check out these little gems I stumpled upon:
http://portablelinuxapps.org/
It's like a better substitute for klik :)
only tested one so far and it appears to be working
Printable View
check out these little gems I stumpled upon:
http://portablelinuxapps.org/
It's like a better substitute for klik :)
only tested one so far and it appears to be working
OK, so how do you know what's in 'em?
What a strange question. Admittedly the website cuts to the bone and is simply a list of apps but if you are really unsure you can feed the name into a search engine and get info from the non-portable version.Quote:
Originally Posted by utu
Perhaps I misunderstood your question.
If you go to the forum you will find the administrator and person behind portable linux apps is Probono, who you can see on this forum was the instigator of klik.
they're like the whole app in one file. You can see it as for example knoppix-data.img: it's a bunch of files packed together.
You just download the app, make it executable and then run it. If you don't like it, you just delete the file and you've got rid of it :)
The beauty for this is that I can try to put my favourite linux apps in my dropbox folder and have them synced to every pc.
You can put apps on a memorystick and run them where you do not have permission to install them.
I really like the concept and the lowered chance of screwing something up :D
Isn't this the way viruses work?
Utu, depends what virus you mean....
first of all, there are no real virusses in linux because writing them would be a waste of time. There are way to little linux users out there so writing a platform specific virus would really be stupid.
Second of all, it's as dangerous as installing a new package. If you don't trust it, then don't install it.
If you do trust the package but don't trust the providers then pack it yourself... =D
And why exactly would a virus try to work that way? If I would write a virus I wouldn't distribute it at that site. I would alter some existing libaries and pack them with the newest version for by example abiword and then submit them to some repo's. Everyone installing the legit application would get my way to awesome virus packed with it.
So I don't understand your concerns
@dinosoep
The page you referred us to in post #1 has a lot of colorful icons
attached to many names with which I'm not familiar.
There is no connected technical information whatsoever on that page,
and no off-that-site reference except to forums.
My first question in post #2 was intended exactly as stated.
What are we looking at? Where's a better starting point?
My second question in post #5 addresses your notion in your post #4
that I should download, make executable and send it to all my pcs
something I have no idea about. That is absurd.
Your philosophy in post #6 increases my concern. Security in Linux
assumes great care will be taken in bringing things in from the
outside by users with certain privileges.
#1&2 a list of apps, packed together in one file
#5 You may find it absurd, another might find it handy. And I didn't say you needed to do that but just that I do.
#6 Again it's just my opinion
I'm hoping to influence your opinion to
include more caution, more deliberation.
That's a difficult question to answer. The files appears to be an executable application but presumably they have something resembling a bunch of files packed inside but dinosoep cannot simply assert that it is like knoppix-data.img. There are plenty of examples of a single file containing a bunch of others - a .msi installer for Windows for example. To understand what is inside would, I fear, require a knowledgeable examination of the source of the software used to create these files.Quote:
OK, so how do you know what's in 'em?
utu's concern over viruses is commendable. dinosoep's attitude to viruses is deplorable. Any security, not just under Linux, assumes care is taken in bringing in things from the outside. In the end you take responsibility, which is better than it used to be under other operating systems where stuff was being download all the time without your knowledge and consent all in the name of 'convenience'.Quote:
Originally Posted by dinosoep
Ignorance and carelessness, and the 'convenience' that these in combination offer, are the main reason for the spread of viruses.
Yes, dinosoep, viruses etc. designed to attack Windows systems won't run in Linux systems and, yes, there are not that many viruses designed to attack Linux (yet) but many viruses are targeted at cross platform environments: flash is the worst but java and others are vulnerable too. At one time word documents with a malicious macro inside were popular. A one-click Firefox with a mailicous plug-in installed could be just as dangerous. At least I don't know otherwise and I'm not going to assume so just because it's 'handy'.Quote:
Originally Posted by dinosoep
Anyone who believes that no one can be bothered to attack Linux systems is invited to read this article from only three days ago: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03...server_hacked/.Quote:
Originally Posted by dinosoep
Nonsense. You really don't know what goes on underneath Synaptic.Quote:
Originally Posted by dinosoep
At issue here is that dinosoep will soon have made enough posts to earn the title "Senior Member", which "Junior Members" might take mean he writes with some authority. Even when he later qualifies what he writes with:
IMHO ... The authors of viruses aren't pranksters these days and they aren't after your bank account details. They want, at some point in the future, to use your PC, in conjunction with many others, to mount cyber attacks on some worthy target. The attack might be traced back to you but no further. Although you should eventually be proven innocent and irresponsible you might want to consider the expense and inconvenience that might occasion.Quote:
Originally Posted by dinosoep
AFAIK ... Under Unix and Linux, the distinction between users and the superuser is the basis of much of the system's security. As a user, you and malicious software, can only do limited damage. As root, you and malicious software can do anything. Knoppix, with its blanket sudo without password, is about as secure a Windows 98 was. :rolleyes:
Last time we touched on this, dinosoep had even turned off the notification that some background process had assumed root privileges. Some may think dinosoep is a bigger danger to his own system that any virus but he is still learning. Taking security seriously is just another lesson to learn the hard way.Quote:
Originally Posted by dinosoep
I'd have to agree that utu's attitude is commendable, i don't think he'll ever make as big mistakes as me :).Quote:
utu's concern over viruses is commendable. dinosoep's attitude to viruses is deplorable. Any security, not just under Linux, assumes care is taken in bringing in things from the outside. In the end you take responsibility, which is better than it used to be under other operating systems where stuff was being download all the time without your knowledge and consent all in the name of 'convenience'.
