Distrowatch reviews Puppy 525

News, happenings
Message
Author
User avatar
Lobster
Official Crustacean
Posts: 15522
Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 06:06
Location: Paradox Realm
Contact:

Distrowatch reviews Puppy 525

#1 Post by Lobster »

Puppy Raspup 8.2Final 8)
Puppy Links Page http://www.smokey01.com/bruceb/puppy.html :D

cthisbear
Posts: 4422
Joined: Sun 29 Jan 2006, 22:07
Location: Sydney Australia

#2 Post by cthisbear »

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.

User avatar
Lobster
Official Crustacean
Posts: 15522
Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 06:06
Location: Paradox Realm
Contact:

#3 Post by Lobster »

I enjoy Puppy too, and it's what I run exclusively on my netbook
I think it is a useful review pointing out many areas where we can improve. Puppy was never designed to be a full distro. That Puppy is moving up to that status shows how flexible and organic Puppy is. Having recently done a frugal install on a second machine, many of the difficulties pointed out were similar to my own experience. It is years since putting Puppy on hard disk and most distros have very simple installation procedures.

Considerable work has gone into this review and it is probably the most comprehensive I have read.

Quickpet is not as comprehensive as the Ubuntu alternative, even though we are attempting a high degree of compatibility. Most users are not able or willing to deal with dependencies.

The potential problems of flash and javascript access to our media are fair comments as these are the vulnerabilities in Linux phones and other distros.

I would like to see more such comprehensive evaluations and considered suggestions.

Basic facts shoul have been checked eg the first paragraph
Puppy Linux - the brainchild of Australian developer Barry Kauler - first made its appearance in 2006
Puppy first made its appearance in 2003
http://pupweb.org/wikka/HistoryPuppy
Last edited by Lobster on Mon 25 Apr 2011, 01:28, edited 1 time in total.
Puppy Raspup 8.2Final 8)
Puppy Links Page http://www.smokey01.com/bruceb/puppy.html :D

User avatar
rcrsn51
Posts: 13096
Joined: Tue 05 Sep 2006, 13:50
Location: Stratford, Ontario

#4 Post by rcrsn51 »

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

#5 Post by bugman »

rcrsn51 wrote: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?
sudo asks for a password

User avatar
rcrsn51
Posts: 13096
Joined: Tue 05 Sep 2006, 13:50
Location: Stratford, Ontario

#6 Post by rcrsn51 »

bugman wrote:sudo asks for a password
That makes sense. I guess that whenever I messed around with Ubuntu Live CDs, I never saw that happening.

Jasper

#7 Post by Jasper »

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?

User avatar
Luluc
Posts: 200
Joined: Wed 16 Mar 2011, 07:10

#8 Post by Luluc »

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

User avatar
Bernie_by_the_Sea
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2011, 18:14

#9 Post by Bernie_by_the_Sea »

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

Though you can run it as a live CD, you'll get more functionality by installing it.
Another option is whether or not you wish to do a "frugal" or "full" install. If you're installing on a hard drive, I'd suggest "full."
What more functionality? Personally I think a full install is a mistake unless one has a very hardware-limited machine which the reviewer didn’t have.

As always we have the matter of running as root:

Furthermore, the wisdom of running as root continues to haunt Puppy. In this era of online shopping and online banking, users expect ironclad security, and it should not require command-line hacks to get it. Discussion of this issue often gets heated, even rabid, turning into an all-consuming flamefest at times. I wish people wouldn't get so emotional about it, but it is what it is. I don't expect the raging debate to end any time soon.
Running as root, or spot, or Buntu Dummy, or Joe Blow, what more security for online shopping and online banking does one need other than secure HTTPS connections? What is feared? Keyloggers reporting back to the Mother Ship? The three banks I use regularly plus PayPal and my credit card companies guarantee no loss from using their online services. They don't care whether I'm using Linux or Windows or running without a firewall or running as root. One bank won't let me use Opera but that's okay since Opera can lie and say she's Firefox.

2byte
Posts: 353
Joined: Mon 09 Oct 2006, 18:10

#10 Post by 2byte »

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.


