RIP Ubuntu. You have been digging a hole ever so slowly, but now you have killed yourself.
http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/more-stable-future-ubuntu
yeah, we need a new package type like I need a hole in my head.
3 Likes
Isn't that similar to the way programs are handled on OS X? Sounds like applications will hog a lot more space, as you'll have duplicate dependencies. I'm no expert on this stuff though. If all the packages are maintained by Canonical (aside from unofficial repos), then how will this make things more secure?
This is very exciting. This in my opinion is a great step forward for Ubuntu and opensource. This is an opensource answer to the Microsoft installer. Having all dependencies included is wonderful. Who cares if it takes up a little more space. We live in the world of $50 1TB hard drives. Install all the apps you want on that, even with duplicate files, it's just a drop in the bucket. This also means when you update one package that another relies on and there is a conflict, IT WON'T BREAK! Yeah! Ubuntu is pushing harder and harder to get into the mainstream. The main reason this is so great, is that it increases ease of use and stability for the non technical user. Ubuntu is on the right track to becoming real competition for Windows. I don't think any other distro is actually even attempting to compete with MS (not that they should), except for Ubuntu.
3 Likes
I am not sure how OS X handles it, but it will be similar to Windows.
Let's say on Windows you have 20 installed programs, and all need Microsoft Visual C++ 2008. Then Microsoft Visual C++ 2008 is installed 20 times.
Let's say you are on a tradition Linux system that has 20 installed programs, and they all require libq. Then libq is installed once and all programs share it.
What is worse, if you update your C++ 2008 to a newer version the old version and the new version stay, because it does not know how many programs still require that version.
Aside from smaller systems, why is that a bad thing? As mentioned by JCat, most programs on Linux are pretty small and won't take up that much more space. If I can avoid a dependency hell, isn't it worth it to sacrifice a few more gigs?
2 Likes
One additional trade off besides additional storage consumption, is that vulnerability updates will require building new packages for every application which uses it, a single update won't resolve vulnerabilities for every dependent application.
1 Like
Wont the malware makers love this :)
1 Like
Is this really needed?I am not bought on the better security/stability.
If the packages are installed from Official Ubuntu Repos, then how will this increase malware?
Edit: Oh, I just saw what xipher wrote on having to build new packages for every vulnerability. Guess that'll be a hassle and pretty problematic.
I highly doubt they've killed their product by increasing stability.
What's a few duplicated packages on the modern $50 1TB hdds? I mean really they are taking technologies that work on the cloud and the phone and bringing them to the desktop. If it doesn't work on the desktop it won't stick.
For those who didn't read the article these are the advantages:
- Separate application code and user data
- Protects user data
- Atomic packages (self-contained)
- Smaller updates
- Stability
- Increased Security
By the time this arrives it will have been tested on Ubuntu Next. It will not just appear in the next release.
Oh, I missed the part about the delta-image based update system. Guess that'll be used to fix vulnerabilities, instead of rebuilding entire packages + dependencies every time there is a security fix.
2 Likes
It't won't matter. Malware exists on all platforms. People don't avoid making malware for Ubuntu because the packaging and installer system makes it more difficult. The market share of linux is so low, nobody cares to write something that only works on 1% of the people out there. Remember, malware writers aren't after systems or computers, they are after people and their money. They use the most effective and lazy way of accessing those people.
Unfortunately windows is such an easy to use platform that it draws some of the most gullible people. "Why should I ever read a message box? Just click YES I agree to every thing." What's this? User account control is saying "Do you want t allow this program to make changes to your computer? Sure.... I have no idea what program this is, buy why not?"
Linux users generally want to know what is going on in their system, and generally read prompts, and if I may say so, they are a very intelligent crowd. They normally don't do stupid things to their systems. I don't think a better more stable packaging system is going to change this.
The exciting thing here is that an improved packaging system makes Ubuntu more appealing to the average user. The fact that malware writers would have a growing interest in Ubuntu signifies canonical is on the right track in making an opensource OS fully accepted by the mainstream.
I have plenty of confidence that the Ubuntu and the opensource community will be able to handle any security implications that come along with the new packaging system.
Yeah point I'm trying to make is it seems like 'RIP Ubuntu' is posted so often around these parts that it has no meaning.
It has been used so many times yet it seems every time it is Ubuntu continues to grow revenues and userbase. So who died?
4 Likes
Any change that Ubuntu tries to make there is tons of backlash and resistance. Unity, Mir, mobile, smart scopes, and now snappy. They are trying to bring Linux to average consumers; something that all other distros have failed to do.
Sorry if it seems like I am going back and forth on Snappy. Just trying to understand the pros and cons.
And aren't the atm's all linux ? there is a lot of money there hehe , the departement of defense in my country as small as it is , it uses linux
ATM as in bank machines are not all Linux no. A lot run Windows Embedded.
However Linux is in a lot of embedded platforms, some you may not realize.
I think the French police use Linux too. Linux is also commonplace in cybercrime units.
Depends on where you live. I know that my security teacher said most of the ones in the US not at a big bank or more than 8 years young are windows xp.
It actually sounds interesting, kind of like windows but in a less than bad way. I'll say I'm cautiously optimistic.
It is an ambitious project for certain but I am not sure about a few things.
Separate application code and user data: Snappy separates user files, such as configuration settings and data, from application code. The application code is read-only to ensure stability. This prevents tampering and ensures a predictable update process.
What does this actually mean? I thought that Debian did this separation pretty well already. And also the application being read only? So what you cannot change this even with root access? If yes I am not sure this retain the openness of the platform. If no then what is the point?
Improved security: Snappy improves security with two new features,
AppArmor and digital signatures. Digital signatures ensure that the
package you are installing is from the correct developer and has not
been altered since it was bundled. This safeguards against malware, because
if infected files were added to the package, it would invalidate the
signature.
Should this be already covered by using official repositories?
AppArmor enforces restrictions on what applications are
allowed to do on your system. It limits the resources that each app can
access and alter. The aim is to prevent apps from
causing harm or reading secure information.
This sounds like a good idea actually...