Ignorance and carelessness, and the 'convenience' that these in combination offer, are the main reason for the spread of viruses.
But I do think that it's kinda strong to immediatly say that my attituted is deplorable. It looks to me that that site is reliable and maybe that's naive and stupid, it's what I think. It's not the most smart way of doing things but certainly not the worst(judging a lot of guys their attitude to "those annoying error popups")
Most java "virusses" are simply applets starting the download of malicious payload and that is still platform specific. There are platform independent virusses, that's true but they're very limited in possibilitys(but not that much in severety :( )Quote:
Yes, dinosoep, viruses etc. designed to attack Windows systems won't run in Linux systems and, yes, there are not that many viruses designed to attack Linux (yet) but many viruses are targeted at cross platform environments: flash is the worst but java and others are vulnerable too. At one time word documents with a malicious macro inside were popular. A one-click Firefox with a mailicous plug-in installed could be just as dangerous. At least I don't know otherwise and I'm not going to assume so just because it's 'handy'.
As linux is used a lot on servers, of course people will try to attack it. The question remains if it's worth to attack the ordinary desktop user?(125000)Quote:
Anyone who believes that no one can be bothered to attack Linux systems is invited to read this article from only three days ago: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03...server_hacked/.
I thought I was free to submit any deb packages to community repositorys and as synaptic is just a graphical front-end to apt-get, it'll just install that specific deb. Am I completely wrong and has synaptic some mysterious defence mechanisms?Quote:
Nonsense. You really don't know what goes on underneath Synaptic.
At issue here is that dinosoep will soon have made enough posts to earn the title "Senior Member", which "Junior Members" might take mean he writes with some authority. Even when he later qualifies what he writes with:
To bad that the senior member limit is on 100 posts, and I would really feel bad if I've damaged someone system in the process of me trying to help them. I could just watch the forums instead and hope they get helped by someone (worthy) of the senior title? I'm always open for criticsm but with my deficient English that last sentence really looks very hostile. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I do not want to attack someone on an open forum without reason.
I'd have to agree that I'm a way bigger danger to my system then any virus I'll ever come accross. There is a reason I run it on a live usb :pQuote:
Last time we touched on this, dinosoep had even turned off the notification that some background process had assumed root privileges. Some may think dinosoep is a bigger danger to his own system that any virus but he is still learning. Taking security seriously is just another lesson to learn the hard way.
Also I didn't know that turning of automatic granting of root priviliges and making knoppix ask you for your root password everytime was insecure, always thought it was just good practice :)
Here's a article from about 6 months ago ... http://www.linuxinsider.com/rsstory/70921.html. The author says they don't work but then he doesn't have the dino touch. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by dinosoep
He starts by writing something along the lines that Windows is useless until you install a lot of application software. Agree there. One of the things I like about the major Linux Distributions is they are (in principle) a one-stop shop. Their repositories have all you'll ever need, their package managers ensure you get a consistent set of software and there are even graphical front ends so you don't get to marvel at how incredibly well its all works.
Take an application pre-built for goodness knows what and it will run on any Linux distribution ? Wow. I'm not surprised he was disappointed.
I recognise some of the applications. They are cross-platform applications I used under Windows before I found I no further use for it. By definition, these tend not too closely integrated with the host OS (look Mum, no Windows registry) and so may be more suitable for this kind of one binary fits all approach. Many you can download from their official site and install on your Linux without using your distribution's repository (or compiling from source). So again these are the more portable applications. I'm sure they'll get more portable as they need to fit on more and more mobile devices.
No one has mentioned Eclipse. I can run eclipse from USB 'cos installation is no more than unpacking Java source files into a directory of my choice. Can't get more portable but I still need a Java VM run-time sitting on top of an OS.
Packages, not applications, that fiddle with hardware or run as daemons or need to install configuration files in /etc are not so likely to port and these are just the kind of application that give newbies so much trouble (until they learn the difference and leave well alone).
What I think that guy would like (and perhaps so would I) is apps on a stick together will all user settings and I haven't seen anything yet to say this is so with these applications.
Still, interesting idea.
The most interesting thing he wrote (only because I wasn't aware of this) is that Puppy Linux is now Ubuntu compatible. I chose Knoppix 'cos I can install software from the huge Debian repositories whereas Puppy used to be restricted to just a few hundred packages because it had its own package management system. Now Puppy suddenly seems very attractive.
Bet it won't run Eclipse is a Virtual Box with only 512 Mb of memory though.
wow, thank you for that link to that linux news article.
I'd have to agree that puppy linux is a great os. But after having tried it out, I think the biggest miss is a serious package manager like synaptic. I want to be able to see whats installed on my system, what's not used anymore and whats further available. The puppy package manager only let's you remove self-installed apps and install new ones. That was the biggest setdown and the reason I switched to knoppix :)