Ralf Mardorf schreef op 09-10-2016 15:05:
I didn't read all your trolling,
If you are going to call other people trolls for having different
opinions, do you then still expect your own opinions to be respected by
those people, or by other people in general?
however, what I already read is simply stupid.
Fair enough but let's see what you have.
Users by default cannot use sudo to get user privileges
for good reasons.
The first default user always has sudo rights. Any additional user can
be made administrator simply by ticking a box. This is the very same on
Microsoft Windows.
The Ubuntu default should be, that just the first
user, with the ID 1000, is able to get root privileges by sudo.
That is often the only user.
On a multi-user system it's not wanted, that everybody is allowed to
mount
what ever she wants.
That is your opinion but you throw internal disks together with remote
resources here, as I have repeatedly pointed out is a difference.
Yes, some users cannot access what they want, due
to security reasons.
But the primary user can. And it is still not convenient at all.
Regarding your argument that by accident somebody could wipe out a
Linux
install, there are several security mechanisms to prevent users to
delete important things. One is that users cannot use sudo to get root
privileges, but even a superuser has levels of protection, for example
to mount read only, to set the immutable bit, not to use rm -r, but
instead rm -I files* and rmdir or e.g. unlink instead of rm to remove a
link.
These are all practically unused options.
You describe Windows user typical behaviour without
self-responsibility.
What, me?
For the averaged Ubuntu desktop PC user on a
single-user environment, by default this user could use sudo, gksudu.
This is what I've said.
There are several solutions to realise what you want, wide spread is
usage of e.g. pkexec.
Which is another word for sudo in practical implications.
Indeed, some things cannot be done with Linux, but could be done using
other operating systems. Usually this is related to nieces that require
much money and manpower for the development. For those nieces there
sometimes is non-free software for Linux available, too and sometimes
FLOSS coders simply need more time, due to the lack of manpower and
money.
Or they keep saying that the features are not needed, like you do. And
then they keep working on features that are unneeded in practice.
Because no one was allowed to say what was actually needed.
If you need something Linux doesn't provide, than either get your hands
dirty or use another OS that already provides what you need.
Oh boy, I am sure you are a great developer yourself? Do you think I do
nothing all day?
Oh, and let me just tell you: there is another option, and that is to
converse with other people as to what is needed. How is that for a
bright-minded idea? Makes you think of community, doesn't it?
I'm even not against adopting something good from another OS, I'm not
against Windows. I'm against half-truth and complains that others
should get their hands dirty, to fulfil your needs.
So what is this "half-truth" you are stating? That I fail to mention
that there are practically unused alternatives that are so hard to use
in practice that no one does it at all, but still theoretically they
exist and very theoretically they could solve the problems if they were
actually used?
Where have I said that others should get their hands dirty? They are
already getting their hands dirty, but often in the wrong way or
direction. I am asking no one to "start developing for Linux". I am
talking to people who are apparently already working on it, already
spending perhaps the most part of their life on it, and still nothing
good really surfaces but some less than ideal things do surface. I am
telling them they might work less and accomplish more.
You are the one that says *I* should get my hands dirty (when I do
nothing other than work on this, in essence, and in actual fact, from
seeing what I do all day with my time, these days, not even having time
to play computer games anymore because I can't play them on Linux ;-)
and I am spending time to get Linux in working order first before I
venture elsewhere) so you are accusing me of something you do.
Even for my taste the DEs you mentioned aren't good. Openbox fits to my
needs, so I don't care about e.g. KDE.
I don't think you are representative of the masses who use Linux nor the
targets of Ubuntu's audience.
You claim that Linux doesn't fit to your needs, but Windows does. If I
need a knife, I don't use a fork. Why do you use the OS that doesn't
fit to your needs, if there's another OS that does?
I never claimed that. If having a car without brakes but having a bike
with breaks mean that saying a car should have breaks imply that you
want a bike instead?
Maybe the car is just broken and you need to fix it instead instead of
condemning yourself to only use bikes.
Why do you condemn people that want to fix the car? Is the car not
allowed to be fixed?
Apart from this, you could recommend that Ubuntu should consider to
provide other defaults, but actually you mentioned that already the low
level of Linux (user space? or the kernel?) needs radical improvements.
