Linux offers one alternative to Microsoft's Windows

@cabreh: Now you're trolling. You were comparing Mandriva as a KDE distro and Ubuntu as a GNOME distro. I kindly suggested that you could try Mandriva GNOME if you hadn't already.

"I personally like the way it looks better than Ubuntu"

"your statement of Mandriva looking better than Ubuntu is in actual fact a personal preference"

You might wish to look up "personally" in the dictionary. I do not see how anyone could take my statement as anything other than a statement of preference. I don't understand what your motivation could possibly be to keep attacking what I said.

@bigg

Maybe you can tell me what you were responding to in my posting? This thread was started on a topic of Ubuntu getting too much media coverage (or blog postings or whatever). Somehow along the way it became Ubuntu being inferior to some other distributions. I asked how the other distribution were in fact "better" than Ubuntu and all I could see coming back was personal preferences. When I stated that you somehow though I need English language instruction. So, first "attack" to you. I did not attack your reply to me other than to ask just how my statement that "personal preference does not a better distribution make" was actually in error.

I do know exactly what personally means. That was my point to begin with and I could not understand what you were trying to tell me other than what i had said.

If you go back and look at all the postings you will find that is exactly what I was saying all along.

Cabreh, you do know that your combative posting style isn't gaining you anything, don't you?

Quoting:If Slackware puts out something with a security problem does that make all the distribution who use it as a base mis-guided?

If the security problem is something caused by an original app dev, no.

However, if Patrick Volkerding were to muck around in vsftp and cause a security hole in it, then yes, it would be his fault, and downstream developers and users could no longer trust him as much as they do today.

Now, substitute "Debian devs" for "Patrick Volkerding", and "OpenSS*" for "vsftp", and you'll see why your defense of Ubuntu is mis-guided.

Quoting:As I said, what is BETTER in Mandriva than Ubuntu? Other than a cosmetic choice.

Mandriva be it the KDE version or the GNOME version is better because it has Mandriva Linux Control Centre, that's not a cosmetic choice. It's better because it uses a root user with a password that is seperate from the ordinary user, this too is not a cosmetic choice. It's better because logging in as root is forbidden.

The use of sudo and it's variations that mean the current user's password enables system modification makes Ubuntu/Kubuntu EdUbuntu etc that much less secure than Mandriva.

Ubuntu is better at one thing, marketing. That's probably why so many technically competent Windows users are also using Ubuntu, and they bring their ignorance informed arrogance with them. And that, is probably why the Ubuntu forums are not in the least interested in supporting LINdependence day, and why their forum administrator deleted my post requesting help from Ubuntu users.

> it has Mandriva Linux Control Centre, that's not a cosmetic choice.

For newbies that's a big plus, but for experienced unix admins, it doesn't matter. Suse has yast, but I edit config files and send a sighup instead.

> It's better because logging in as root is forbidden. I'm sure that could be changed.

Wow these distro comparisons are a tad superficial. Surely if you have used linux for more than three years (as I'm sure most people here have) it makes precious little difference.

What does make some difference is what you get used to and feel comfortable with. I use Ubuntu but I'm sure I could get used to Slack or Mandriva or Debian or Suse. Gentoo would be a stretch ;-)

@ herzeleid, MCC made a huge difference when I first started using Mandrake, and of course one could make Mandriva less secure by removing the constraint on logging in as root. The point here is that the default setting forbids it, as the default setting requires a separate root user, and doesn't enable arbitrary users to make system changes.

@montezuma, When you've been using Linux for a long while, it makes little difference, outside of what look and feel you are most comfortable with.

The point is what exists that makes administration easy for a new user, that also doesn't compromise security. I give my new Linux users Mandriva, because it's much easier to control what they can and can't access, while at the same time when they do need to access those areas, they have to think very carefully about it. In other words when necessary they have access to a central place for doing system administration, but they can't do it arbitrarily, as is possible with Ubuntu, just by supplying their own password. Indeed it's highly unlikely, because it is onerous entering a separate root password (and I ensure that it is, by supplying them with strong passwords), they are less likely to do anything to wreck their system until they are sufficiently familiar with Linux, and it's also unlikely that Children or grandchildren will cause any damage.

@tracyanne. Hmm I am trying to think of the times I have wrecked a system in Ubuntu. It has been a pretty rare occurrence and iirc only when performing rather complex cli gymnastics.

Things a newbie might fiddle with would be: add a printer; change themes; add packages using synaptic; change screen resolution; fiddle with desktop effects if they are adventurous. None of these is likely to break anything (maybe the last if you are unlucky).

