[buug] Linux Security Site

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Zeke Krahlin (ezekielk at netzero.net):
> Rick Moen espoused:

[Linux meets your desktop-user clients' needs]

>  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).  ;)

People who feel obliged to "boycott Microsoft" have not yet liberated
themselves:  Liberation comes when you cease being annoyed with people
who are now largely irrelevant to your life.  Microsoft software is
something that sensible people discarded in the early 1990s, when the
GNU Project, Linux, and the BSDs emerged from their infancy and free
software achieved critical mass.

For reasons having to do with market-manipulation and inertia, you still
find Microsoft software preloaded on most new computers, but /sbin/fdisk
fixes that easily.  Aside from that, you still find their mice (and
keyboards) around, which are tolerable but not as good as Logitech's
and some others, for X.

But, since that 1980s company need not be important in people's lives,
in modern computing, there's hardly any call for "boycotting" them.
You don't have to boycott buggy whips, do you?

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

http://vancouver-webpages.com/plugins/  is one place to start.
http://members.ping.at/theofilu/netscape.html  is getting too outdated.

>> 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.

My point is that there's a Linux approach to computing.  Without that 
Linux approach, and with misapplication of the MS Windows mindset, 
users will tend to get _less_ satisfaction from Linux, rather than
more.

Two of the key points about Linux are (1) Processes are long-lived
(months at a time).  (2) You make extensive use of networks.

Using Linux with those two aspects compromised is like bicycling
without being allowed to use your feet.  It's crippling.

And dual-booting does exactly that.  Which is _bad_.  More than 
you know, obviously.  Which is why I'm harping on that point.

> Understood. But I must use dual-booting for my clients, who do
> not want two PC's in their workspace.

[Sigh.]

You are citing mental inertia, as if it were an unalterable fact.

Wrong.  Possibly, they don't want two _consoles_ (keyboard, mouse,
and monitor).  They _think_ this means they don't want two computers,
but that is an error they are making because of the way they were
trained to think.

> I was hoping there'd be some sort of ssh for DOS, but I guess
> not.

Nope.  However, you can run an entire, miniature, non-X-based Linux
system from a boot floppy (which in turn mounts the root filesystem on a
RAMdisk).  Or, if what you really need is DOS, you can run FreeDOS
or Caldera DR-DOS, rather than MS-DOS/PC-DOS.  The latter is free
of charge for personal use, and includes fairly extensive TCP/IP tools.
No ssh client, though.

> 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.

For that, you don't need ssh.

[vnc]

> 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.

Exactly!  It shares the monitor, and basically all you need is 
two cheap ethernet cards, a crossover cable, and a cast-off x86
box without monitor (such as a P90) to be the Linux end.

Unlike many other ways of running Win32 applications remotely
(VMware, WINE, X servers for Win32), it doesn't cripple the Linux
box's performance or security, and works reliable.

> 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)...

Supported.
http://www.torque.net/parport/paride.html

> ...my Casio PDA PC-sync cradle (serial, not USB)...

Supported at the hardware level, in the sense that Linux's generic
serial support will communicate through _to_ it.  Whether anyone
has written Casio-PDA sync software for Linux is unknown to me.

> ...and Logitech scanner (parallel, not USB).

Cannot be supported, because Logitech refuses to cooperate with
open-source programmers.  Send them flame-mail.  And buy a
better-supported scanner from a more-cooperative manufacturer, next
time.

http://www.buzzard.org.uk/jonathan/scanners.html

Basically, about half the parallel-port scanner models available have
now either been helped out by cooperative manufacturers or have been
reverse-engineered.  It took this long because programmers smart
enough to write the drivers tend to be also smart enough to buy 
SCSI models, instead of parallel ones.

However, for _all_ Linux parallel-port support issues, you start
looking here, at the Linux Parallel Port Home Page:

http://www.torque.net/linux-pp.html

And, how would you have known that?  By starting at the Linux
Documentation Project, http://www.linuxdoc.org/ , where you start
almost any such question.  There, you follow the "Links/Resources"
link, then the "Hardware" link from there, and among the listings
under "Peripherals" you would have seen "Linux Parallel Port Home Page".

The LDP is also where you'd find, for example, the kernel 2.3
USB and Firewire drivers, and would eventually discover that they've
been back-ported for compatibility with kernel 2.2.14.

I cite that as an example of how useful the LDP site is.  Trust the LDP.
The LDP is your friend.

(And, when all else fails, use Google, Infoseek, and Deja.)

> Also, some valuable Internet services require Windows, such as
> dialpad.com's free long distance.

But there are alternatives with Linux support, such as Quicknet's.

> 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.

See, that's not the right attitude.  You should look for what the
user cannot _currently_ do, or can do only poorly, because he doesn't 
yet have a Linux box to do it on.

> 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.

I now live in Menlo Park (and work in Sunnyvale).  Berkeley's 
a bit of a trip, especially through rush-hour traffic.

-- 
Cheers,     Founding member of the Hyphenation Society, a grassroots-based, 
Rick Moen   not-for-profit, locally-owned-and-operated, cooperatively-managed,
rick (at) linuxmafia.com  modern-American-English-usage-improvement association