7 ms·

How do you propose that the owner of a system should be able to administer it?

charcircuit 3y ago
The distro maintainers should make sure the operating system works well on its own. For what needs to be customized there can be a settings application and individual applications can expose ways for themselves to be customized.
- josephcsible 3y ago
  You want distro maintainers to have final control instead of hardware owners? Isn't that arguing for the iOS-ification of Linux?
  - charcircuit 3y ago
    I want distros to make an operating system that actually works and doesn't need to be fiddled with. Hardware owners shouldn't have to be the ones fixing the operating system. Most people just want their computer to work and don't want to learn about the internals of how it works. If a user really cares about changing the internals he can make his own operating system. >Isn't that arguing for the iOS-ification of Linux? Linux distros could learn a thing or two (or 100) from how iOS handles security.
    - josephcsible 3y ago
      > I want distros to make an operating system that actually works and doesn't need to be fiddled with. Doesn't need to be fiddled with? Sure. Can't be fiddled with? No way. > Hardware owners shouldn't have to be the ones fixing the operating system. Ditto. Owners shouldn't have to fix it, but they should be able to. > Most people just want their computer to work and don't want to learn about the internals of how it works. Most people, sure. So don't make them learn. But don't prevent people from learning if they want to. > If a user really cares about changing the internals he can make his own operating system. Wouldn't this mean that incremental improvements wouldn't be possible anymore? > Linux distros could learn a thing or two (or 100) from how iOS handles security. How so specifically?
      - charcircuit 3y ago
        >Wouldn't this mean that incremental improvements wouldn't be possible anymore? One can make a fork of the distro and then make the change you want to incrementally improve it. >How so specifically? Reading the documentation and reading information about its internals.
        DaSHacka 3y ago
        Why though? How is that better than what we have now, where a system can be easily modified in-place without every distro needing dozens of forks for each slight preference change? What exactly is it you're advocating for?
        charcircuit 3y ago
        >Why though? Because most Linux distros have terrible security. >How is that better than what we have now, where a system can be easily modified in-place without every distro needing dozens of forks for each slight preference change? Preferences can be done via configuration. Most people do not actually want or need to modify the operating system. >What exactly is it you're advocating for? The root user to be effectively removed.
    - realusername 3y ago
      > Linux distros could learn a thing or two (or 100) from how iOS handles security. Sorry no, I don't want my Linux to become like iOS. iOS security model "all powers to the manufacturer" is broken model and doesn't work.
    - happysadpanda2 3y ago
      > If a user really cares about changing the internals he can make his own operating system. Don't we already have that, and it's called... Linux?
    - kbolino 3y ago
      iOS handles security by having a completely integrated ecosystem. Linux has to work on a wide range of hardware, basically none of which is under the control of anyone involved in Linux (kernel, GNU, distro, etc). Even Microsoft can't exercise Apple levels of control over the PC platform, and they have 100 times the revenue of the largest Linux distro.
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
  > individual applications can expose ways for themselves to be customized. They do. That way is exposing files in /etc that the administrator account can edit.
  - charcircuit 3y ago
    Unfortunately these files in /etc usually can only be edited by root. What could be done is allow a user from the administrator group to edit such files.
    - thaumasiotes 3y ago
      A user from the administrator group has all the same power that the root user does. Or, labeled differently, the root user is the administrator group.
      - charcircuit 3y ago
        No, for example the root user can read any file on the system. If someone gains access to the root user they shouldn't also gain the ability to read and write to every file on the system.
        josephcsible 3y ago
        How should I be able to read any file on the system on a device I own, if not with the root user?
        charcircuit 3y ago
        I don't think this makes much sense to have to avoid empowering stealer malware. It would be better to find what the actual user need is and make a proper API to expose that functionality.
- bee_rider 3y ago
  I don’t think anybody would use or develop a system like that. It would put too much responsibility in the hands of the (volunteer) maintainers. Trying to guess what use-case everybody will have is a horrible tooth-pulling and bikesheding exercise that nobody would do for fun. That said there’s nothing stopping you from trying it. It just seems unlikely to succeed.
  - charcircuit 3y ago
    It's no more responsibility than what already exists. Telling end users to go and fix the operating system themselves was never acceptable to do. >Trying to guess what use-case everybody will have is a horrible tooth-pulling and bikesheding exercise that nobody would do for fun. You seem to be misunderstanding what I am saying. People could still install new applications, or uninstall preexisting applications just like how it works now.
    - bee_rider 3y ago
      I guess I don’t know what you are suggesting
- mort96 3y ago
  How do I install a custom kernel module in your model
  - DEADMINCE 3y ago
    Using something like sudo. Parent is not saying remove root entirely but that it should be super locked down and maybe broken up into different accounts.
    - mort96 3y ago
      I think they are saying to remove root entirely? If the solution is just "use sudo" then what's the difference compared to today's model?
      - DEADMINCE 3y ago
        Instead of sudoing to the root account, you would sudo to the network account that could only do network admin, or sudo to the software-install account that could only install packages, etc.
  - charcircuit 3y ago
    You should install it from the distro's package manager. If it's not cryptographically signed by the distro you have to fork the operating system to add another key to trust. A custom kernel module has immense security implications so it shouldn't be easy to do as an attacker shouldn't be able to trick someone into installing one for free vbucks.
    - mort96 3y ago
      My distro's repositories don't contain my newly written custom kernel module
      - charcircuit 3y ago
        Most users aren't writing their own custom kernel modules and using them on their current install instead of qemu. This is a niche use case that the average user's security shouldn't be compromised for.

