- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
2009: software installation in GNU/Linux is still broken -- and a path to fixing it
|
|
|
Comments (29)
9 earlier comments in the full thread.
Quoting:I know chroot is available to users in Slackware, I can't speak for other distros.
Every major Linux distro and most minor ones have chroot. Some niche distros that aim to be really tiny don't but everything else does.
Has this guy tried to get and install commercial Linux software?
I bought World of Goo. The offered the download as a DEB, RPM or tar.gz. Since I use ubuntu I selected the DEB downloaded it, clicked on it, entered my password because I did in fact want to install it and then it installed. It even put the launch icon into the games section of the applications menu.
How is this process broken or even different from installing software on Windows, other than it asked for a password to ensure I have the authority to install software?
Installing software from the repos is an even better experience.
How is this process broken or even different from installing software on Windows, other than it asked for a password to ensure I have the authority to install software?
Installing software from the repos is an even better experience.
Quoting: I know chroot is available to users in Slackware, I can't speak for other distros. ... Every major Linux distro and most minor ones have chroot. Some niche distros that aim to be really tiny don't but everything else does.I think the comment was not about chroot being available, rather being available for use to normal users. By default it is available only to superuser in most distros.
You also have sudo in most distros, which means that all the user needs to know to use chroot is their own password. Again, a non-issue.
> Every major Linux distro and most minor ones have chroot.
> ...rather being available for use to normal users.
Exactly. I expect that on most systems it's only available to root. Slackware is rather more liberal in that regard than most distros. Of course, if sudo is set up to let you run anything you want, it doesn't matter. Whether that's an optimal way to set up sudo is another discussion.
> ...rather being available for use to normal users.
Exactly. I expect that on most systems it's only available to root. Slackware is rather more liberal in that regard than most distros. Of course, if sudo is set up to let you run anything you want, it doesn't matter. Whether that's an optimal way to set up sudo is another discussion.
Quoting:You also have sudo in most distros, which means that all the user needs to know to use chroot is their own password. Again, a non-issue.
It's a non-issue to begin with. A user has root access or not. It doesn't matter if he is allowed root access directly or through sudo.
Well if Linux is broken, then Windows is twice.. thrice as broken. I've just had the unfortunate experience of setting up some beta sites on Windows 2008 "Server". For starters it's a bloody glorified desktop machine, there's zillions of settings for improving the Desktop "experience", effing file extensions are hidden by default, just like on the Windows Desktop, and finding the means of changing this (Folder Options under tools on the Windows Explorer menus) is hidden (the menus don't display) untill you manage to track down the almost equally well hidden System Stteings and change the desktop 'experience" to 'adjust for best performance'.
Actually creating the beta sites was quite easy once you get past the stupidity of passing off a desktop Operating System as a Server.
Actually creating the beta sites was quite easy once you get past the stupidity of passing off a desktop Operating System as a Server.
> For starters it's a bloody glorified desktop machine...
From what I've heard, it makes a much better desktop than Vista. :)
From what I've heard, it makes a much better desktop than Vista. :)
Quoting:From what I've heard, it makes a much better desktop than Vista. :)
That isn't saying much.
Tracyanne hits the nail on the head... again. She's good at that, you know.
Any of us who have ever maintained (or just tried to bring back from the dead) the Windows boxes of our friends/co-workers/others can probably agree that allowing the average user to install their own applications only leads to heartache, pain and bricked systems.
The security built into most Linux distributions along with the repository concept is the only thing saving us from barbarism.
The security built into most Linux distributions along with the repository concept is the only thing saving us from barbarism.
Both rpm and deb allow for a --root option to setup an installation in a separate directory (the deb's one though requires root permissoins).
Quoting: From what I've heard, it makes a much better desktop than Vista. :)
Back around 98,99, 2000 I worked for a company where we used NT4 Server and Win2000 Advaced Server as Desktops, because thwy gave us access to all the useful tools. But I was under the misapprehension , probably due to articles on ZDnet claiming that Windows Server was becoming much more like a Linux Server in order to make it more desirable to Linux/Unix Sysadmins, That Win 2008 Server was... well a real server. Silly me.
