I’ve been using Red Hat Linux and more recently its lower cost variants such as White Box and Centos on my servers since 1996 (went Linux in ‘96, was Xenix, a type of Unix, from ‘88 to ‘96). But, last month, I installed the new Ubuntu 8.04 server edition on one server just to see what all the fuss was about.

I LOVE IT! And I’ll be converting more of my servers over.

Once you get used to the sudo way instead of straight root, you’ll never go back. More secure, just plain easier. A lot less work to get a server configured and up and running.

;-)

I’m running the custom Xandros OS (based on Debian) on my Asus EEE, and have been slowly figuring out the basic Linux commands in order to run more than the included software (Firefox and OpenOffice are fine and all, but without GIMP, WINE and DOSbox, it’s a little limited). I learned on an old 286 laptop (which was roughly as heavy and portable as the desktop iMac I’m using now). Since the Linux command line isn’t all that different than DOS, much of the same logic carries over. It’s actually something of a kick to use that part of my brain again.

I’ve been thinking about changing the OS to something a little more user-friendly (the custom Xandros mod is designed to prevent you from fiddling with it too much, meaning that most significant changes either have to be done in the command line—hidden with a macro, not accessible from the desktop—or in the KDE-powered “advanced” desktop, which you can only access after installing it from the command line.

But I could be sold on Ubuntu, since I’m not exactly sure what the differences are. From everything I can tell, the two are very closely related. I’d have to have a pretty good reason to switch over.

right Steve, Ubuntu is also a Debian-based distro ... not a big change for you but was for me coming over from Red Hat distros.

I’m always floored at just how easy it is to install and run new, fun stuff in Ubuntu. It’s a beautiful interface and runs SUPER fast on more modern machines. It’s a pity I haven’t been able to get away from all the other software I really need for work to go fully Loonix-ified.

Big ups to old skool DOS commands!

Graham - 14 May 2008 08:20 AM

It’s a pity I haven’t been able to get away from all the other software I really need for work to go fully Loonix-ified.

Welcome to my sad domain, Graham. Did it really take a Linux thread to bring you here?

Have you tried running WINE for those apps? (I’m assuming they’re Windows-based. There may be a similar program for Mac programs.) Assuming you’re on a reasonably recent machine, I’ve found that the difference in performance is negligible. The only thing I can’t get it to do is run things like the Netflix on-demand player, which requires both Internet Explorer 6 (at least) and Windows Media Player.

Ubuntu forum bringing me here? Pish tosh! I’ve already wreaked some havoc elsewhere.

It’s a pretty brand-spaking-new machine, in fact. While it runs some things just as fast in WINE, some programs just seem to hang it. Then again, even running Premiere Pro, After Effects, Photoshop, and Encore at the same time in Windows can cause some problems.

That’s why dual-booting is not beneath me.

Graham - 14 May 2008 09:50 AM

Then again, even running Premiere Pro, After Effects, Photoshop, and Encore at the same time in Windows can cause some problems. That’s why dual-booting is not beneath me.

Ah, I see your point. GIMP ain’t Photoshop, and I don’t even know what you’d do about the rest. From a print perspective, I have yet to see an open-source program that can compete with InDesign or Quark. Dual-boot (or, in my case, a pair of computers) seems pretty reasonable.

If you ever decide to go anti-dual boot 4gb of ram, a fairly decent processor, and a nice open source application called Virtual Box might do the trick. It does a very good job at memory management and it’s just fun to play with. I find wine to be too quirky however wine was meant to serve an entirely different purpose. Wine isn’t an emulator. Technically speaking you should get native speeds when using wine. You can also get Virtual Box for windows if you’re so inclined. It’s neat to play with random OS’s sometimes or to purposely install viruses and see if you can ‘heal’ your virtual machine. I guess I’m a bit of a geek though.

On a side note, I heard you guys (Graham) on the radio this morning! All about how you started out in a garage in Woodfin. I hope to see your show before the summer is out.

several months using Ubuntu now ... really sold on it and updating some of my other servers. Ubuntu is EASY compared to the Red Hat variants I’ve been using.

I’m thinking about building a Linux/Ubuntu box from barebones, just to have the experience of putting the entire hardware and software package together myself. Apart from Windows, I’m already using a mostly open-source setup already, so very little would change.