The distro maintainers should make sure the operating system works well on its own. For what needs to be customized there can be a settings application and individual applications can expose ways for themselves to be customized.

josephcsible 3y ago
You want distro maintainers to have final control instead of hardware owners? Isn't that arguing for the iOS-ification of Linux?
- charcircuit 3y ago
  I want distros to make an operating system that actually works and doesn't need to be fiddled with. Hardware owners shouldn't have to be the ones fixing the operating system. Most people just want their computer to work and don't want to learn about the internals of how it works. If a user really cares about changing the internals he can make his own operating system. >Isn't that arguing for the iOS-ification of Linux? Linux distros could learn a thing or two (or 100) from how iOS handles security.
  - josephcsible 3y ago
    > I want distros to make an operating system that actually works and doesn't need to be fiddled with. Doesn't need to be fiddled with? Sure. Can't be fiddled with? No way. > Hardware owners shouldn't have to be the ones fixing the operating system. Ditto. Owners shouldn't have to fix it, but they should be able to. > Most people just want their computer to work and don't want to learn about the internals of how it works. Most people, sure. So don't make them learn. But don't prevent people from learning if they want to. > If a user really cares about changing the internals he can make his own operating system. Wouldn't this mean that incremental improvements wouldn't be possible anymore? > Linux distros could learn a thing or two (or 100) from how iOS handles security. How so specifically?
    - charcircuit 3y ago
      >Wouldn't this mean that incremental improvements wouldn't be possible anymore? One can make a fork of the distro and then make the change you want to incrementally improve it. >How so specifically? Reading the documentation and reading information about its internals.
      - DaSHacka 3y ago
        Why though? How is that better than what we have now, where a system can be easily modified in-place without every distro needing dozens of forks for each slight preference change? What exactly is it you're advocating for?
        charcircuit 3y ago
        >Why though? Because most Linux distros have terrible security. >How is that better than what we have now, where a system can be easily modified in-place without every distro needing dozens of forks for each slight preference change? Preferences can be done via configuration. Most people do not actually want or need to modify the operating system. >What exactly is it you're advocating for? The root user to be effectively removed.
  - realusername 3y ago
    > Linux distros could learn a thing or two (or 100) from how iOS handles security. Sorry no, I don't want my Linux to become like iOS. iOS security model "all powers to the manufacturer" is broken model and doesn't work.
  - happysadpanda2 3y ago
    > If a user really cares about changing the internals he can make his own operating system. Don't we already have that, and it's called... Linux?
  - kbolino 3y ago
    iOS handles security by having a completely integrated ecosystem. Linux has to work on a wide range of hardware, basically none of which is under the control of anyone involved in Linux (kernel, GNU, distro, etc). Even Microsoft can't exercise Apple levels of control over the PC platform, and they have 100 times the revenue of the largest Linux distro.
yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
> individual applications can expose ways for themselves to be customized. They do. That way is exposing files in /etc that the administrator account can edit.
- charcircuit 3y ago
  Unfortunately these files in /etc usually can only be edited by root. What could be done is allow a user from the administrator group to edit such files.
  - thaumasiotes 3y ago
    A user from the administrator group has all the same power that the root user does. Or, labeled differently, the root user is the administrator group.
    - charcircuit 3y ago
      No, for example the root user can read any file on the system. If someone gains access to the root user they shouldn't also gain the ability to read and write to every file on the system.
      - josephcsible 3y ago
        How should I be able to read any file on the system on a device I own, if not with the root user?
        charcircuit 3y ago
        I don't think this makes much sense to have to avoid empowering stealer malware. It would be better to find what the actual user need is and make a proper API to expose that functionality.
bee_rider 3y ago
I don’t think anybody would use or develop a system like that. It would put too much responsibility in the hands of the (volunteer) maintainers. Trying to guess what use-case everybody will have is a horrible tooth-pulling and bikesheding exercise that nobody would do for fun. That said there’s nothing stopping you from trying it. It just seems unlikely to succeed.
- charcircuit 3y ago
  It's no more responsibility than what already exists. Telling end users to go and fix the operating system themselves was never acceptable to do. >Trying to guess what use-case everybody will have is a horrible tooth-pulling and bikesheding exercise that nobody would do for fun. You seem to be misunderstanding what I am saying. People could still install new applications, or uninstall preexisting applications just like how it works now.
  - bee_rider 3y ago
    I guess I don’t know what you are suggesting
mort96 3y ago
How do I install a custom kernel module in your model
- DEADMINCE 3y ago
  Using something like sudo. Parent is not saying remove root entirely but that it should be super locked down and maybe broken up into different accounts.
  - mort96 3y ago
    I think they are saying to remove root entirely? If the solution is just "use sudo" then what's the difference compared to today's model?
    - DEADMINCE 3y ago
      Instead of sudoing to the root account, you would sudo to the network account that could only do network admin, or sudo to the software-install account that could only install packages, etc.
- charcircuit 3y ago
  You should install it from the distro's package manager. If it's not cryptographically signed by the distro you have to fork the operating system to add another key to trust. A custom kernel module has immense security implications so it shouldn't be easy to do as an attacker shouldn't be able to trick someone into installing one for free vbucks.
  - mort96 3y ago
    My distro's repositories don't contain my newly written custom kernel module
    - charcircuit 3y ago
      Most users aren't writing their own custom kernel modules and using them on their current install instead of qemu. This is a niche use case that the average user's security shouldn't be compromised for.