So now you say what I should do instead. Why do you not limit yourself
to saying what you should do, and leave it to other people to do with
their own time? Again you accuse me of something you are doing. You
offer me suggestions but they are limitations (of what I can't do) while
I am trying to bring forth creative proposals of what could be done but
hasn't yet been considered in full.
So basically you crack down on creative proposal (that I am already
working on, but am trying to get other on board too).
Indeed every technology needs improvements, but radical changes to
provide the same, as is already provided by another operating system,
that is known for its issues, aren't improvements.
That is just stupidity. No the car shouldn't have brakes because the
bike is unmotorized and we don't want unmotorized cars.
I decided to use Linux in the first palace (I didn't migrate from
Windows) because Linux is the way it is.
Well good for you. I am working to improve it, instead.
I also had and have critic against Linux. Some things perhaps should be
adopted from proprietary
operating systems. A lot of those already were adopted and indeed,
people who were hostile to me, now prefer those changes, too. OTOH some
changes other like, are a PITA to me. Linux is community driven.
No it's not, it's company driven. 90% of Linux development normally
happens through paid jobs.
Why don't you file feature requests to upstream and the Ubuntu bug
tracker?
How lazy would that be? Do you do all your work that way?
Insinuating that people who discussed with you, would just use
cheap rhetorical tricks, to stop you, is a bare lie.
Then could you please stop using them? You said a "cannot" is actually a
"will not allow" for good reasons. And that is a fair statement to make.
But when I then say that the "will not allows" of Linux are actually "do
not have the functionality" I am trolled for it by mr. Law who goes to
say that they are different things (which was the premise of our
reasoning).
You said this:
Yes, you mentioned Windows allows to do this and that, but Linux
doesn't, so I pointed out, that Windows is insecure and Linux isn't. I
assume causality. There are reasons that Linux does work different to
Windows.
You used the word "allow" liberally to imply security for Linux and
insecurity for Windows, but when I spoke of it I meant ability:
In Windows any user (not even just an administrator) can take a network
share and mount it on a drive letter. Just like that. Takes 5 seconds.
In Linux thus far it has been impossible.
I never used the word allow, and I also implied it would be equally
impossible for an administrator (which is me).
I didn't just mean that it was impossible for unprivileged users, it is
also impossible for regular administrators unless they go and hack the
fstab. Which is not actually a form of "browsing" do you agree?
It could be likened to using wpa_supplicant manually and using the NM
widget in your OS/GUI. The NM widget allows for roaming very easily,
which manually calling wpa_supplicant would never allow with any degree
of ease.
The same is true with mounting samba shares, it is not possible with any
degree of ease, today. Of course, I want to work on it, but I can't do
everything alone, or at the same time.
When you brought this topic of security into the game and responded to
the above statement and cut off my statement by saying:
...nothing is secure at all. Users are free to chose Windows. Linux is
for
another kind of computer user. A user could chose what ever OS fits
best
to the individual needs and moneybag. Apropos standards, if Ubuntu
would
follow Richard Stallman's ideas, it would be les to your needs, IOW
there
is no standard able to please everybody.
You seemed to be replying to my statement of mounting Samba shares by
any user but there aren't actually any security implications to mounting
samba shares in Linux by any user any more than that there are
considerations of mounting USB sticks or the like. And if they were to
be mounted on a user home directory there would be no implications at
all, and that is actual fact.
You then make a broad sweeping statement about Windows that is
irrelevant to this discussion, we are talking about features, not entire
operating systems. And then when I say:
And so whenever Linux can't do something, it is for security? Don't
make me
laugh.
Mr. Law goes into a pedantic argument as to what word doesn't mean what.
The point is that you can't make sweeping statements about single
issues. Just because something is insecure in Windows doesn't mean all
things are insecure in Windows.
And just because something is in Windows, doesn't mean it has to be
insecure in Linux.
You repeat yourself again and again, seemingly not many people agree
with your opinion, so you seem to have a problem and to solve this you
don't provide something useful.
That's your opinion. I don't care about your opinion, if you're gonna be
like this (and you have been like this from the start).
