Run puppy as spot
- Bernie_by_the_Sea
- Posts: 328
- Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2011, 18:14
No, that is not what I said and you did not say “this forum.noryb009 wrote:So you are saying to not trust random pets from this forum? That leaves compiling everything yourself. Take green_dome's wine pets for example. Less then 100 posts by green_dome (less when green_dome started the thread). Does posting ~100 times make you trustworthy? (Just using green_dome as an example). This is more of an package management issue, which is another topic. What I was trying to point at is that it is easier to infect root then it is to infect a user (and keep it hidden from the user better).
Your security is already cracked before you load Puppy.
How many use phones in Wi-Fi hotspot?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/20 ... hones-risk
" Not only could the information be used to steal identities, hijack email accounts and commit fraud but also to gather information about individuals and company employees. With the information gained in our investigation, fraudsters could have bought goods online or sent multiple e-gift vouchers worth as much as £1,000 each to pre-set email addresses. It is believed that such vouchers are already being traded by crooks over the internet. '
/////////
Better if we developed a Hotspot Shield alternative.
http://hotspotshield.com/
Chris.
How many use phones in Wi-Fi hotspot?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/20 ... hones-risk
" Not only could the information be used to steal identities, hijack email accounts and commit fraud but also to gather information about individuals and company employees. With the information gained in our investigation, fraudsters could have bought goods online or sent multiple e-gift vouchers worth as much as £1,000 each to pre-set email addresses. It is believed that such vouchers are already being traded by crooks over the internet. '
/////////
Better if we developed a Hotspot Shield alternative.
http://hotspotshield.com/
Chris.
Chris thanks for those links but the Hotspotshield has this text.
quote
9. Third-Party Transactions.
9.1 Advertisements. AnchorFree may deliver third-party advertisements ("Advertisements") within the content of any web page accessed. Advertisements may be injected into the top of the page, inserted directly into the page content, or even displayed to overlay the page.
You hereby acknowledge and consent that AnchorFree may alter the content of any web page accessed for the purpose of displaying Advertisements.
Additionally from time to time, AnchorFree may prevent any user's access to the product or continued use thereof until such user has successfully participated in applicable advertising programs, surveys, or other activities that collect and monetize users' personal information.
AnchorFree does not endorse any information, materials, products, or services contained in or accessible through Advertisements.
...
/quote
I mean wow they "may" alter pages with content from their Third parties.
That is not something one want. They even say if one don't give them evidence that one read these then one are not shown what one wanted to read.
quote
9. Third-Party Transactions.
9.1 Advertisements. AnchorFree may deliver third-party advertisements ("Advertisements") within the content of any web page accessed. Advertisements may be injected into the top of the page, inserted directly into the page content, or even displayed to overlay the page.
You hereby acknowledge and consent that AnchorFree may alter the content of any web page accessed for the purpose of displaying Advertisements.
Additionally from time to time, AnchorFree may prevent any user's access to the product or continued use thereof until such user has successfully participated in applicable advertising programs, surveys, or other activities that collect and monetize users' personal information.
AnchorFree does not endorse any information, materials, products, or services contained in or accessible through Advertisements.
...
/quote
I mean wow they "may" alter pages with content from their Third parties.
That is not something one want. They even say if one don't give them evidence that one read these then one are not shown what one wanted to read.
I use Google Search on Puppy Forum
not an ideal solution though
not an ideal solution though
- Bernie_by_the_Sea
- Posts: 328
- Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2011, 18:14
Ok, you have all convinced me that running as root does not matter. As I said in the third post, "You may not want it, I might not want it, but some people do want it".
This is about adding a bit of security (some people feel it adds some, you have all proven them wrong) and giving *some* users what they want. Some people don't want to run as root. I don't see why we make them.
This is about adding a bit of security (some people feel it adds some, you have all proven them wrong) and giving *some* users what they want. Some people don't want to run as root. I don't see why we make them.
In any distro a person can damage or delete his user files.rcrsn51 wrote:Nobody is making anybody do anything. If someone doesn't want to run as root, they can get another Linux. It's as simple as that.noryb009 wrote:I don't see why we make them.
In a frugal install, periodic backups of the pupsave file are recommend.
Deleting or damaging system files would be hard. If the user thinks he
deleted them, it is only a virtual delete and easy to get them back.