User avatar
Luluc
Posts: 200
Joined: Wed 16 Mar 2011, 07:10

#11 Post by Luluc »

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
Posts: 480
Joined: Sun 08 Jan 2006, 11:05
Location: California

#12 Post by Bligh »

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
Posts: 10369
Joined: Sun 29 Jun 2008, 19:05
Location: SwedenEurope

#13 Post by nooby »

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 :)

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? :)

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.
I use Google Search on Puppy Forum
not an ideal solution though

2byte
Posts: 353
Joined: Mon 09 Oct 2006, 18:10

#14 Post by 2byte »

nooby wrote:If TCL manage to have nonroot users and only using 11MB or so. How much would a non-root user take to be implemented?
My point exactly. I have read all about why it's OK ( and not ) to run Puppy as root. What I have never seen discussed is why not have full non-root users in Puppy.

Nooby, you can modify TCL to be similar to Puppy. Meaning it can be made to boot from grub or CD and use a persistent save file on Linux and ntfs partitions, but this is not the place to discuss that. And neither is the TCL forum :wink:


nooby
Posts: 10369
Joined: Sun 29 Jun 2008, 19:05
Location: SwedenEurope

#15 Post by nooby »

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.
I use Google Search on Puppy Forum
not an ideal solution though

ICPUG
Posts: 1308
Joined: Mon 25 Jul 2005, 00:09
Location: UK

#16 Post by ICPUG »

While 2byte has never seen the discussion it has been discussed and quite recently. You can find it here:
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=65070

As I pointed out to those who think it is an easy task to make Puppy non-root then have a look at Pizzasgood's instructions here:
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=47410

That should cure your enthusiasm!

It would seem it is not easy to MODIFY Puppy to be non root. It would be easier to start from scratch and design that way from the start.

Who is prepared to take it on?

As for the review. I fully agree with bernie-by-the-sea. Those two unsubstantiated quotes really spoilt it for me. Apart from them, the review is pretty good.

I sometimes think that Puppy should come with some notes for reviewers - to highlight that Puppy is different. To identify when it is best to use Live CD, Flash install, Frugal install and Full install and explain why. Then there would be no excuse for reviewers thinking it should be just like Ubuntu.
Last edited by ICPUG on Mon 18 Apr 2011, 18:40, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
MinHundHettePerro
Posts: 852
Joined: Thu 05 Feb 2009, 22:22
Location: SE

#17 Post by MinHundHettePerro »

Hello :)!

Don't know if you've already seen this other, slightly more unbalanced, "review" linked to from the comments' section of DWW :roll:. Click on the name of one of the most frequent (Canadian) posters there, and you'll be taken to the blog of someone experimenting to find his/her writing style, after watching far too many episodes of "the angry chef"-type of telly shows :roll:. Didn't really keep his/her own stick on the ice, there........

Don't shoot the messenger :wink:/ MHHP
[color=green]Celeron 2.8 GHz, 1 GB, i82845, many ptns, modes 12, 13
Dual Xeon 3.2 GHz, 1 GB, nvidia quadro nvs 285[/color]
Slackos & 214X, ... and Q6xx
[color=darkred]Nämen, vaf....[/color] [color=green]ln -s /dev/null MHHP[/color]

nooby
Posts: 10369
Joined: Sun 29 Jun 2008, 19:05
Location: SwedenEurope

#18 Post by nooby »

An extra space in an url makes text invisible. So that is odd :)
But now it works again thanks
Last edited by nooby on Mon 18 Apr 2011, 20:42, edited 1 time in total.
I use Google Search on Puppy Forum
not an ideal solution though

ICPUG
Posts: 1308
Joined: Mon 25 Jul 2005, 00:09
Location: UK

#19 Post by ICPUG »

Thanks nooby.

I've made my post visible again.

Glad you mentioned the reason. I didn't know about that peculiar quirk of the forum and I doubt I would have seen it without specifically looking for the blank space.

2byte
Posts: 353
Joined: Mon 09 Oct 2006, 18:10

#20 Post by 2byte »

ICPUG wrote:While 2byte has never seen the discussion it has been discussed and quite recently. You can find it here:
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=65070
Not only did I see it, I posted in it. Let me rephrase what I haven't seen.

Complete the following sentence:
Puppy should not have full non-root users because..

What are the reasons?

BTW, you don't need to convince me that it would be better to start from scratch with multi-user, which is why it will never happen in the 'official' release.


Post Reply