Richmond Mathewson wrote:
Takes about 10-15 minutes and is really very thought provoking:
http://www.osnews.com/story/24803/The_Sins_of_Ubuntu
It's an odd choice of a title for an article that largely says that
Ubuntu is doing well in nearly every category he discusses with only a
few exceptions, and those exceptions are more understandable with a
little background.
For example, one of these exceptions in the article is:
It Doesn't Install Secured
Comparative studies and vendors alike confirm that Linux has
a superior track record as a secure operating system. Ubuntu
upholds this great tradition. You'd be hard-pressed to find
evidence of malware infections in the Ubuntu community.
But does Ubuntu install as secure as it could, right out of
the box? Surprisingly, no.
Take the default firewall as an example. In version 10.x, the
Uncomplicated Firewall, or UFW, installs as Disabled. You'd
think such a fundamental security tool as a firewall would
default to Enabled. Or failing that, that the installation
panels would give you a checkbox for enabling it.
With all due respect to the author, it seems he doesn't understand
either Ubuntu or its firewall.
This post from the Ubuntu forum explains it well:
You don't need a personal firewall running on your computer.
A default install of Ubuntu does not listen for incoming
connections. You'd only need a firewall if you installed
some software that listens (or if you enabled Remote Desktop)
and DIDN'T want anyone to be able to connect outside your
own computer.
Besides, your broadband modem probably already has a NAT
firewall built-in anyway.
Windows requires firewalling because it ships with services
enabled that listen for incoming connections, and attackers
can take over those services and use them to get access to
your computer. Ubuntu doesn't come with any gaping security
holes like that, so you don't need the firewall.
<http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=10139529&postcount=5>
You can verify this using ShieldsUp, a web diagnostic tool for port
scanning available here:
<http://www.grc.com>
The other two exceptions to his explanation of how he feels Ubuntu
generally does a good job are related to drivers.
While I wouldn't mind seeing Canonical invest in making drivers, given
the dizzying variety of hardware out there and the challenges of working
with so many vendors, some of whom feel their firmware is proprietary, I
can hardly blame Ubuntu for not being 100% compatible with all devices
in the world.
On the contrary, Ubuntu runs on far more machines that one can install
Windows on out-of-the-box.
It's easy to forget that part of the OEM bundling that often occurs with
Windows includes the manufacturer's alteration of the default install to
include their own custom drivers.
This is why a new PC comes with a restore CD. If instead you tried to
restore a PC using an off-the-shelf copy of Windows, in many cases it
would fail because it won't be able to obtain the custom drivers.
All in all, the title is the only scary part of the article. The rest
offers a good explanation of why and how Ubuntu is as it is, and the
author seems to feel it's doing rather well.
--
Richard Gaskin
Fourth World
LiveCode training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com
Webzine for LiveCode developers: http://www.LiveCodeJournal.com
LiveCode Journal blog: http://LiveCodejournal.com/blog.irv
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
