Author Topic: Stability vs Security is something you configure  (Read 16548 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lukimya

  • Held Mitglied
  • *****
  • Posts: 884
  • Branch: Unstable
  • Desktop: Gnome 3.20x
  • GPU Card: Intel HD4400
  • GPU driver: free
  • Kernel: 4.4.5-1-ARCH
  • Skill: Intermediate
Re: Stability vs Security is something you configure
« Reply #15 on: 21. November 2013, 15:35:37 »
Simple In AUR the maintainer has to build it 1st, in Ubuntu it was recompiled by? You cannot compare Ubuntu with arch they are chalk and cheese arch is driven by devs that use it as there distro of choice Ubuntu is a commercial venture and earns money from the project most of the devs don't use it.

I think we were talking about a PKGBUILD from AUR versus a PPA most probably made by a Ubuntu user who wants people to get faster access to new software. I dont think the Ubuntu or arch Developers have much to do with that.

Offline mandog

  • Held Mitglied
  • *****
  • Posts: 1921
  • Architect Forum And G+ Forum Owner With Daniel S
  • Branch: All
  • Desktop: Gnome, Mate, E19, Openbox,FLuxbox,Budgie, XFCE openRC,
  • GPU Card: nvidia
  • GPU driver: Non Free
  • Kernel: latest
  • Skill: Advanced
Re: Stability vs Security is something you configure
« Reply #16 on: 21. November 2013, 16:13:11 »
Well, I would assume that if there is a brand new version of skype in aur and at the same day I hear a news on omgUbuntu that there is a new version of Skype available in this and that pp that they would be the same package. How does Skype get better by testing it? Microsoft does anything what they want with it anyways.
Skype is in the repros not AUR. AUR packages are built by you they are only a recipe you download the binary, or the source directly from the developer not 3rd party. so you do the checking and its security is down to you
A ENGLISHMAN IN PERU
I'm dyslexic Please do not complain about punctuation or spelling,
FANBOY,Taken from the urban dictionary
 A pathetic insult often used by fanboys themselves to try and put down people who don't like whatever it is they like.

Offline poker98face

  • Held Mitglied
  • *****
  • Posts: 1586
  • Open your Source, Open your Mind
  • Branch: stable Arch
  • Desktop: KDE
  • GPU Card: ATI 5470
  • GPU driver: free
  • Kernel: 3.15 Arch
  • Skill: Intermediate
Re: Stability vs Security is something you configure
« Reply #17 on: 21. November 2013, 16:35:22 »
Skype is in the repros not AUR. AUR packages are built by you they are only a recipe you download the binary, or the source directly from the developer not 3rd party. so you do the checking and its security is down to you
PPA repositories are often made by application developer - LO, Gnome, Elementary etc so DEB packages are safe. But its not safe to add PPAs like "new apps for ubuntu" by user X ;)
« Last Edit: 21. November 2013, 16:39:29 by poker98face »

PC: Windows 7 Notebook: Arch

Offline archiebunker

  • Vollwertiges Mitglied
  • ***
  • Posts: 247
  • Branch: Stable
  • Desktop: OB, FB, Mate
  • GPU Card: A10/APU/GPU/7670M
  • GPU driver: AMD/ATI OpenSource Graphics
  • Kernel: manjaro-*.*-x86_64
  • Skill: Intermediate
Re: Stability vs Security is something you configure
« Reply #18 on: 21. November 2013, 18:48:32 »
 So, in other words, it's probably better to use "Stable" to start with, notwithstanding anyone's expertise,... ?
ok, got it.
;)

Offline Arup

  • Sr. Mitglied
  • ****
  • Posts: 387
  • Branch: unstable
  • Desktop: XFCE
  • GPU Card: nvidia
  • GPU driver: no
  • Kernel: 3.13
  • Skill: Advanced
Re: Stability vs Security is something you configure
« Reply #19 on: 21. November 2013, 19:13:32 »
Most Ubuntu devs have their PPAs as thats how the testing is done for newer versions. Also there are dedicated PPA for getting latest version of core apps like Darktable, Shotwell, Transmission, GIMP and many more. There are smaller PPAs but a wise Ubuntu user sticks to developer's PPAs. So far I have never had any issues in Ubuntu using PPAs like VLC, Libre Office, GIMP etc. and same goes for AUR except for occasional hitch with Google Chrome updated which though gets rectified quick.

