Announcing the OBVIOUS: Puppy, Replacement - WinXP/Vista/7/8

[mikeb]

http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=92543
this shows a complete lack of understanding of security or operating systems in general...please do not further mislead anyone.

I don't profess to be an expert...only reporting my personal experiance..you should stick to that.

mike

[jpeps]

http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=92543
this shows a complete lack of understanding of security or operating systems in general...please do not further mislead anyone.

I don't profess to be an expert...only reporting my personal experiance..you should stick to that.

mike

I think you make two excellent points here. Maybe it would be to everyone's advantage to post supportive articles from experts on the security advantages of running windows without updates and without antivirus protection.

[mikeb]

I think you make two excellent points here. Maybe it would be to everyone's advantage to post supportive articles from experts on the security advantages of running windows without updates and without antivirus protection.

I hope you realised my last post was not a reply to yours

Hmm well there are sites with info on the changes I made, BUT I don't think I recall saying that there are any security advantages in not updating or running antivirus.
What I did say is that by removing or disabling certain items I appear to not require updates or antivirus. Without those items I have run for 10 years without any intrusions...that suggests a decent level of security but yet I have not taken any security measures. By not utilising such things I do get a benefit in terms of how well the system runs.... no start up or shutdown delays, no performance hit with drive scanning and heavy cpu/memory usage and in the long term less wear and tear on the hard drive and battery if portable and systems that run as well as the day they were installed.

When I first removed IE on windows 98 I went from a system that needed rebooting every 30 minutes and was pretty unuseable on the internet to something fast and reliable within the constrains of 16 bit DOS...security was just a side benefit at the time...removing insecure software would be more akin to the nature of what was done....some consider Outlook Express as a virus spreading program..I certainly do having had it do exactly that to me.

I can only draw comparisions...I appear to enjoy the same level of immunity as using say puppy as root...many here run in a considered dangerous manner and have yet to have their first encounter with malware. This again is not quantifiable and no one suggests this is a security measure ... it just seems to be as it is. (note I never started using Linux for security reasons...only out of curiosity)

If a mechanism for virus intrusion is removed or simply not present in the first place then adding additional protection seems mute. There is no harm in terms of security in doing so...thats up to the user.
If I was running a public server or cybercafe then additional steps would be prudent since you are either high profile on the net or at the mercy of strangers.
I have never taken any steps with regard to additional security when running linux...I regard it as inherently safe..so do others...I suspect so do you. I also never had to when running NT4.

Not exactly a technical reference but might be of interest to some
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of ... t_Explorer

mike

[greengeek]

Some of the most persistent security threats began life as tools from the intelligence community (Mossad, CIA etc etc) and operate less at the OS level and more on programmes such as Word etc.

http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/advance ... ew-normal/

[jpeps]

Some of the most persistent security threats began life as tools from the intelligence community (Mossad, CIA etc etc) and operate less at the OS level and more on programmes such as Word etc.

http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/advance ... ew-normal/

Scary to think you need their patch assessment tools. I'd be more convinced hearing it from an independent source.

"Even though the "A" in APT stands for Advanced, 91% of the boody-trapped documents in our reports from January and February 2014 would have been rendered harmless by just two Microsoft patches, issued two and four years ago."

[gcmartin]

Ideas that you feel would make PUPPY have the base functions that allows a user to have an OOTB experience on in Puppy subsystems to make a comfortable mapping of PUPs for new Linux users on an existing MS or MAC network.

BTW Samba is NOT just MS compatibility. It is MACs also. In either of those PC NO SOFTWARE NEED BE INSTALLED to share content created. If these new people come to Puppyland and all of their family members on their home LANs are using PCs which "fully talk" to each other OOTB, why would you find it comfortable to suggest that "they" install, define-configure something on each PC just to talk to their first Linux PC??? I know that post intends to mean well, but, we really must consider that changing how you approach your whole LAN just to accomodate a single Puppy is probably not the best we can do for them. If Puppy came equipped, there is NO need to install anything anywhere to share content. I think you might agree.

The task we could address is what need be in the OOTB where any new user to Puppy would have most everything one has in the base system from those 2 vendors of LAN based PC?

I understand that there are reasons we may not like those vendors, but, I am hoping we can do/suggest some things that can be included so that any of those user stepping into Puppy will find similar software and attributes which match what he had in vendor software.

To that the degree, we could be providing one of the best experiences for Win/MAC users to migrate with a complete mapping as best we can such that they do NOT have to install anything in order to have an initial useful experience.

