Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Best Linux Distros of 2016

linux.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 91 posts

Re: The Best Linux Distros of 2016

#81

Post by nycticorax »

ZenoArrow wrote: post #65
nycticorax wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you, that's why Canonical did what they did. It's also why Gnome 3 is the way it is, and why Windows 8 was the way it was. But to me, it feels like a huge mistake in all cases. I use my desktop all day. I want an experience tailored to the desktop, not some compromise experience that's not-too-bad on the desktop and not-too-bad on a touch device. All these orgs made this huge bet that you could make a on…

Yes, the Gnome 3 and Windows 8 user interfaces went down this route as well. Going back to Unity, whilst I have only used it in passing, based on that experience I can't think of a feature that I'd miss from a more 'traditional' desktop interface. The only minor things I found jarring were the online search results in desktop search (which I believe has been disabled in 16.04) and a slightly clunky look to the search…

It's been a while since I used Unity, but as I recall it uses a global menu (yuk), it lacks a window list (which I like), and Alt-Tab works in a per-application, not a per-window, basis. And I think it does the Mac thing where clicking on a launcher icon either activates the app or launches it. I generally want the launcher icon to launch a new window, no matter what.

It's also, IMHO, ugly as heck out of the box.

Re: The Best Linux Distros of 2016

#82

Post by nycticorax »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #67
nycticorax wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I know about that. Certainly, not a proud moment in Mint's history, but it got resolved quickly. But I'm not going to rule out Mint just because they got hacked once. kernel.org got hacked, after all.

They basically had no effort in their security, no idea how long they were compromised, and couldnt even respond effectively. I was a big fan of Mint usability who reluctantly had to ditch it.

None of these statements are correct.

Re: The Best Linux Distros of 2016

#83

Post by nycticorax »

Aldo_MX wrote: post #60
nycticorax wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I know about that. Certainly, not a proud moment in Mint's history, but it got resolved quickly. But I'm not going to rule out Mint just because they got hacked once. kernel.org got hacked, after all.

You are failing to read the "thoroughly discussion", the hack was just the tip of the iceberg. Also, kernel.org was hacked because a rootkit gained access to their servers, not because they used a weak password like `upMint`, so you shouldn't compare both incidents.

No, I read all of the "thorough" discussion. I found it unconvincing.

Re: The Best Linux Distros of 2016

#84

Post by willisbueller »

pvinis wrote: post #40
willisbueller wrote: post #8

arch linux ARM over yocto? come on.

I have never heard of yocto. Could you quickly explain why you prefer it to Arch ARM?

Arch ARM is basically a ready-to-go distro. Choose your board (if it's supported, download images, and burn them). Which sounds great, but in the embedded world, that gets kinda limiting very quickly. Using binaries on boards can suck. Pulling down random bootloaders off the internet and hoping one works isn't fun, and god forbid you need to debug the bootloader, now you need a compatible toolchain which you don't have.

In contrast to something like Buildroot, which is a set of config files and dependency matching scripts that allows you to compile your own tool chain, and build your custom software with the same tooling you compiled your target uboot/rootfs/kernel on. Buildroot was great for being able to compile your boot loaders, kernels, rootfs, apps... and it was simple to use. But supporting multiple boards deploying the same programs was difficult, and moving up versions of the kernel and things like that was also difficult.

Enter yocto. The sweet sweet glory of yocto. Yocto defines a common base layer of configuration scripts and uses a system called bitbake to build your recipes. (bitbake emerged from portage). On top of that base layer you add layers you need. A lot of arm manufacturers are in the openembedded alliance (which yocto is built on top of) so you'll find git repos from them supported just about every chip and SoC they make. so you pull that layer in. Then you browse the yocto repos for other layers you need to pull in, as well as develop your own layers containing your code. Cross-compilation is a snap, and most interestingly: their developer mode which puts you in a shell with a correctly configured environment so you can debug build breaks while cross compiling is amazing (and git aware)). So it's pluses are -tremendous board support -easy ability to migrate to boards that aren't supported (as easy as it can be anyhow) - ability to put your product code in one layer and just drag it into multiple yocto projects utilizing different board support layers allowing you to easily maintain your product on different processors. - It's the cleanest system I've seen that does what it does. And by cleanest, I mean a pretty big jump over it's predecessors into something unlike anything I'd ever seen in the embedded world. - It does have a harder learning curve than something like buildroot, which has a harder learning curve over something like Arch ARM (where Arch ARM supports your exact SoC)

Re: The Best Linux Distros of 2016

#85

Post by nycticorax »

symtos wrote: post #72
nycticorax wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you elaborate on this? I know many people have security concerns about Mint, but I've never found their arguments entirely convincing. the opinion of the Mint devs seems to be that there's a stability vs. security tradeoff, and that Ubuntu chose one point on the spectrum, while Mint chose another. And that for a typical desktop machine sitting behind a router without a lot of ports open (or behind a corporate f…

stability /or/ security? because a box running code with bugs that may result in a thwarted control flow is the pinnacle of stability? your firewall won't help against socket re-use; and most configs won't stop connect-backs since they allow unfiltered outbound access to quite a few destination ports

Certainly, lack of security can lead to lack of stability. But sometimes Ubuntu makes changes that can render your machine unbootable, in the name of security. And in some cases the Mint devs chose not to make those changes. There's nothing obviously wrong about this, it's just a different trade-off.