Has anyone here messed around with Ubuntu’s NetBook Remix? I have an Asus EEE that I’m thinking of switching over to Ubuntu, and that seemed like a good option.

I’ve been running my Ubuntu strickly as a a server ... don’t even have a GUI on it but use the command line like ghod intended ...

but read about Netbook Remix and it looks velly interestink. ... I think I’ll Ubuntu up one of my spare computers and give it a shot.

If this is just a personal server, you’re OK running Ubuntu.  However, I’d be very cautious about deploying Ubuntu on any outward-facing box.  It’s “Debian-based” only in the sense that it uses APT and the config files are done the “Debian way”; beyond that, the Ubuntu server platform uses many Ubuntu-created tools, some of which have not been battle-tested the way other more well-known distros’ environments and tools have.

RedHat, CentOS, SUSE, EnGarde Linux, any of the BSDs and even Debian itself (the whole recent SSL thing aside) are better choices for public servers than Ubuntu.  These distros have millions of uptime-hours under their belts and have been subjected to serious scrutiny and hammering, formal and otherwise.  Last I checked Ubuntu tends to place newer packages in its repos than other server distros, which is a bad thing because servers should NEVER have bleeding-edge, cutting-edge or even sort of dull but still pretty new-edge software available easily.  And unless the Ubuntu team has changed things around since the last time I used it, all ports are wide open in iptables by default.  Proper server security dictates that you start locked down and loosen up, not the other way around.

As for sudo being a better way than su…

Absolutely not.  It is easier, but that doesn’t make it better.  I run two *nix-based servers at home.  One provides DHCP as well as local and public DNS; the other is a web server and SSH gateway to the rest of my network.  I absolutely cannot have either of these machines compromised, ever. 

Both are tightly firewalled using my router and finely-tuned iptables restrictions.  On both of them I’ve moved common commands that can be used for reconnaissance (ps, who, ping, dig, ifconfig and about a dozen others) from /usr/bin into /usr/sbin (root only).  And both use su only for root access.  Why?

1.  One more layer of security.  Even if you figure out my ridiculously complex user password, you STILL have to figure out my even more complex root password before you can even learn anything about my boxes or network, much less change anything.  And then if you want to hAx0r any of my other boxes, you have to go through that yet again with totally different passwords.  I’ve got root login disabled over SSH, so nobody can get root on my boxes without first logging in as someone else.

2.  Many people don’t realize this, but “sudo -i” is for all intents and purposes exactly the same as “su -” if you have full privs in /etc/sudoers.  Namely, it drops you into a root shell with root’s environment (as opposed to sudo -s, which is a root-ish shell using your own environment).  So on a sudo box, if you know my user password you can get unlimited-duration root access. 

sudo’s only real security comes from properly configuring /etc/sudoers, but if you’re the lone admin of the box then you’re going to give yourself full rights to admin it unless you’re horribly sadistic and create separate user accounts for different admin functions (web, networking, logs, etc.). 

But again, if this is only a personal or a non-critical server, by all means go with Ubuntu.

Joined today to tell us that. Nice chap.

Mr. Yuck - 23 September 2008 10:44 PM

Joined today to tell us that. Nice chap.

If there’s one thing I’ve found to be true during my recent foray into open-source culture, it’s that Linux users tend to be VERY passionate about their gear.

***posting from an Asus Eee 701 running Ubuntu Eee 8.04, with most of the Netbook Remix stuff stripped out because it was really annoying and buggy.***

That post reminded me of the last time I bought a computer. I started a thread over at ParadoxOT asking for setup advice and I was quickly bewildered into microsoftism. The thread went on for weeks and there was zero agreement among the many opinions.

I guess that’s the trade-off for having an OS that’s extremely flexible and customizable. If I understand correctly, you can set-up something like Debian to look and act more-or-less however you want, rather than pick from a relatively small number of options (like you’d find in Windows or OSX). And since a lot of Linux users are knowledgeable about what their machines can do and what they personally like, I could easily see how there’d be a lot of arguing when asked about the “best” way to do anything.

For instance: What’s the best window manager? In Windows, you’ve got one—simple answer. There are at least a half-dozen decent options just for Ubuntu --IceWM, Gnome, KDE, etc.—and each one is probably better at some specific task than the others. For someone used to the relative ease of Windows, it’s kind of a weird discussion—particularly when people start getting passionate.

I’m like “I just want Firefox to work.”