From my current view of what is accomplished in 64bit system, they are mostly there (in Lighthouse's case, that distro even includes a mechanism for making system fixes available to its desktop users). In 32bit Puppy distros, We are close but missing a couple items that the 64bit developers are providing OOTB

We are so close....am I right?

[mikeb]

bend to the wind as the MACs have then... make it slim and user friendly... go ahead..... the kernel implementation seems the neatest though libsambaclient et al is still hanging around.

By the way the professional versions of windows include NFS....not sure what the MACs include though it is a Unix derivative. The NFS for other windows is supplied free by microsoft...services for unix... of which NFS is a small part and can be installed independantly. It gives a transparent NFS experience following the same user interface that samba does.

On a general note Internet Explorer and .net is included .... they amount to a huge pile of files and not something I would have around so just cos a system comes packaged with certain software does not necessarily make it the best choice.

mike

[gcmartin]

One way of expressing Puppy to those who would be looking to get into LInux is that this community supports it users by listening and providing guidance in things necessary to accomplish objectives. This is a key component of the value of Puppy Linux over MACs and Windows PCs.

There is no reason why, with a minor corrected distro base, this platform could not become a defacto standard with many more people running to become community members. I am referring to a excellent complete desktop with same-similar comparable OOTB functionality. The major benefit to PUPs is performance

I think...

[greengeek]

If you were trying to build a puppy that appealed as a replacement for XP, then surely it would have to be a very 'fat' puppy - complete with the ability to 'self-update' browsers etc.

Would it still be a real puppy? Isn't a real puppy lean enough that it REQUIRES the user to learn how to groom it? Isn't that one of the things that makes puppy useful - the fact that it DOESN'T do everything automatically, and requires the user to fine tune it... Isn't that how puppy becomes lean and mean?

If puppy is going to be a replacement for XP refugees, then which puppies are the closest to meeting that standard so far? Phat Slacko?

Would there be value in starting a thread specifically targeted at fine tuning 'one' 32 bit puppy and 'one' 64 bit puppy in such a way as to offer a couple of specific pups to replace XP32 and XP64?

[mikeb]

Hmm well samba TNG looks smaller... but a simple to use all in samba ability would be nice , if not built in then a neat package.
I also think NFS should be the built in option rather than the awkward ftp since the latter is not well equipped for streaming and NFS is tiny to fit the puppy way of doing things...lighthouse does this I notice.

Also bear in mind puppy is primarily a live ram loading distro so no frills is the norm though at least a samba client is normally provided.

mike

[mavrothal]

If you were trying to build a puppy that appealed as a replacement for XP, then surely it would have to be a very 'fat' puppy - complete with the ability to 'self-update' browsers etc.

Would it still be a real puppy?

I think it could be a puppy.
You start with something like LXpup with a 3.2 or 3.4 kernel (for older hardware - XP running machines should be 4-10 years old). The you add a decent LXDE theme like Lubuntu XP. Then you add an adrv with your "fat" apps.
The advantage of the design is that will load the primary SFS in memory in machines with up to 786MB RAM and both primary and ardv in machines with 1GB+ RAM so will always feel snappy and will not take too long to boot.

Isn't a real puppy lean enough that it REQUIRES the user to learn how to groom it? Isn't that one of the things that makes puppy useful - the fact that it DOESN'T do everything automatically, and requires the user to fine tune it... Isn't that how puppy becomes lean and mean?

Do not wary. There is no linux OS that does not need grooming...

The biggest problem I see though with windows users is
a) expecting a windows look-like OS presented to them as an XP alternative, to be identical to windows down to app selection and app names. If they are to learn new tricks then the options are endless.
b) the very short support cycle of Linux. These people are used to have an OS supported for 5-13 years. Most of the distros do not live that long, let alone their OS versions. Even when they do is likely to brake something every 6 months even in the LTS OS versions.
c) running as root without antivirus etc. These people are trained to be scared of viruses, hacking etc. They are also used to a system much more forgiving to user mistakes (when not admin).

So, apologies if I burst the bubble, but I do not see XP users that 7 years now and after the appearance of 4 new windows versions, still run XP, to flock to linux no matter what.
Did not happen in the Vista era either when the entire Linux world tried (albeit very poorly) to coral them.

That being said I do think that a fat XP look alike puppy, would be awesome even if it does not get any ex-XP users.

[gcmartin]

Considering what @Mavrothal has offered and what @GreenGeek asks, I think a couple things are good for a PUP.