I'm still trying to work out what the issue is with needing to install arbitrary applications on my Linux box, anywhere other than in the /usr tree. I mean it's my computer, I don't want anyone else installing software on it, anywhere. So in what way does being able to install to somewhere other than /usr make my computer any easier to use. Being able to install applications to arbitrary places in the file system on Windows, doesn't make Windows easier to use, in fact it makes no difference, and instead clutters up the filesystem, making it difficult to find things. None of the people I've moved from Windows to Linux have any problems with the concept of entering a password to install software or enable updates/security patches, I explained to them that this is what keeps their computer secure and free from Viruses, so that they never have to deal with anti virus software again, they are quite happy with that. I can't see how allowing them to install arbitrary applications into say their home directory, makes the system any safer, or necessarily easier to use. I've had them install .debs by double clicking on the file, and having them install using gdebi (on Mandriva urpmi does the same thing with less gui bling), what could be easier.
Allowing the installation of applications into the user directory tree with normal user permissions, seems, to me, to be a solution in search of a problem.
Quoting:the only point that he might have is that non root users can't install software. Unfortunately they can. Just install to your home directory and add the various bin and lib directories to your various personal paths.Custom executables are easily denied by adding "noexec" to the /home entry in /etc/fstab. (Only after 2.4.25/2.6.0.)
Quoting: the only point that he might have is that non root users can't install software. Unfortunately they can. Just install to your home directory and add the various bin and lib directories to your various personal paths.
Custom executables are easily denied by adding "noexec" to the /home entry in /etc/fstab. (Only after 2.4.25/2.6.0.)
The thing that bothers me the most about these kinds of articles is they're not really complaining about defects in Linux, or bugs, or anything that is actually broken. They're either uninformed and griping about missing features that actually exist, or they're griping that things are not done the "right" way, which is either the Mac way, the Windows way, or the telepathic way because god forbid users should have to learn anything. This one should join the Lunduke WhineClub, preach to members, and quit bothering sensible people.
Linux isn't just like Windows or just like Mac. There is definitely a group of people out there who want a free as in no cost or free as in freeloader version of Windows or MacOSX. They were somehow led to believe that is what Linux provides. What their complaints amount to is not having their totally unrealistic expectations met.
Do Windows XP and Vista let users modify %PATH% and %DLLPATH%?
Conversely, do XP and Vista have a "noexec" equivalent volume option?
Conversely, do XP and Vista have a "noexec" equivalent volume option?
> There is definitely a group of people out there who want a free as in no cost or free as in freeloader version of Windows or MacOSX.
For Windows, I'd say point them to ReactOS, but it doesn't deserve that headache.
> Do Windows XP and Vista let users modify %PATH% and %DLLPATH%?
I can't speak for Vista, as I don't have a machine to check, but %PATH% is simply an environmental variable, and yes Windows does let you change it. I'm not aware of any version of Windows which lets you specify a DLL path.
> do XP and Vista have a "noexec" equivalent volume option?
Not that I'm aware of, but I've never really looked into the matter.
For Windows, I'd say point them to ReactOS, but it doesn't deserve that headache.
> Do Windows XP and Vista let users modify %PATH% and %DLLPATH%?
I can't speak for Vista, as I don't have a machine to check, but %PATH% is simply an environmental variable, and yes Windows does let you change it. I'm not aware of any version of Windows which lets you specify a DLL path.
> do XP and Vista have a "noexec" equivalent volume option?
Not that I'm aware of, but I've never really looked into the matter.
Quoting: Conversely, do XP and Vista have a "noexec" equivalent volume option?
Not that I'm aware of. I've worked on really locked down Windows machines (Australian Tax Office) and I was always able to execute any arbitrary software I was able to sneak onto my machine. Getting it onto the machine was the most difficult part, as one could not simply download it. One could not even email oneself an executable, even zipped, as that was checked for and disallowed, and removed from the email.
I got round those restrictions by writing my own version of base 64 that didn't parse intelligibly in a standard base 64 parser, and extracted files encoded with my base 64 back to the executable after emailing them to myself.
Based on that experience, I'd have to say no, because if that were possible, given that the ATO had gone to so much expense to block the execution of arbitrary code, that had such a thing been possible they would have done it.
Yikes, I just looked into DLL path searching... what a nightmare. But I see no %DLLPATH% envvar. Oh well.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
He's arguing that the file system shouldn't be changed because it's been that way a long time and users would be upset if you change it. Don't the same arguments apply to, say, the way Linux software is distributed?
Second, Gobo does not change the file system. It actually uses symbolic links to eliminate the need for a package manager.
It seems like he simply doesn't want to admit that what he wants done has already been done.