by it -- but it's 100% Free Software (and being a community project, that's not going to change).
Thanks - you've just described what we're trying to do with Ark Linux. ;)
The best way to make linux "easy to use for the masses" is NOT going to be by adding yet another distribution of it. Personally it would help if all the "desktop linux" companies pooled their resources and made one, standard linux desktop running on one, standard gui interface. Adding another linux distro just makes things more confusing for the masses.
Interesting point, but not necessarily a valid one.
First of all, Ark Linux is not a company, it's a Free Software project.
Second, yes, in a perfect world, we'd have one standard Linux that does everything right -- but we don't live in a perfect world.
In a non-perfect world, competition is a good thing - but I agree that a relatively small number of distributions would be preferrable over several millions (and we haven't reached the 1000 mark yet, I think) [not counting special purpose distributions of course].
Linux on the desktop is still fairly new (not counting techie desktops, of course - they need a totally different setup anyway), so it's quite likely that the best approach is to try different approaches to figure out which works best.
As for extending an existing distribution to implement our ideas, that's a hard task. We believe that a new user will be greatly confused by 500 editors, 50 MP3 players, and 4 different desktop environments - so for a newbie distribution, we pick the right/easiest tools for the job (disclaimer: "right" is a subjective term, and nobody can claim he knows all the software on the net. No offense meant to applications we left out) -- which is something a traditional distribution wouldn't do, because many experienced users would revolt if their beloved tools were gone in, say, Debian 4.0 or Red Hat 9.
More choice isn't always good. I would rather see ONE good desktop linux package than ten substandard ones.
We've taken a look at a huge number of distributions out there, and none matched what we think is the right thing for newbies - so if we aren't mistaken, maybe Ark Linux is that one good desktop linux?
And since it's all Free Software, anyone else may build on it. If some other distribution agrees with our approach to something and reuses our code, we've helped making that one good Linux -- even if it turns out not to be our own.
The installer is an important change, but not the biggest one - if you want to see for yourself, download the current alpha version and check it out.
Since we didn't intend to go public yet (see my other posts), we haven't put much time into generating/updating the website - instead, we're improving the code.
We're still borrowing a lot of the core OS (such as the gcc packaging) from Red Hat, but everything on top of that is totally different.
No, because we're trying not to repeat the design flaws of Windows.
Some of the things that make Windows unstable, and what we're doing:
soname versioning is a vital part of all Unix-like OSes, and we're definitely keeping that, avoiding the windows DLL mess. As for overwriting/deleting system files, it's a security vs. usability tradeoff, and I think we've found a good compromise: The system runs as a normal non-root user with special privileges (via pam) to run package installation tools and some system config tools as root without being prompted for a password.
Ark Linux did not exist four and a half years ago.
In fact, we didn't want to go public yet - we don't like preannouncing vaporware (though the current alpha version is actually usable, if you can overlook the rough edges) -- so there wasn't much need to update the website etc. until someone decided to notify the media of our existance.
The 4 1/2 years reference from the original poster refers to the creation of the Mandrake distribution, which started with similar goals, but developed into a different direction.
Mandrake is a good distribution, and suitable for desktop use if you know what you're doing a bit - but Mandrake is an all-purpose operating system, and therefore too complicated for many newbies (this may be hard for us geeks to understand, but people do get confused at the notion of 50 editors, 4 desktop environments and 20 MP3 players).
Ark Linux will focus on being a home user OS, and just that.
IMO, if you want to please too many totally different needs at the same time (and "server", "techie workstation" and "newbie home user" are 3 _very_ different needs), you have to make too many tradeoffs.
No screenshots??!?
;) )
Yes, the announcements on slashdot, osnews, ofb.biz and pclinuxonline came as a total surprise to us.
We aren't 100% ready for the user base we're trying to address yet (there are a couple of installer bugs left, and we're lacking a good internet access config tool -- that's why it's called an alpha), so we tried to remain low profile [and didn't put much effort into the website] -- but now that we've been taken to the public, there's not much of a point in continuing along those lines.
There's also not much of a point in putting up screenshots if you know the look will change before you intend to tell the public.
Who knows, maybe we'll find some new contributors (maybe even for website design and graphics?
What's involved in translating programs? Is there a process that can be followed to make the inevitable easier?
We recently hired a translating company to translate the strings of a project into several languages - and found out gettext's po files were too "complicated" for them (apparently some people are scared of anything ASCII).
Since the project is using Qt anyway, I converted it to using Qt's translation mechanisms, and gave them a CD that boots a basic Linux system with Qt Linguist -- they could handle that.
I suppose if we want more translators to help us out, we need a similar tool for po files - any volunteers for hacking up Qt Linguist to support both formats?
Make that a bricKwall... ;)
In particular, take away webmin.org from M$. I got there once looking for a Linux tool...
Another significant point is that in OSS, everyone has access to everyone's code - someone writing a driver for a graphics card won't have to know much about the internals of the kernel or the libraries (s)he's using, but can check the source of the kernel and libraries if (s)he needs a better understanding of a specific function.
People trying to write a device driver for Windows have to rely on incomplete and partially bogus documentation - and a device driver can take the entire OS down with it...
Right, the number of people is not the only thing that counts... Part of the problem of Microsoft is that they make a strict separation between support and programming - bugs that are reported to Microsoft are usually not even noticed by their programmers. Some of the common Windows crashes occur only on very specific hardware under very specific circumstances - if it's hardware that isn't used in Microsoft, or if nobody at Microsoft uses the functionality, the programmers don't even notice there's anything wrong. That's how bugs could survive from MS-DOS 1.0 to Windows 98... With Open Source Software, people who get a crash under very specific circumstances can either fix it, or get someone to look at it (the people on the various linux [support] mailing lists all have access to the source, and a lot of them are familiar enough with the code to fix something). Another thing that needs to be added is that people who work on Linux care about it - on the other hand, I've known a number of Microsoft programmers who say Windows sucks and use Linux or *BSD at home.
If distributing virii is illegal, people will eventually have to stop using Windoze... ;) After all, by copying anything from a Windoze box, you run the risk of distributing an unknown virus... ;) Come to think of it - it's coming from Finland, where Linus comes from... A conspiracy??? ;)
- Linux will continue as long as there are users.
- Interface-wise, Solaris and Linux are not too different - if they really manage to make Solaris the #1 OS, that's much better for us, as we'll just have to recompile and make minor changes to get a Linux port, instead of having to do complete rewrites (as in porting Windoze stuff)
I don't know if Sun wants to be a friend of Linux - but intentionally or not, right now they are.There will always be users.
Mandrake is as GPLed as possible (some packages like
Qt aren't GPLed of course, but they're included
in other distributions, as well).
All of our own contributions are GPLed.
About Mandrake6 being more stable than RH6, well,
we fixed a number of bugs [but probably introduced some others - nobody is perfect].
Especially the fact that we're using a newer glibc should
be a gain.
In general I'd say the difference in stability is not very big.