@Mavrothal provides a very good suggestion that we should NOT be specifically aiming at expressing "XP" as what is offered from Puppyland. It would be in the best interest of to express that some given PUP can provide a Windows/MAC users most of the same services that they are accustomed to.

One member several years ago feels that because PUPPY does NOT run Windows programs, that, Puppy was NOT deserving of any title of Windows replacement. I disagree. MACs can be regarded as a Windows PC replacement and vice-versa. Reason: Each platform has a common out of the box set of services and this OOTB is what allow users to have a comfortable start in the system's use. By that same token, Puppy offers a matching set of base services which as a Windows or Mac user expects. By Puppy doing so, this, in my view, makes it a system that allow any Windows or MAC users to use the system for their individual benefit.

For what @GreenGeek asks, yes, there are a couple of candidates that would need very little to qualify as a replacement where little to nothing would need to be added for them to match common services to a user new to LInux. Yes, as you suggest, PhatSlacko (32bit) and LightHouse (64bit) are excellent candidates.

But, each of them are missing some very simple tweaking that would round out there functionality which would advance them to today's, 2014, requirement. I think they each need to address MTP and I think their SAMBA which is version 4+ should be made current as some additions have been added to position it for the future potential of managing smartDevices as well as PCs on the LAN. (Although, for a push to present something, I would think that SAMBA updating could wait).

Lastly, it has been mentioned about system updates that Windows-MAC users see from time to time. As I understand it (and please correct me if I've missed something) Barry has a system feature which allows notification of service fixes to be "pushed" to Pups. This, in turn, allows the system user to let the system "pull" the service to the PUP. This is a high-level of my understanding. I have seen this occur in one of BarryK's PUPs and also, I have seen it used in LightHouse. So, the ability to make service to an existing distro available, it appears one can assume that the technology may already be in Puppy Linux distros. I am sure I am not the only one who has seen this occur.

There are a few distro which are stable enough and have good equivalent functionality that the community to make plain to new users and the combined knowledge exist to guide new users to easily and quickly become comfortable in a Puppy doghouse ("a particular distro").

The 2 I've mention more nearly match the breath of Windows and MACs, subsystems vs subsystems without a need to change the desktop.

The PUP is NOT required to "look" like a MAC or a Windows XP as long as it provides the apparent Menu to make it easy for new users to find thing they are accustomed to.

Further, Puppy already has a plethora of videos which guides some in use of a PUP system for many things a new user would want.

We could also, without too much effort, come up with some steering documentation for assisting any new user either via the PUP itself or via the forum.

We are there in distro offering ... almost. Now the real task is something creative to let Windows user KNOW that Puppy Linux is a excellent alternative to Windows offering much in the way of what they are accustomed to.

On Another Note
BTW, both Lighthouse and PhatSlacko comes with LibreOffice built in. One of them strips out the Abiword collection defaults.

We, this community, as we go forward should begin to understand the MAJOR DIFFERENCE between an ISO size and RAM use. Many member haven't pause to even try to understand this. For years, this has gone on far too long. We are dealing with PCs for the last 10 years that have far more RAM than is needed for the PUPs I mention in this post.

OK. That being said: ...Now back "on theme".

Your additional thoughts, ideas, insights, comments and of course, recommendations of a set of steps we can rallye around.

[rufwoof]

Windows XP mix up http://tinyurl.com/p35mcdc

[jpeps]

Would it still be a real puppy? Isn't a real puppy lean enough that it REQUIRES the user to learn how to groom it? Isn't that one of the things that makes puppy useful - the fact that it DOESN'T do everything automatically, and requires the user to fine tune it... Isn't that how puppy becomes lean and mean??

Of course. You don't want to replace XP, you want to create an alternative for people who like to do things differently, such as take charge of their own computers*. Obviously, you'll need a windows product to run specific programs that will never be available for linux. The only reason linux is more secure, is that most people don't use it.

Replacement candidate? Android is doing a fairly good job.

I use ftp extensively, because it's easy to write simple scripts that backup and restore all my files to an external server with it. Increasingly, I'm using services like dropbox to move files between all my computers/devices. There are also secure and highly developed services like VNC. There are now cloud printing alternatives to cups (I prefer cups).

* The beauty of Puppy comes alive with the use of languages. Bash scripting, TCL-TK, sqlite for databases, gtkdialog, etc, etc.

[mikeb]

Hi... I was hoping to go quiet but ...well you know

The only reason linux is more secure, is that most people don't use it.

myth... its worth learning about browser integration, active x dcom and the adverse effect it had the security of the operating system.

Replacement candidate? Android is doing a fairly good job.

