[buug] Linux Security Site

[Zeke Krahlin]

Rick Moen espoused:

> Quoting Zeke Krahlin (ezekielk at iname.com):
>> I don't find that to always be the case. I have five clients who
>> already took my advice to drop AOL, and go for one of the local
>> services for a lot less cost (and some even chose a free service).
>> They are all glad they did so. Any client who would not consider
>> taking the brave leap from AOL to a generic ISP, I do not bother to
>> offer any other PC alternatives (like Linux).

> OK, so they're at least a little bit enterprising.  This helps a 
> great deal.  

Yeah, they have a sense of adventure, as well as do not have any
pressing need to keep Windoze on their system. One client does
play some Windoze games, but that's it. They all can do their
word-processing, note taking, bookkeeping, and web browsing in
Linux...and three of them now do...since I am finally able to
secure their Linux OS while connected. Also, while not
particularly computer-savvy, they have a strong political sense
that inspires them to boycott Micro$oft (with a little nudging
from yours truly).  ;)

Before I set them up for Internet browsing, they already were
running Linux for desktop needs. Now that I understand how to
tweak security, they can also browse via Linux. In fact, a strong
point I now realize, for using Linux; is that it is a lot more
secure for Internet activity, than Windoze. With the public being
so aware now, of all the imminent dangers lurking on the 'net for
Windoze systems...Linux's native security will become more and
more of a selling point...IMO. Even if PC users still prefer
Windoze for desktop use, they are now more likely to install
Linux just for their Web browsing (and other Internet activities
such as ftp, chat, and e-mail).

My current goal is to find/install all the necessary plug-ins, so
Linux can play Real Audio files, shockwave, etc.

> Let me be clear about this:  It's _eminently_ possible to set up Linux
> as a preconfigured desktop box that meets people's needs.  

I know that, and this is *exactly what I want to do for clients
and friends. I am very happy to be finally getting through this
learning-curve hump, so that I can assist others who want to use
Linux. The excellent resource, references, and advice--by
yourself and a few others--are proving indispensible in hastening
my learning process. Thanks immensely, for taking some of your
valuable time to bother popping my "Windoze tunnel vision"
bubble! This is very much like the way John Scott helped newbies
such as myself (when I was a DOS and BBS newbie). By the way, we
are in touch again, so thanks.

> However, if you pitch it as an MS Windows replacement, it will be
> evaluated on those terms and found wanting.  So, as the old joke goes,
> don't do that, then.  Promote Linux in a way that highlights its
> strengths.

I make it very clear to my clients, what to expect, and what not
to expect. But since they are mostly clueless in Windoze, still,
the transition to Linux is much simpler for them, than for those
who know how to use Windoze shortcuts, and run a lot of special
utilities to enhance their Windoze use. By their lack of
mastering Windoze, they are therefore *not so plugged into that
horrid OS, as to have to go through a serious UN-learning curve,
in their transition to Linux. This is good. Linux will actually
be easier for *them, than for *me.

> It just happens that many of the things that are distinctively good
> about Linux have to do with networking and long-lived processe.  When
> you set up dual-booting, you are crippling Linux in both of those areas.

Understood. But I must use dual-booting for my clients, who do
not want two PC's in their workspace. I still believe that
switching to Linux, even on a dual-boot, is better than just
running Windoze. As they grow more comfortable with Linux, I can
then get rid of Windoze entirely...except for that one client who
plays some Windoze games.

As for myself...once I master the basics of Linux, I will then
remove Windoze, and study further, the networking features of
Linux (as opposed to my present challenge to set up non-networked
desktops).

>> Thanx. I've downloaded puTTY. But It seems repugnant to use Windoze to
>> access Linux.  Are there methods to accomplish same via DOS? (If so,
>> would it be only non-graphics?)

> Your wording in the latter part (would it be only non-graphics) suggests 
> that we must be having some sort of severe misunderstanding.

My DOS/Windoze tunnel vision, obviously. :[

> Why ssh into a Linux box from MS Windows?  Because it's necessary at 
> various times, and telnet is no longer acceptable for security reasons.

I was hoping there'd be some sort of ssh for DOS, but I guess
not. Anything to avoid relying on Windoze is just fine with me. I
like the idea of a dual DOS/Linux system (no Windoze)...I do love
"abandonware", especially the older DOS games. So I guess there
is only telnet for DOS, no ssh. I used to connect to an ISP with
a Unix shell, using only my DOS OS...and remotely ran Pine and
other Unix Internet programs, like Lynx.

>> But why would this method of accessing the Linux box be more
>> practical, than using a split video cable, where I can run Linux
>> directly...with no Windoze shell holding it all up? Is this method
>> almost just as fast and robust as using Linux directly? 

>I apparently was tired when I wrote my earlier message, since the real
>win from VNC is not the configuration I described, but rather the
>reverse:  The Win32 VNC server allows you to export Win32 programs'
>graphical calls across a LAN to a VNC client.  

I see! Thanks for elucidating. I am saving your instructions, in
the event any client really wants to keep Windoze that badly.
What an elegant, and rather inexpensive solution. In fact, I'd
certainly like to have this set-up myself...for, sadly, I think
I'll need Windoze for considerably longer than I hoped. I have
certain peripherals that may eventually interface with
Linux...but not at this time. They are: my LS-120 Imation
SuperDrive (parallel, not USB), my Casio PDA PC-sync cradle
(serial, not USB), and Logitech scanner (parallel, not USB).
Also, some valuable Internet services require Windows, such as
dialpad.com's free long distance.

My goal then, is to have such a "headless" Windoze system for my
own use and enjoyment. "Off with his head!"...now *that's how I
like to use Windoze!   :D

> This allows the user to slowly acculturate himself to Linux and X, while
> at the same time having instant access to any desired Win32 application.

Before considering Linux for a client, I do question them
thoroughly about what Windoze programs he or she definitely
needs...and then if there is any acceptable equivalent in Linux.

> It also gets people to understand that networks are a natural and
> expected part of computing, so that they feel constrained when those are 
> _not_ present, as they should.  Just as they should feel cheated if it's
> not practical to leave their applications running and maintaining state
> for months at a time.

Thanx once more for your generous assistance, Rick. I feel very
lucky to be in touch with such knowledgable people. Our first
meeting at BAFUG was a great pleasure, BTW. Disappointed,
however, in not seeing you there.


__________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html