Conversely, with conventional type installs, the system files can be
compromised or deleted.
~
This is one thing about linux - specialty. Puppy is one of the best supporters of old hardware, but it doesn't have user support. Debian has user support, but it only releases once every few years. Red Hat has tons of support, but it costs a yearly fee to use. The Canterbury Project was a step forward - and it was an April Fools joke!rcrsn51 wrote:Nobody is making anybody do anything. If someone doesn't want to run as root, they can get another Linux. It's as simple as that.noryb009 wrote:I don't see why we make them.
And the number of people who know this, without spending hours on this forum?rcrsn51 wrote:Or they can run their browser as non-root, if that makes them feel safer.
I've not heard Windows users complain about running as a privileged user.noryb009 wrote:And the number of people who know this [spot], without spending hours on this forum?
The Linux command adduser is fundamental. Spot is incidental. If you didn't
know about adduser, why not? Or maybe better asked, who's responsible?
~
- mickee
- Posts: 207
- Joined: Tue 08 Feb 2011, 14:59
- Location: Saskatoon SK Canada, Gateway 5300 Laptop, 600MHz Celeron, 384MB RAM, lucid puppy 5.2 (Full Install)
- Contact:
Exactly, for Pre Vista. On my Win 7 box, I run as a Standard User, and have my admin account when I need it. Being Windows, I find a (false) sense of security, in believing that things won't get by UAC or my eyes... but you know what? The nasties still get on my PC on rare occasions. I feel quite safe using puppy as root, and I do have browsesafe I use when I know I am going on a suspicious site.Bruce B wrote:I've not heard Windows users complain about running as a privileged user.noryb009 wrote:And the number of people who know this [spot], without spending hours on this forum?
[img]http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b68/The_Wizard_of_OZ/Lindows-NOT-1.jpg[/img]
Linux is [i][b]NOT[/b][/i] Windows. Doesn't [i][b]PRETEND[/b][/i] to be, Doesn't [i][b]WANT [/b][/i]to be; Don't try to [i][b]MAKE[/b][/i] it be.
Linux is [i][b]NOT[/b][/i] Windows. Doesn't [i][b]PRETEND[/b][/i] to be, Doesn't [i][b]WANT [/b][/i]to be; Don't try to [i][b]MAKE[/b][/i] it be.
I've heard Linux users complain about running as a privileged user.Bruce B wrote:I've not heard Windows users complain about running as a privileged user.noryb009 wrote:And the number of people who know this [spot], without spending hours on this forum?
The Linux command adduser is fundamental. Spot is incidental. If you didn't
know about adduser, why not? Or maybe better asked, who's responsible?
Of course, the new user who has never used linux before is to blame! How dare they use linux without knowing all the commands, syntax for the commands, and assembler?
- Bernie_by_the_Sea
- Posts: 328
- Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2011, 18:14
A person really should know the basic commands and the syntax for those commands (but not assembler) before using any operating system. When my wife finally got her own computer rather than sharing mine the first thing she did was buy a copy of Windows XP for Dummies and read it cover to cover. She learned some things I didn’t know after using Windows since 3.1. Anyone new to Linux should get something like Running Linux, Linux Pocket Guide or Linux for Dummies and read it cover to cover. If she doesn’t she will remain a Dummy.noryb009 wrote: Of course, the new user who has never used linux before is to blame! How dare they use linux without knowing all the commands, syntax for the commands, and assembler?
Although this forum treats Dummies well what it ends up with are Dummies who only know how to follow recipes -- follow steps 1, 2, 3 and 4 to accomplish A or do this and this and this to make your system do B. These Dummies then think they know how to do something in Puppy or worse yet in Linux and they’ll try it on a friend’s computer and destroy it because all they know is a recipe that works only on their own machine and their own software version.
Although this forum treats Dummies well what it ends up with are Dummies who only know how to follow recipes -- follow steps 1, 2, 3 and 4 to accomplish A or do this and this and this to make your system do B.
These Dummies then think they know how to do something in Puppy or worse yet in Linux and they’ll try it on a friend’s computer and destroy it because all they know is a recipe that works only on their own machine and their own software version.
Bernie is right on!
These Dummies then think they know how to do something in Puppy or worse yet in Linux and they’ll try it on a friend’s computer and destroy it because all they know is a recipe that works only on their own machine and their own software version.
Bernie is right on!