My daughter is a newbie and she uses Ubuntu on 3 different systems and fiddles endlessly with things. Never had a broken system to deal with.

The biggest hassle has been when add on hardware hasn't worked (ipods, printers cameras). Never have I had a borked system unless I did it myself trying something complex from the cli.

What Linux community?

There is no Pan-Linux movement! Never will be until the first two generations of geeks die off.

@tracyanne

In Ubuntu only the installer of the system has sudo rights by default. Not all users. This is the same for Mnndriva except instead of using your own password you have to use the root password which you set yourself. I personally see no difference here. Do you?

As herzeleid and montezuma have said/implied people used to Linux would have no trouble using any of the distributions. I had stated that it's been a while since I HAD to use the command line in Ubuntu. That was not to say I don't. It's quite often easier to quickly edit a config file than to use a graphical interface. And as to the Control center I don't find much of anything there that I don't have via a menu in Ubuntu.

@jdixon

I thought I was being rather polite in my replies to people who had not done things like imply I needed English lessons. And even then I think I was rather restrained. Could you show me where I have been combative please. I am always willing to try and change my ways when I see I am wrong.

@gus3

I would say that my trust in Debian is what is mis-guided. Not Ubuntu. It was Debian who did the deed. Ubuntu simply used the standard Debian package and ended up having the same problem as everyone else using the Debian package. As would be the case in your Slackware example. It would be Slackware who was at fault.

Quoting:I personally see no difference here. Do you?

I do, the scenerio you've painted for Ubuntu means that the installer is also the administrator, it's only marginally better than what happens on Windows. Get my password, on Mandriva, and you get may account, get my password on Ubuntu and you get the keys to the kingdom. Ubuntu is less secure than a Linux system that implements security properly, it's that simple.

@monte it is exactly your daughter (well their daughters, and sons, and grandchildren) that I want to keep out of the system, and for very specific reasons, so they can't change things on my ladies. Those reasons are because of what their daughters, and sons, and grandchildren were able to do to wreck the windows computers they used to have. They have very strict instructions not to let anyone have the root password, which they keep in a safe place. I can't trust Ubuntu to give me that sort of security.

@tracy Yeah but they don't. In Ubuntu you need to enable sudo access manually to all but the first user account. My kids don't have sudo access....

monte, the point remains, 1 password and anyone has keys to the kingdom. I'll stick to belt and braces, I think you'll find my people are less likely to loose their pants. Ubuntu's philosophy of giving the owner some minimal extra convenience, reduces security, something I'm not about to do to my ladies.

And it really is a pain in the arse, as far as I'm concerned, having to type in a password every time you want to do a different System admin function, it's actually worse than the nag prompts on Windows. That is the one thing that really annoys me about my media centre, it runs MythBuntu.

> Could you show me where I have been combative please.

Cabreh, if I have to point it out, it's almost certain that my doing so won't do any good. I accept your word that you don't mean to come across that way, and I'm probably merely being overly sensitive. I agree that you were more restrained than I would have been over the English comment, for what it's worth.

Tracyanne:

> 1 password and anyone has keys to the kingdom. I'll stick to belt and braces.

I agree, but it's a problem which could easily be worked around by treating the first Ubuntu account created as a root account and not using it as a user account. Of course, that's not the Ubuntu way, so...

@jdixon

> I agree, but it's a problem which could easily be worked around by treating the first Ubuntu account created as a > root account and not using it as a user account. Of course, that's not the Ubuntu way, so.

I agree jdixon as that is exactly what I do on my servers. I have an "administrator" account that is used only for admin work.

@tracyanne

>means that the installer is also the administrator

Well, yes. As the systems administrator where I work that is exactly the case. And if I install my system at home I am also the administrator there. Of course at work and on my home servers I do as above. On my workstation I just use my personal login since I have the experience to do it that way.

I would imagine anyone who installs their own system will do it one of those two ways since if they are doing an install they will be the person who needs admin permissions to add programs they want. I also figure that if they can get my password they can also get the root password.

cabreh, fair enough. I prefer to give my ladies as much security as possible until they are confident enough to make the decision themselves - they might never attain that confidence, but I do my best to help them learn, something that wasn't encouraged on their previous system.

@tracyanne

Agreed. At work on our Windows systems we have it set that nobody can install anything. For Linux we will lock it down as tightly. For beginners it's best to not be able to install things as long as they have a support person who could perhaps just login remotely and do the install for them. Much safer that way.