I rejected a device recently as we have a ton of creative software that requires windows and I saw nothing that came close to it on android.

dropbox...have you played with dropbox uploader bash script...if not it might be right up your street.

mike

[jpeps]

dropbox...have you played with dropbox uploader bash script...if not it might be right up your street.

mike

Built it into my apps, and put it into the menu. Great for moving from data amongst computers and devices.

I rejected a device recently as we have a ton of creative software that requires windows and I saw nothing that came close to it on android.

I'm more interested in exploring new functionality vs replicating what already works well. The quality and quantity of available applications, however, is nothing short of phenomenal and rapidly moving into the serious business arena.

myth... its worth learning about browser integration, active x dcom and the adverse effect it had the security of the operating system.

All bets are off with an unsecure browser for any OS. Same holds true for unprotected sex.

[mikeb]

If you understood the structure of the IE 'browser ' you would not be calling it a browser...its worth getting familiar and understand how its insecurity model has nothing to do with web browsers as stand alone programs.

thats over use of the word browser so heres some more...

comparing IE to any other browser comes under the apples and pears heading in terms of system security.

All browsers have potential security leaks.... IE on the other hand is merely a part of an integrated internet connected desktop system with fundamental security flaws in its design that can never be fully addressed.

I only stress this as its core to the understanding of what we are all dealing with (or not ) when it comes to safeguarding our machines on the internet.

I only came across the information on a journey from miserable windows existance like everyone else to it ceasing to be a problem. So did others mis inform me as if so its uncanny how i have survived this long based on flawed data.

anyway... there is a house to repaint so time to leave such matters back under the rug....


mike

[jpeps]

comparing IE to any other browser comes under the apples and pears heading in terms of system security.

I think that's certainly apropos for this thread, "Announcing the OBVIOUS."
There are probably many excellent reasons not to use IE, but it's been well over a decade since I've heard anyone discussing it.

edit: Maybe not...I think I recall hearing the tail end of some show on NPR where someone claimed that IE isn't really as bad as people think it is.

[rufwoof]

If a mechanism for virus intrusion is removed or simply not present in the first place then adding additional protection seems mute .... I have never taken any steps with regard to additional security when running linux...I regard it as inherently safe..so do others...I suspect so do you

That's the wrong way to think about it IMO. Reverse it completely and assume any system to have been breached and be insecure.

A fortress is only as strong as its weakest point. Have a look at just one instance of a single browser and its historic versions and the potential weaknesses that existed at one point or another http://www.mozilla.org/security/known-v ... oxESR.html. I'm not specifically suggesting that browser to be bad, just using it as one example only. Similar risks can equally have existed for all other programs .. of which there are ... many.

All it takes is for one breach at one point in time that perhaps let it a small program. Let's assume a simple wget type program that sends out a 'I'm here, what command would you like me to try' request, receives something back from the external server and then tries that code .... repeatedly asking and trying. I'd sugget within less than a minute it could have identified the operating system and installed something more disguised and permanent. Virus checkers can only test and remove known virus/trogans. Potentially for each known virus/trogan there could be a unknown virus/trogan, sitting deeply within a system and heavily disguised.

Linux is not imune to such threats, or more cleverer threats. As such it should be considerd as open as any other system. The best defence is to treat a private PC as being as open as a public PC and not store anything you wouldn't mind being made public, nor use it to connect to banking/financial systems. For banking - use a fresh read only (single session DVD) image of the operating system (with firewall) and browser, power down the PC, power up again and boot to that fresh image, only connect directly with the banks system (i.e. don't browse elsewhere before or after), perform the transactions and power down again and reboot into a normal session. Puppy is great for that as you can create a bootable CD just for that purpose, you could even recompile from source code to do that if you desired (but that is perhaps extreme). To a large extent is doesn't matter if the op system or browser is old/weak as there is little opportunity to exploit weaknesses when used in that manner (so you don't have to repeatedly recreate new boot DVD's - but obviously its worth doing so once in a while).

The latest windows versions that (generally) lock out booting from USB or DVD as a claimed security mechanism is rubbish. The enclosed system will be exposed to exploits and be breached relatively easily which totally negates that boot device security - and worst still makes alternative security measures such as booting a clean DVD puppy/browser a less viable option.

[greengeek]

The latest windows versions that (generally) lock out booting from USB or DVD as a claimed security mechanism is rubbish. The enclosed system will be exposed to exploits and be breached relatively easily which totally negates that boot device security

Exactly - UEFI seems to me to be an ironclad, rock solid way to boot an insecure system. Not for me thanks.