| 1 |
On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 07:11:26 +0000 (UTC) |
| 2 |
Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> If you want to disable the strong-but-not-all default when it |
| 5 |
> comes in 4.9, OK, but I'd suggest at least keeping this minimal threshold |
| 6 |
> of protection, particularly since it /will/ be the default now and thus |
| 7 |
> there should be if anything fewer problems with it than not. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
The problem with all Linux distributions, and not just Gentoo, is that |
| 11 |
they are directed toward a multi-user, networked environment. As a |
| 12 |
consequence, they exhibit security and other features that generally |
| 13 |
make no sense whatsoever for a single-user desktop machine that optionally |
| 14 |
connects externally only with an ISP through a router/modem. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I continually have configuration problems because of the need to |
| 17 |
work around the useless (vis-a-vis the single-user desktop) and |
| 18 |
myriad requirements of the multi-user, networked scenario. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
In the single-user, desktop environment, the probability of a buffer |
| 21 |
overflow "attack" is virtually nil, especially if one is highly selective |
| 22 |
about "surfing" the Internet and employing Internet software (which |
| 23 |
I am). |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
There needs to be a Linux distribution or sub-distribution that caters |
| 26 |
to the needs of the single, desktop user, ensconced as he is within |
| 27 |
his private garret and far removed from the troubles of a massive |
| 28 |
network. My system is configured in a way that is quite contrary |
| 29 |
to recommended Linux practice (for example I run only and always as the |
| 30 |
root superuser and have no need for file permissions) but yet it makes |
| 31 |
perfect sense for my situation. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Are single desktop users that much of a minority? I would hope not. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Frank Peters |
Archives