Your first message was to ridicule my earlier message. Why should I
respond to that in that sense?
Could you post links to the feature
requests?
Could you? You like getting your hands dirty and working senseless
systems in which creativity is stifled, so be my guest and do the
"dirty" work for me. Meanwhile, I'll just be writing code, okay? (And
having discussions about it).
Also, I do not request features, I discuss them, and then seek out to
create them. But sometimes I need more work from other people than I can
muster, or in other words, it doesn't help much if I have to do
everything alone.
To file feature requests doesn't require to provide patches, so
everybody could do this.
Your lazy attitude again. You want me to stop debating something and
then supplicate for it. That means begging. This is a sure way to ensure
it will never arrive, as I'm sure you've noticed.
And you don't call this "cheap rhetorical tricks"? You are working your
ass off to prevent me from doing what I am doing, to stop me from doing
what I am doing.
What is the reason for this? You don't like the suggestions I make, and
that's all?
The only thing you are suggesting to me is to become an obedient slave
and to stand in line working inefficient systems filing bug reports, not
doing any meaningful work himself or myself. You are asking me to become
like the masses who have no influence. And who then must be "happy" if
some "developer" responds. And gives me 2 seconds of his day. No, just
no.
https://youtu.be/ksYSMZTG4JU
It's a bit laughable this short, but still ;-).
Sure, KDE, GNOME etc. don't like to become
Windows clones, but you could file feature requests to the underlying
low level software you criticize.
Why do you feel the need to tell me what to do? Why don't you start
doing something yourself? I don't see you doing anything with regards to
this proposal.
No one is going to do any work based on "feature requests" in open
source. You will have to do the work yourself, and get others to fall in
line with you, if you want anything to be done.
But sometimes it is not like that, and you are just trying to see if
there would be a likeminded soul anywhere, somewhere. And you won't find
this person or these people unless you are willing to speak up (and work
on it, of course).
And you are telling me to quiet my mouth until I have filed "feature
requests" of all things? What do you think this is, then? No, you just
want to formalize me, and I cannot be formalized (and no one can). Hence
the statements by Saddam Hussain "Don't make me speak in a way that none
of us wants and I am not a student in your class".
Mr. Ralf Mardorf, I am not a student in your class and I will do as I
please, as long as it is okay with other people (that run this list, of
course).
You have no say over other people and you certainly don't have a say
over me. And you are accusing me of trying to have a say over other
people, but you are doing it yourself. You are trying to stifle me and
you are using more or less cheap rhetorical tricks to do so. Or other
people do, that you respond to and defend. Using arguments that pertain
not to the issue and saying "Windows is insecure, so everything from
Windows must be insecure", basically. You say you have never used
Windows so you never even know what you are talking about, then?
Do you say Windows is insecure just by common say? Windows is no more
insecure than Apple or Linux, probably. Apart from ActiveX and Macro
issues and all the other crap they have -- but these require you to use
Internet Explorer and the like, which you can choose not to do. I have
never had a virus in my life and in fact the only time I've had
something was recently when I installed a package that contained malware
(browser redirectors and the like) and that could equally as well have
happened on Linux if I had installed a third-party deb package (but on
Linux it would be easier to purge, I guess). That means that thus far as
far as I know from Windows 95 on I have never been hacked through means
that fell outside my own control (and yes I recently chose to install
something I didn't trust (but there is no sandboxing facility in Windows
unless you pay for it) and you also cannot install anything unless you
are administrator the same as it is in Linux so there is just no
difference there between the systems -- you don't just get malware out
of the blue).
I know for a fact that if Linux systems were targetted and corrupted the
majority of people would not know what to do unless there were means to
validate and verify all packages against the installed base. You would
need an automated way to verify all binaries and I am sure that is very
easy to achieve in Linux as it stands today. So there is a defnite plus
for Linux. As long as the verification program was not hacked and
corrupted and changed. Windows has performed all kinds of counters
against this and today it is very hard to corrupt their binaries as a
matter of fact. People have to perform measures of "rootkits" to turn
off activation counters, for example.
Windows is fairly difficult to make do what you want these days, and
that includes hackers.
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