Offline LAPB

  • Neuling
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Branch: testing
  • Desktop: KDE ,XFCE, Cinnamon
  • GPU Card: nvidia Geforce GT 440
  • GPU driver: non-free
  • Skill: Intermediate
Re: Stability vs Security is something you configure
« Reply #20 on: 22. November 2013, 21:54:19 »
haters gonna hate :p

Offline sandman6471

  • Neuling
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • Branch: Stable
  • Desktop: XFCE4
  • GPU Card: Nvidia Geforce GT610
  • GPU driver: Non-Free
  • Kernel: Linux319-x64
  • Skill: Advanced
Re: Stability vs Security is something you configure
« Reply #21 on: 25. November 2013, 17:14:51 »
Well, I've tried the other Arch based distro's and Manjaro is leading the pack and setting the bar for the others to follow.  I see it like this, if you don't like the way Manjaro handles it's update policies move on to another distro.  I'm sure you will love fixing your computer more than actually using it.

Thanks for all the great work Manjaro Team, some of us appreciate all the hard work you put into making Manjaro great.

Thanks.
Registered Linux User: #511702

Offline Ham Radio

  • Vollwertiges Mitglied
  • ***
  • Posts: 249
    • EZ Computer Solutions
  • Branch: Stable
  • Desktop: KDE 5
  • GPU Card: nVidia GeForce 620
  • GPU driver: Non-Free
  • Kernel: Linux 4.1-x64
  • Skill: Intermediate
Re: Stability vs Security is something you configure
« Reply #22 on: 26. November 2013, 02:28:05 »
Great Post, I agree with everything you said. I want a rolling release distro, but I also want stability as I use it for work. Manjaro gives me that. Thank you!

Offline Arup

  • Sr. Mitglied
  • ****
  • Posts: 387
  • Branch: unstable
  • Desktop: XFCE
  • GPU Card: nvidia
  • GPU driver: no
  • Kernel: 3.13
  • Skill: Advanced
Re: Stability vs Security is something you configure
« Reply #23 on: 26. November 2013, 02:37:51 »
Security is common sense, if thats lacking nothing is secure.

Offline kmb42vt

  • Vollwertiges Mitglied
  • ***
  • Posts: 157
    • Just Thinkin'
  • Branch: Stable 64-bit
  • Desktop: XFCE
  • GPU Card: Nvidia GT-430
  • GPU driver: NVIDIA 343.36
  • Kernel: 3.16.7.4-1 (Manjaro 0.8.12)
  • Skill: Intermediate
Re: Stability vs Security is something you configure
« Reply #24 on: 16. December 2013, 03:24:21 »
A  fine post, philm, and very informative. And personally I have no problems with the way Manjaro handles updates and I've used/tested all sorts of different types of distros--rolling and non-rolling. You can come awful close to balancing stability vs security but you can never have 100% of both at the same time. Manjaro makes a good compromise between the two.

I'm not to sure what Allan McRae's problem is exactly but he's really zero'd in on Manjaro for some reason. It's one thing to mention or ask about another distro's security issues but to continually, publicly post article after article apparently just for the purpose of bashing on one specific distro is beyond me.

Must mean you're doing something right?  ;)
Circa 2010, Intel Core2 Quad, 8 GB DDR2, 500 GB 7200 HDD, 1.0 TB 5400 storage HDD, GT 430, all Intel chipset (network, on-board video). Standard BIOS (non-EFI) Mutli-boot set up.

Offline handy

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5738
  • Desktop: Openbox 3.6.1-3 & Worker :)
  • GPU Card: intel...
  • GPU driver: open-source
  • Kernel: OpenBSD
  • Skill: Intermediate
Re: Stability vs Security is something you configure
« Reply #25 on: 16. December 2013, 03:39:46 »
Allan McRae is likely the prime dev' at Arch. He knows what he is talking about.

