Re: [PLUG] apt-get / rpm freshmeat article

["Michael W. Ryan" <mryan@netaxs.com>]

On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, Bill Jonas wrote:

> I never heard the statement made (or implied) that a graphical config
> tool and package management made a system insecure.  What I *did* hear
> was that distributions *in general* need to be more proactive with
> security, *especially* now that Joe User is making up a larger
> percentage of the user base.  I know *I've* taken shortcuts.

I agree.  A distribution should be proactive in that area, no matter who
the intended userbase is.  I also think that one needs to define "secure".
As an example (a little extreme), I find that my firewall requires a
different example of "secure" than a desktop system.

I'm curious (if LeRoy addressed this in his message, I'm sorry, I found it
just too long), what is the "insecurity" that people are citing in
distributions?  Is this a concrete problem or a hobgoblin?

> Personally, I'm fine with vi and /etc/.  But that's not for everyone.
> 
> You know, these sorts of arguments are coming up more frequently.  Is
> Linux a victim of its own success?

I think part of it is a clash of cultures between the original hacker
community and the newer community of people that want to use Linux.  I
feel that I'm in the latter and that I have little patience for the
former.

> I really hate splitting hairs here, but... for remote administration, I
> don't want to have to install X (and its resultant security risks) on
> the server.  But you'll be precisely right when you say that the power
> of choice is one of Linux's greatest strengths.  (I'm not debating
> that, or suggesting it should be limited.)

First, a "graphical user interface" does not mean "running under X".  It
means an interface that is built around the concept of "forms" (or dialogs
or windows or whatever) with a non-linear workflow.  This can be done as
either an X application, an SVGAlib application, or a curses type of
application (like you cited with sendmailconfig below).  Linuxconf is a
great example of this.  Yes, it has a gtk interface, but it also has a
curses and web interface.  All of these are "GUIs".  I do alot of my
remote administration of my firewall with linuxconf.

My point is that every time someone brings up the issue of a GUI tool for
configuring something, there's this rabid cry of "no, we want our text
file" or "then it'll be just like Windows".  This is stupid.  Chew on
this:  Windows doesn't have text config files, not because it has a GUI
interface, but because a design decision was made to not have text files
and only use the GUI interface.

Linux is about choices.  Why should *I* have a choice to use a GUI instead
of hand-editing a text file?

Michael W. Ryan, MCP, MCT     | OTAKON, Video Operations
mryan@netaxs.com              | Convention of Otaku Generation
http://www.netaxs.com/~mryan/ | http://www.otakon.com/

No, I don't hear voices in my head;
I'm the one that tells the voices in your head what to say.


______________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group       -      http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements-http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion  -  http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug