Canonical reveals plans to launch Mir display server (The H) [LWN.net]

Canonical reveals plans to launch Mir display server (The H)

Posted Mar 6, 2013 3:19 UTC (Wed) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]

> What a lame excuse ! ... now the apps that a user can install are a "security" concern ??...

This is always been true. If you want to secure the OS the first step is to reduce it's functionality as much as practical.

> while Linux will tend to be plagued with "incompatibilities", no matter if everything is free.

I'd actually rather Ubuntu diverge massively from the rest then see it plod along with trying to improve things and not worry about 'being compatible' in the traditionalist Linux approach.

That way if they succeed that is a huge win and shows the road going forward for Linux as a desktop/workstation/whatever. If they fail then it shows what not to do as plain as day.

Canonical reveals plans to launch Mir display server (The H)

Posted Mar 6, 2013 16:55 UTC (Wed) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link]

>This is always been true. If you want to secure the OS the first step is to reduce it's functionality as much as practical.

md5 trusted origin and non-root privileges are not enough ?

seems to me the "practical" target seek is beyond most "client users" are used to, or care, or is indeed practical. You alienate the masses of "end users" then wonder why distros are in trouble, and why there isn't more adoption lol ...gezzz wonder why !?...

for really security concerned deployments there is always system/network admins... unless those are also considered a security threat, and must get out of job... lol (good going!).

>I'd actually rather Ubuntu diverge massively from the rest then see it plod along with trying to improve things and not worry about 'being compatible' in the traditionalist Linux approach.

they will try to diverge in any case... i think it was already decided that way... and the main concern is the "business" side and its model, its not about improve, compatibility or tradition... its all about business and $...

I think they are going to fail. No! nothing against Ubuntu, but something lots of ppl seem to have forgot is that there is already a king for the business model they try emulate, a ruthless despotic king supported by a "status quo" that seems completely bent in having an "harmonization" of systems where they can control, with all its implanted back doors, report to master etc... go ahead, insult if you must...

Ubuntu to have the success they seek, will have to ask permission, sign deals, and after all that be content to be a very secondary alternative... that is why after UEFI 1 i speak of UEFI 2...

Canonical reveals plans to launch Mir display server (The H)

Posted Mar 6, 2013 17:46 UTC (Wed) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]

> md5 trusted origin

Last time I checked md5sums don't check the source code for security bugs and hidden backdoors.

> and non-root privileges are not enough ?

My user account on Linux does not have root rights. Therefore all the critically important information that I have is stored under my user account. There almost no permissions within that context.

Therefore root permissions are not enough.

> they will try to diverge in any case... i think it was already decided that way... and the main concern is the "business" side and its model, its not about improve, compatibility or tradition... its all about business and $...

The tradition is shit. It's not working for Ubuntu or anybody else that has tried to penetrate the desktop and consumer market following it. And therefore change is necessary to survive.

The tradition for Linux is to have huge amounts of duplicated work to deal with insignificant and unimportant technical details that distributions refuse to agree on. It creates headaches for developers and makes it difficult to install and almost impossible for end users to maintain the software they want to use at the versions they want to have.

The tradition for Linux is not have any sort of layers or design in the system. We have 2 layers, Kernel and 'everything else'. It's all one big mush with a maze of inter dependencies so complex and lavish that it resists any attempt for people to map it out and document it. One change in one aspect of program or library and you have chance of causing a wave effect throughout the system of changes and recompiles.

I could go on, but hopefully everybody is aware at this point what the problems are.

Any significant deviation from this that actually works out well is going to be a improvement.

Canonical reveals plans to launch Mir display server (The H)

Posted Mar 6, 2013 18:20 UTC (Wed) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link]

>Last time I checked md5sums don't check the source code for security bugs and hidden backdoors.

True... but what happened to "trusted origin" ?... unless you mean "you damn distros, i don't trust you a little bit"

> My user account on Linux does not have root rights. Therefore all the critically important information that I have is stored under my user account. There almost no permissions within that context.

>Therefore root permissions are not enough.

Encrypt the real sensitive stuff... or like a joke in my country; "don't want to have children... don't do it", the perfect contraception model... meaning don't have anything sensitive directly connected to your system, even top military security wacos can agree... its the best model...

Unless you think that Linux must be like a "baby-sitting" system to all the crazy ignorant gits out there... i have some experience with that, good luck with that lol (boy! i can't think of worst punishment)... cause for those the worst security threat is that they can't resist to the phishing and social engineering of; "click here to see a celebrity without panties" lol... there is no system that can really help more than they already do, which is already good...

and last... what happened to the system and network admins ?... don't they count ? ... or the intention is put a "virtual" admin in every box of every crazy git out there ?...

>for really security concerned deployments there is always system/network admins... unless those are also considered a security threat, and must get out of job... lol (good going!).

TPTB will love it, but i'm afraid it will flop terribly, because what the crazy gits want is exactly do crazy and very insecure things...

Why do i sense "security paranoia" ? ... as a lame excuse for many things, including being toppled by a "status quo" that sees the all F/OSS Linux itself as a threat... but to them ?

Canonical reveals plans to launch Mir display server (The H)

Posted Mar 6, 2013 18:45 UTC (Wed) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link]

Forgot...

>And therefore change is necessary to survive.

This is the central issue. I can agree with many things, many things are true, even things that are obviously contradictory in many aspects.

But change by itself means nothing... absolutely nothing... if you don't identify correctly the root problems of your woes.

And most of the root problems of the Linux world, IMHO, is NOT in the code. Why this and that!?.. well, is it correctly identified ?... than what are the solutions ? ... and most pertinent of all, why can't everybody push in the SAME DIRECTION to solve the most afflicting woes ?

That is the correct approach IMHO... change per se, can only mean change to nowhere, or for worst...

Example; what are the REAL correct reasons for UEFI ? ... what are the solutions ? ... just for the sake of argument as i pointed elsewhere, what will happen if something like UEFI 2 happens (exclusive encrypt hardware) ?

the rest can be like chichens without head, that go in circles before drop to the side...

SAME DIRECTION

Posted Mar 9, 2013 20:00 UTC (Sat) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]

And what if that's the WRONG DIRECTION?

That is one of FLOSS's *S*T*R*O*N*G* points - that we quite happily throw massive engineering resource at multiple possible solutions before we settle on the correct one (that is, if there even IS a correct one!)

That is the PROBLEM with the MS approach - there is only one solution, and if it's the wrong one, tough. For example, imho Word is crap. Pretty much all word processors are trying to copy Word. In other words, it is almost impossible now to find a word processor that is capable of industrial strength work - they're all aimed at people who don't know how to type!

One size does NOT fit all.

Cheers,
Wol

SAME DIRECTION

Posted Mar 11, 2013 12:43 UTC (Mon) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]

> That is one of FLOSS's *S*T*R*O*N*G* points - that we quite happily throw massive engineering resource at multiple possible solutions before we settle on the correct one (that is, if there even IS a correct one!)

That's only a benefit if we can finally agree on a correct one, and drop those that do not add much value. Want to bet Canonical will NOT drop Mir, even if it proves to be an inferior solution? Hint: BZR, Upstart.

The problem is not that Canonical develops an alternative. That's fine, even for Kristian Høgsberg (Wayland's architect and main developer). They could be doing it as a side project, like Wayland is. Instead Canonical is endorsing it, unleveling the play field and creating an artificial barrier for Wayland (or any other) to enter. I despise profoundly saying that, but in that sense Canonical is not better than Microsoft.

But let's wait and see. Maybe this time they will do the right thing.

Canonical reveals plans to launch Mir display server (The H)

Posted Mar 6, 2013 19:23 UTC (Wed) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link]

Other example

>The tradition is shit... The tradition for Linux is to have huge amounts of duplicated work to deal with insignificant and unimportant technical details that distributions refuse to agree on. It creates headaches for developers and makes it difficult to install and almost impossible for end users to maintain the software they want to use at the versions they want to have.

If i had points to give, i would give you all for the daring

ummm... don't. That is, don't even try to maintain it. Oh! many will came back complaining furiously... but there must be a tough "conscious inner voice" that simple refuses and points the correct approach. The point is that the notion of "dumping for others to maintaining it" is just WRONG. There must be very concise technical merits, and there is also LSB for this -> support it, make your case there...

What you describe is the failure of LSB. Somehow it must get out of any distros influence... or any distro simple ignorance of it... ppl must have the courage to make it "independent", make it bigger, make it better...

>It's all one big mush with a maze of inter dependencies so complex and lavish that it resists any attempt for people to map it out and document it.

And in this is why "changing" have been making things much more harder not easier... the gross mass of "independent" or semi-independent devs, finds it easier to start all over, than to try to understand some pieces of code and attach themselfs to *collaborate* on something that is already there, to make it better...

... i just can't imagine why *trowing more into the maze* in a way that the originator himself understands better, and so half documented or documented in a way those original devs understand... does any good to improve the matters...