Your points about socket re-use and connect-backs may well be true, but they miss the larger point. How much security is enough? Your computer is less vulnerable if you air-gap it. Do you do this? Likely not, because that's inconvenient. The Mint devs sacrifice some (not much, it seems to me, but some) security for convenience. Maybe you don't like the tradeoffs they made. Fine. But saying some blanket statement like "Mint is insecure" is just silly. It's like saying "Connecting your computer to the Internet is insecure." Yeah, there's some truth to it, but it also ignores the fact that sometimes it makes sense to trade some security for convenience.

Re: The Best Linux Distros of 2016

#86

Post by nickpsecurity »

nycticorax wrote: post #82
nickpsecurity wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They basically had no effort in their security, no idea how long they were compromised, and couldnt even respond effectively. I was a big fan of Mint usability who reluctantly had to ditch it.

None of these statements are correct.

These are the statements of the security people here that were going tgrough the data. The level of severity and recovery time supported thrur claims a bit.

Re: The Best Linux Distros of 2016

#87

Post by nycticorax »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #86
nycticorax wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of these statements are correct.

These are the statements of the security people here that were going tgrough the data. The level of severity and recovery time supported thrur claims a bit.

> They basically had no effort in their security,

This is clearly hyperbole. "no effort"? C'mon.

> no idea how long they were compromised, and couldnt even respond effectively.

The hacked .iso was up for less than 24 hrs, so that puts a hard limit on the worst part of the compromise. The forum issues they fixed in a couple of days. This seems like a reasonably effective response to me.

> I was a big fan of Mint usability who reluctantly had to ditch it.

Did you really have to ditch it? Or did you just decide to go with a distro that emphasizes security over convenience? (Which is, of course, a completely reasonable thing to do, but others may make other (also reasonable) choices.)

Re: The Best Linux Distros of 2016

#88

Post by nickpsecurity »

nycticorax wrote: post #87
nickpsecurity wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are the statements of the security people here that were going tgrough the data. The level of severity and recovery time supported thrur claims a bit.

> They basically had no effort in their security, This is clearly hyperbole. "no effort"? C'mon. > no idea how long they were compromised, and couldnt even respond effectively. The hacked .iso was up for less than 24 hrs, so that puts a hard limit on the worst part of the compromise. The forum issues they fixed in a couple of days. This seems like a reasonably effective response to me. > I was a big fan of Mint usabi…

I recall my initial data on the situation was in link and comments here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11142986

The hacker who's comment is number one should tell you what level of security they have going on.

Re: The Best Linux Distros of 2016

#89

Post by nycticorax »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #88
nycticorax wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They basically had no effort in their security, This is clearly hyperbole. "no effort"? C'mon. > no idea how long they were compromised, and couldnt even respond effectively. The hacked .iso was up for less than 24 hrs, so that puts a hard limit on the worst part of the compromise. The forum issues they fixed in a couple of days. This seems like a reasonably effective response to me. > I was a big fan of Mint usabi…

I recall my initial data on the situation was in link and comments here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11142986 The hacker who's comment is number one should tell you what level of security they have going on.

So... The ultimate source of the breach was an exceedingly weak password? OK, I guess that does seem like a rookie mistake, which is worrisome. Sorry for the naive questions, and I apologize for my confrontational tone. But I really had read most of the referenced articles about the Mint hack (not that last one you linked to), and it was still not obvious to me that this was (apparently) incontrovertible evidence of total incompetence on the part of the Mint devs.

Also, is ryanlol a well-known hacker or something? (I had never heard of him.)

Re: The Best Linux Distros of 2016

#90

Post by nickpsecurity »

nycticorax wrote: post #89
nickpsecurity wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recall my initial data on the situation was in link and comments here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11142986 The hacker who's comment is number one should tell you what level of security they have going on.

So... The ultimate source of the breach was an exceedingly weak password? OK, I guess that does seem like a rookie mistake, which is worrisome. Sorry for the naive questions, and I apologize for my confrontational tone. But I really had read most of the referenced articles about the Mint hack (not that last one you linked to), and it was still not obvious to me that this was (apparently) incontrovertible evidence of…

It's all good. We were both going on biased sources. That's why I waited for some kind of independent confirmation. ryanlol claims to be the Finnish hacker that hit hundreds of companies or whatever. Backs up the claim a bit by showing up with more "hands-on evidence" of his assessments as in Mint situation. ;) I wasn't sure if he was saying that was the source of the breach or that they weren't practicing even a checklist amount of security. In latter case, source could be anything. It didn't matter enough to evaluate further as it was clear they weren't systematically working on their security.

I went back to modifying Ubuntu for the Mint use-cases since they do combine usability and at least attempts on their security.

Post reply on HN