It is understandable when you have volunteered so many hours as a developer at Arch, & you see an upstart like Manjaro that is riding on so much of that work (Allan has been the prime pacman dev' for a number of years now) becoming more popular than Arch, you have a look at the upstart & talk about flaws that you can see.

I'd rather have Allan talking about these flaws than anyone else, because he knows what he is talking about.
The ultimate tyranny in a society is not control
by martial law. It is control by the psychological
manipulation of consciousness, through which reality
is defined so that those who exist within do not even
realize that they are in prison.
  —  Barbara Marciniak

Offline spectromas

  • Sr. Mitglied
  • ****
  • Posts: 459
  • Branch: Stable
  • Desktop: Awesome
  • GPU Card: ATI RV710/M92 [Radeon HD 4330/4350/4550]
  • GPU driver: free
  • Kernel: linux45-x64
  • Skill: Intermediate
Re: Stability vs Security is something you configure
« Reply #26 on: 16. December 2013, 03:46:52 »
Interesting post handy. The truly wise thing would be to learn and improve from his criticism.

Offline handy

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5738
  • Desktop: Openbox 3.6.1-3 & Worker :)
  • GPU Card: intel...
  • GPU driver: open-source
  • Kernel: OpenBSD
  • Skill: Intermediate
Re: Stability vs Security is something you configure
« Reply #27 on: 16. December 2013, 04:02:41 »
Interesting post handy. The truly wise thing would be to learn and improve from his criticism.

I believe that Manjaro has done that more than once already in its brief history. ;)
The ultimate tyranny in a society is not control
by martial law. It is control by the psychological
manipulation of consciousness, through which reality
is defined so that those who exist within do not even
realize that they are in prison.
  —  Barbara Marciniak

Offline spectromas

  • Sr. Mitglied
  • ****
  • Posts: 459
  • Branch: Stable
  • Desktop: Awesome
  • GPU Card: ATI RV710/M92 [Radeon HD 4330/4350/4550]
  • GPU driver: free
  • Kernel: linux45-x64
  • Skill: Intermediate
Re: Stability vs Security is something you configure
« Reply #28 on: 16. December 2013, 04:50:16 »
I believe that Manjaro has done that more than once already in its brief history. ;)

Oh no doubt, but when someone of his experience and stature has something to say then it is surely worth listening. There is always room for improvement after all.

(I understand he disagrees with fundamental aspects of Manjaro but still...)

Offline viking60

  • Sr. Mitglied
  • ****
  • Posts: 388
    • bjoernvold.com
  • Branch: stable
  • Desktop: openbox
  • GPU Card: NVIDIA GT200b [GeForce GTX 275]
  • GPU driver: nonfree
  • Kernel: linux4.1-x86_64
  • Skill: Intermediate
Re: Stability vs Security is something you configure
« Reply #29 on: 16. December 2013, 10:58:25 »
I like Manjaro and the Manjaro "attitude". I kind of like Arch and the Arch way too. It should be possible to like both and not be driven into a trench on one side or the other.
Alan is recommending Manjaro (you know; that sophisticated "you should really not be using Arch" attitude.)
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1312352#p1312352
Alan is an Arch guru - and deserves credit for that. His original criticism of Manjaro was valid.
 
Then he seems to have a problem letting it go.... Almost a disappointing not "done by me" attitude.

Allan deserves credit. but it smells bad when he is concerned about the security of Manjaro - only because he cares for the Manjaro users.

Isn't it the Arch way to let them fall on their nose - because they will learn from it - why should he care more for Manjaro users than Arch users?

I have learned a whole lot like that - so I will admit that it works. I have been forced to RTFM and that mostly works just fine, because the documentation is good (and was pretty up to date.... before systemd).

I fail to see how the more well mannered approach of Manjaro should be a problem for the Arch devs (and their trained dogs) though.

An OS can be used for something or be the target in it self. Manjaro is used to get the work done. Arch is used to learn about the OS - both are valid.

I suspect Alan was bored again - every time that happens I usually have my work cut out for me on my Arch boxes :)
He usually has a great sense of humor:
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1206886#p1206886
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1205469#p1205469

Or maybe he is serious