[CLUE-Tech] GPL loopholes

[Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier]

On Mon, 2003-07-21 at 06:58, Joe Linux wrote:
> I know for a fact that 
> many users have been frustrated with the RedHat user permissions problem 
> with KPPP.    I paid $50.00 plus to get a version of Linux which is more 
> user friendly to me.  I already had Redhat installed; and I had only 
> paid about $10.00 for the replica disks from Edmunds-Enterprises.  If I 
> had found it user friendly, or simple to fix, I would have stuck with it.  

You call it a permissions "problem," others call it security. If
Jeremiah's fix is correct (I haven't used dial-up in a loooong time, and
I prefer wvdial anyway...) then you have a solution. The point to
requiring the root password is security -- not to inconvenience you
personally, but to ensure that an admin does want people to be able to
dial out on a modem.

Perhaps on a home machine, it is an ideal setup not to require a root
password -- but RH9 is targeted at Web servers, DNS servers, etc --
machines that might just have a modem attached for whatever reason, but
aren't designed for single-user desktop use. Allowing a user to dial the
modem on machine may just be the backdoor needed to dial up another
machine, download a rootkit, and go to town or to move data off the
machine in some way -- for example, you might be able to wiggle around
firewall rules that prevent moving data outside the company network by
establishing a dial-up connection. 

In short -- there are valid security reasons not to allow user dial-up
without root authorization or some kind of intervention on behalf of the
root user. 

Should it be a point-and-click operation to give that ability to a
desktop user? Probably, but there is (apparently) a way to correct it
and I'm sure if the issue comes up often enough with Red Hat's core
audience, it would be changed. I suspect that a very large percentage of
Red Hat's desktop user base is made up of power-users who would rather
slide naked down a cactus than use dial-up, so it doesn't come up as
often as one might think. 

> This thread started out as a discussion of how some companies were 
> charging for Linux, while others were giving it away for free.  Libranet 
> is able to charge because users with more money than  brains find it to 
> be a good value for them.  Linux as a whole represents the singular 
> viable challenge to M$, yet unfortunately often falls short. 

Yes, well... as far as falling short, I think that's a bit harsh,
considering the mileage covered in a few short years, the progress that
has been made and what you're asking... People tend to get pissy after
accomplishing something really great, which I think the Linux vendors
and community have done and continue to do, and someone new to the party
comes along and says "oh, but it doesn't do this..." 

Basically, what many users seem to want is an MS clone they don't have
to pay for or put any effort into learning and they want it now and
whatever they don't understand, and are unwilling to look up, they
expect current users to hold their hand and/or do most of their
configuration for them. In short: Everything, free, now, no
responsibility, no learning, no thinking. Gimme.

> I've gone into some small computer shops here in Denver that specialize 
> in clone machines that they build themselves.  I have asked them if they 
> offer a ready to go Linux machine, and they don't.  These entrepreneurs 
> come up with the argument that Linux is too difficult to use and 
> support.  How do the "named by their parents" subscribers to this list 
> respond to that?

Well, I've found that a number of the entrepreneurs running small shops
really don't know diddly about Linux, but speak as if they've tons of
experience. (Read: I installed Red Hat once, didn't like it, but I'm
going to talk like an expert because I've fondled the install discs at
least once.) How many of these shops actually "support" Windows? I hear
the "support" argument all the time -- it's rubbish. First, good luck
getting support from Microsoft. Second, the support from OEMs isn't that
hot -- it's some kid reading from a script who would be lost if they
took the script away. Third, the same kid could just as easily "support"
a Linux distro if it were pre-loaded and the OEM standardized on one
distro, one window manager, one dialer, etc. Fourth, the small shops
don't really "support" Windows -- they'd go broke trying to provide
enough manpower to answer all the picayune little questions that come
with newbies using Windows as surely as they would if they tried to
"support" Linux. There's also the hardware issue -- lack of support for
a number of devices -- which is hardly the fault of Linux vendors or the
community. 

Take a person who isn't coming into the situation with a preconceieved
notion about computers -- ie, not someone who's learned the six icons
they need to run Windows who becomes confused if anything changes even
slightly from the MS Windows experience -- give them a computer that's
been set up with any decent Linux distro the same way it would be set up
from an OEM -- dialer ready to go, browser plugins pre-installed, etc.
and they'll just as comfortable with Linux as they would be with
Windows. 

> FWIW I use the name Joe Linux as in Joe Sixpack meaning I'm an average 
> Linux guy - not a Linux expert.  

FWIW, "Joe Linux" sounds like you're claiming to be an expert. I'd
expect that more people get the "Joe Cool" idea from "Joe Linux" than
"Joe Sixpack." I know that was my take on it. "Joe Linux, huh? This guy
must think he really knows his shit." Your intent might be to be the
"average guy" but I think a number of people on the list have taken it
as a declaration of competency. If you want to be generic, "Joe User"
would probably be more like what you say you're trying to achieve. 
 
FWIW, as someone with the given name "Joe" I'm bloody sick of it being
used as a generic term. (One of the reasons I mostly quit using my first
name for introductions a long time ago...) 

> I'm not hiding behind this name,  it 
> just happens to be my email address of personal choice - sort of like 
> my  sexual preference.  

You do know that email address !== name, right? You can use the e-mail
address "joelinux at earthlink.net" without putting "Joe Linux" in Mozilla
as your name. I don't think anyone is complaining about the e-mail
address, it's general grumbling about it being used as your name. 

> As far as I know, there is no rule on this list 
> or the Internet that you must use the name on your birth certificate as 
> your email name.  Even if there were such a rule, it would be difficult 
> to enforce because many people have the same birth name.

No, there isn't any rule about it, not on this list, anyway... I have to
agree, though, I prefer that people use their real name rather than an
alias. Yes, I know -- I go by "Zonker," which is a nickname (not an
alias) but my real name is also on the e-mail header, and anyone with
ten seconds and access to Google could look up quite a bit on who I am
and put some background to what I write here. 

And, anyone who runs into me at a CLUE meeting would know who I am when
I introduce myself -- whereas, if you say "hi I'm _____" at a meeting,
I'm not going to connect that to what you post. 

You're free to do what you want, of course, but it seems that there are
quite a few people who don't much care for the practice of using a
pseudonym on the list as opposed to your real name, George. They might
feel better if you had a sig with a link to a home page or something...
but that's really up to you. 

Zonker
-- 
Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier
jzb at dissociatedpress.net
Aim: zonkerjoe
http://www.dissociatedpress.net