I use Google Search on Puppy Forum
not an ideal solution though
not an ideal solution though
- mickee
- Posts: 207
- Joined: Tue 08 Feb 2011, 14:59
- Location: Saskatoon SK Canada, Gateway 5300 Laptop, 600MHz Celeron, 384MB RAM, lucid puppy 5.2 (Full Install)
- Contact:
Guilty. (of being a Linux/Puppy dummy )Bernie_by_the_Sea wrote:
Although this forum treats Dummies well what it ends up with are Dummies who only know how to follow recipes -- follow steps 1, 2, 3 and 4 to accomplish A or do this and this and this to make your system do B. These Dummies then think they know how to do something in Puppy or worse yet in Linux and they’ll try it on a friend’s computer and destroy it because all they know is a recipe that works only on their own machine and their own software version.
[img]http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b68/The_Wizard_of_OZ/Lindows-NOT-1.jpg[/img]
Linux is [i][b]NOT[/b][/i] Windows. Doesn't [i][b]PRETEND[/b][/i] to be, Doesn't [i][b]WANT [/b][/i]to be; Don't try to [i][b]MAKE[/b][/i] it be.
Linux is [i][b]NOT[/b][/i] Windows. Doesn't [i][b]PRETEND[/b][/i] to be, Doesn't [i][b]WANT [/b][/i]to be; Don't try to [i][b]MAKE[/b][/i] it be.
- Lobster
- Official Crustacean
- Posts: 15522
- Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 06:06
- Location: Paradox Realm
- Contact:
Fido will save you
http://bkhome.org/blog/?viewDetailed=02240
http://bkhome.org/blog/?viewDetailed=02240
Lobster wrote:Fido will save you
http://bkhome.org/blog/?viewDetailed=02240
- Bernie_by_the_Sea
- Posts: 328
- Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2011, 18:14
Okay, to avoid letting Fido in the house we could try cleaning up spot.
Barry wants the "browser working perfectly in every respect. That would include GTK themes, SSL, font rendering, etc. Plus, a mechanism for downloading files outside of /root/spot is needed." He also wants "drag-and-drop browser to the desktop and other rox windows."
My spot browser system (that is a total of 26 bytes) works with drag-and-drop. I just copied it from /root/ to /usr/share and I can drag it to the desktop. My SeaMonkey fonts in spot look fine. How is font rendering tested? Mine is not using my GTK theme -- I'll look at that. SSL? How is this tested? SSL for what? Internet banking? Web hosting? Privacy? Security? Downloads outside of /root/spot? It looks like that might cancel browser-in-spot security.
^
Barry wants the "browser working perfectly in every respect. That would include GTK themes, SSL, font rendering, etc. Plus, a mechanism for downloading files outside of /root/spot is needed." He also wants "drag-and-drop browser to the desktop and other rox windows."
My spot browser system (that is a total of 26 bytes) works with drag-and-drop. I just copied it from /root/ to /usr/share and I can drag it to the desktop. My SeaMonkey fonts in spot look fine. How is font rendering tested? Mine is not using my GTK theme -- I'll look at that. SSL? How is this tested? SSL for what? Internet banking? Web hosting? Privacy? Security? Downloads outside of /root/spot? It looks like that might cancel browser-in-spot security.
^
Last edited by Bernie_by_the_Sea on Sat 30 Apr 2011, 15:51, edited 1 time in total.
I think gmail uses SSL; it will probably work in Spot. Fonts generally get installed to /usr/share/fonts, so will need permissions. I use msttcorefonts, so would have to place them somewhere else to work with SPOT.Bernie_by_the_Sea wrote:Okay, to avoid letting Fido in the house we could try cleaning up spot.
Barry wants the "browser working perfectly in every respect. That would include GTK themes, SSL, font rendering, etc. Plus, a mechanism for downloading files outside of /root/spot is needed." He also wants "drag-and-drop browser to the desktop and other rox windows."
My spot browser system (that is a total of 26 bytes) works with drag-and-drag. I just copied it from /root/ to /usr/share and I can drag it to the desktop. My SeaMonkey fonts in spot look fine. How is font rendering tested? Mine is not using my GTK theme -- I'll look at that. SSL? How is this tested? SSL for what? Internet banking? Web hosting? Privacy? Security? Downloads outside of /root/spot? It looks like that might cancel browser-in-spot security.