Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

Lobster · Posted: Mon 18 Apr 2011, 05:37 Post subject: Distrowatch reviews Puppy 525

http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20110418#feature

cthisbear · Joined: 29 Jan 2006 Posts: 2943 Location: Sydney Australia

Ah! yes.

I have just read another enlightened review from Professor Prat
aka .. Robert Storey.

It comes with the >> Feature Story >> banner.
More like the Creature Feature.

So many sound samples am I tempted to post back from my
mate....Richard Connolly.

And here is another twat...number 4 post.

" Puppy and root priviledges (by Stuart )
I would like to try a distribution like Puppy, but using root
priviledges shows an incredible lack of security awareness.

Does anyone know of similar, but more competent distributions? "

But the strangest part of all is that at the bottom of the same page
there is this gem.
Looks like nobody read up...oldie but goldie.

" It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to
open it and remove all doubt. (Mark Twain) "

Chris.

Lobster · Posted: Mon 18 Apr 2011, 07:21 Post subject:

rcrsn51 · Posted: Mon 18 Apr 2011, 09:43 Post subject:

Here is what I have never understood about the "running as root is bad" argument. If, as an Ubuntu user, I can routinely give myself privilege elevation with the sudo command, what's to prevent a malicious script from doing the same thing?

bugman · Joined: 20 Dec 2005 Posts: 2131 Location: buffalo commons

rcrsn51 · Posted: Mon 18 Apr 2011, 11:01 Post subject:

Jasper · Joined: 25 Apr 2010 Posts: 870 Location: England

Hi,

On the one hand it seems (to me) that 'buntu must be more secure than Puppy, but on the other hand Puppy is so much easier and more convenient and since I have no quotes of problems with either 'buntu or Puppy (unlike Windows) my choice is Puppy.

My regards

PS I have read that RootKits have been a problem for 'buntu and since there are Linux AntiRootKit programs I presume that Puppy is also at risk especially as these programs do not have the highest of reputatations?

Luluc · Joined: 16 Mar 2011 Posts: 200

Several flaws in that review. And no comment section. Meh. Waste of time.

Bernie_by_the_Sea · Joined: 09 Feb 2011 Posts: 329

I think this is a fair review and much more comprehensive than most. The author made two comments without explanation:

2byte · Joined: 09 Oct 2006 Posts: 356

I thought it was a fair assessment of Puppy, one of the best ones I have seen anyway. I have used Puppy 4 series since 2008 in my daily office work and have had great success with it running as root.

Until recently that is. I installed 5.11 in the boss's computer to replace his overly aggravating XP. He loved it. The trouble began when he started sharing files on the company samba server. You guessed it, file owner and group permissions. Regardless of how you log in to the server, created files have incorrect ownership and permissions. Before anyone mentions it, there are restrictions on the server for users and groups that will not be changed. Period.

Yes I know, Puppy is not really intended for this scenario, but, and it's a big BUT IMHO, a full non-root user, not spot, is the main thing holding Puppy back. And no, PG's mods to 4.21 do not get the job done.

I truly don't understand why multiuser cannot be implemented when other tiny distros manage to do so. It wouldn't be the end of the world for Puppy. Quite the opposite I would think.

Luluc · Joined: 16 Mar 2011 Posts: 200

Well, if "the rest of the world" uses ordinary, unprivileged users instead of root, we should definitely do the same.

No, wait! "The rest of the world" uses Windows. Let's all use Windows then.

Case closed.

Bligh · Joined: 08 Jan 2006 Posts: 459 Location: California

I tend to disregard dw reviews, I have my own reviews of which distro's work for me. I can't remember how I first became aware of Puppy but it was b4 06. It has a number of advantages which don't seem to be found in other distro's.
Cheers

nooby · Joined: 29 Jun 2008 Posts: 9393 Location: SwedenEurope

Guys don't kill me now. I am just friendly rambling a bit.

I think it was rather nice. It tried to be fair about the root thing.

What I missed most in his review was how good it is to do a frugal install instead of a full install.
Like so many other linux users they seems to hate being frugal installed. Is it the word frugal that sound a bit like being unexperienced or something? Noob and frugal seems related Smile

And a very naive comment from myself. If TCL manage to have nonroot users and only using 11MB or so. How much would a non-root user take to be implemented?

Even more naive. Why can one not have a portable sfs or TCZ non-root thing and add that one to Puppy? Like any other app? Smile

Okay I spell it out instead of hide it. Could one not take TCL and make a puppy out of it. To do a remix that look exactly like puppy and have the same features as puppy and boot in RAM like puppy does and so on. Then one would get multiuser and none would see any difference at all? And RobertS would be happy and everybody would be happy. I mean a lot of people make Ubuntu and other Linux distros to look like MsWindows XP or Vista or Win7 and there are at least three puppy that do that.

So why not go the other root. We use the TCL iso and then remix it to be a clone layer of puppy one layer above the TCL layer that is only 11MB or so. Then we get a puppy that is well under 100MB too.

No they don't like me at the TCL forum I am too naive and not getting TCL well enough to use it without being hand fed.

2byte · Joined: 09 Oct 2006 Posts: 356

nooby · Joined: 29 Jun 2008 Posts: 9393 Location: SwedenEurope

If it is possible to do then we would be able to give the critics a puppy that have what they want and we would still have many other puppies as we want them to be? Everybody would be satisfied.

And that was what the Review was about to point out the good things and the bad things. Okay one could talk about it in truly off topic I don't mind. But it relevant for the comment he made.