.Map :: MoHAA Mapping

Rookie One.pl {sfx} wrote: *nixes need a +x file attribute to mark the file as executable. The file attributes need to be set by the user. Do the math.

Ok, i agree this is a cool and secure feature but and i didn't know about it. what about shell script files(sh files right?) or other files using an integrated executable to run it? The executable is already set to -x, does it has security about executing those scripts too? i'd like to know, really, as i don't know much about it.

i really know not much about linux features, i'd like to, but i don't like the fact here is soooo many version/distros and the fact you need to compile stuff yourself sometimes (many times?) if there are conflicts about kernell version, etc. I'm sure you can see my point on this. I just don't see Linux as being much user friendly.

I began using computers in 2000, having begun in the 80's or 90's, maybe i'd be a linux user, who knows. But in times where there is an easy system and a fairly complicated one, not everybody will have the patience to learn to run the second one, imo, and will choose something easier. I also think more cooperation, or some "standards", and a way to make things compatibles between versions would boost Linux popularity and use, but then, maybe linux users don't even want this, they won't have a thing to disagree on anymore. (yeah, i can be ironic sometimes, hehe, i'm kidding. )

I'm not an entry level Windows user, since i begun i didn't sat on my a** and use it without trying to know what's beneath, so i know much about tweaking my machine. The fact it can be used without having to be some kind of geek, no offence intended, is good for everyone, and yes, it brings complications and more security hole, it's a price to pay to make it a widerange use system.

If linux is to be used by as many users as Windows, i'm sure it'll become less secure, since it'll have to set thing automatically for the "common" users to have a better and easier experience. Maybe there's also a way to put wizards and all but, even a small wizard afraid people on windows so...

I don't think i'm ready for linux... or should i say, Linux is not ready for me yet, though it is for other people, i'm not closing the door on it, i always said i'd have a linux machine someday.

Deutsche Dogge wrote:

Rookie One.pl {sfx} wrote: *nixes need a +x file attribute to mark the file as executable. The file attributes need to be set by the user. Do the math.

Ok, i agree this is a cool and secure feature but and i didn't know about it. what about shell script files(sh files right?) or other files using an integrated executable to run it?

they also need +x

The executable is already set to -x, does it has security about executing those scripts too?

Nothing can protect from stupidity of user with too many permissions

i don't like the fact here is soooo many version/distros

just try the one's name you like

and the fact you need to compile stuff yourself sometimes (many times?)

it's not that hard. usually 3 commands: "./configure", "make" and "make install" (or "checkinstall", which I prefer)

if there are conflicts about kernell version

is there?

I just don't see Linux as being much user friendly.

"Linux is user-friendly, It's just picky about who its friends are"

Maybe there's also a way to put wizards

for me, Red Hat/Fedora wizards are much more comfortable than those in Windows...

I don't think i'm ready for linux... or should i say, Linux is not ready for me

IMHO it's your, not Linux problem

i dont recall ever worrying about version, compiling, distros, kernel version errors, or anything else that would normally be handled by the creators in Windows.

maybe if you like using a system that is actually pretty vulnerable (mor so than Windows i'd wager) that nobody has actually bothered cracking for yet where you have to do more work and get more errors..

i dunno, i'd rather use the computer, not fix the OS. when Linux can say it's as easy to install (and NOT have to do anything else) then maybe i'll try it again...

For installation, i have to disagree with you lizard.
I've done 2 Linux installations and both went without a problem.

First one was mandrake 8.1, boot on CD and install just like windows, even dual boot, very easy. Only thing i didn't like was to use the linux boot manager. Even after having deleted the partitions, because i didn't really liked the experience of linux itself at the time, and reallocated the space, the boot manager was there. i didn't like it then

Second was red hat, the last version they released, 9.2 i think. Using default setup settings makes it easy but I wanted to use the NT boot loader so i did a little search and quickly found some informations about how to do it, only with a dump command of the linux boot informations and a modification to the boot.ini. So installed it, dual booting with windows and using the NT boot loader, without much problem.

Now i have the dvd version of SuSe 9.1 Pro, it's the one i'll probably install when time comes, on this PC when a new one arrives.

All that's important is to verify you have compatible hardware.

Even if Linux would be more vulnerable and just less targeted (which is bullcrap), it still is safer to use it now.

My point with that Rookie, was that how can you know? if not many have starting targeting it yet, then how do you know? it's only a matter of time.

there is no perfect OS either :'( not Linux, not Windows, not Mac. nothing will ever be cracker-free.

(yes i did get it that it's safer now)

Because Linux is not an easy target.