Posts made by guyinpv

If I wanted to get a 2tb or higher normal 3.5 SATA drive, who has the best, fastest stuff right now?

The point being this is not common knowledge or vernacular.

To all but the most learned, something is either "Linux-y" or "Windows-y" or "Mac-y".

I'm not sure we'll ever get away from the idea that the word "Linux" has simply become "those other OSes that aren't Windows or Mac".

I'm not a Linux guy really, I only manage a handful of non-gui VMs and web servers using Ubuntu or CentOS.
I've played with some distros with GUIs, especially Mint, but some others too like say Elementary. I've tried out KDE, Cinnamon, xfce, Mate, Gnome, Plasma just for kicks. I could never find anything that really felt good enough to use as a primary OS. And I don't play games, rarely.

But regarding language, it can sometimes still be difficult knowing when to say "this is a Linux thing" versus something that is more about the distro, the GUI, the window manager, the graphics subsystem, whatever implementation.

Today I found myself installing a tool on Window. But the folders it created reminded me of a Linux file system, i.e. "usr", "etc", "bin", and so on. And I thought to myself, "their folder structure looks like Linux".

Then I stopped myself. Do the folders really look like "Linux", or do they look like what is common of many "distros"? Many "OSes"? Is the folder system a function of the kernel or just a convention? If the kernel were swapped with a different kernel, wouldn't it still use the same folder structure?

I'm not sure it's accurate to say the folders "looked like Linux". But at the same time, it sounds pedantic to use almost any other phraseology than the simple phrase "looks like Linux".
I don't know why the file system is the way it is, maybe it's convention, maybe not. But nothing sounded better than the simple observation "looks like Linux".

If that was inaccurate terminology, I don't know what would be better.

Somebody piss off Trump?

I typically end up eating at least one or two of those Walmart Marketside salads every week. If not more.

They are quite beefy, filling. Takes a long time to eat.

I prefer the Fried Chicken salad or the Southwest.

@scottalanmiller said in While on the topic of ransomware...:

@guyinpv said in While on the topic of ransomware...:

The idea of the backup software "pulling in" the backups is an interesting idea. No real inbound connection possible. The traditional "backup software", whatever that is, would just have to prepare the backup before hand. Or the backup server would have to get full access to everything that needs backing up.

[In the context of this discussion, I'm really talking about backup solutions for plain old Windows boxes]

Right, so for Windows, for example, backup might be handled by a combination of Veeam Endpoint Protection (I'm at VeeamOn) and some PowerShell. Use Veeam to make a locally held backup. Then reach "in" with PowerShell or SSH and pull it out to someplace safe.

What does the locally held backup look like? Is it generating something along the lines of a giant compressed, encrypted, single file?

How long would that take, to essentially "zip up" a large user profile into a single file? Let's say about 1TB. Are these incremental backups I would suspect?

@Dashrender said in Simple Proofs that Linux Is Not an Operating System with Ubuntu and Debian:

Here is where I disagree - I can no longer search how do I do x on Windows - I'll get answers for Windows XP, Win 7, etc. But I want an answer for Win 10 1703. So I either get to sift through tons of irrelevant trash, or be more specific in my search.

Come to think of it, I'm noticing that too.

Touche

The flip of that for Linux are lots of articles written that don't distinguish shell environments or package managers. You begin following instructions only to find some tool is not installed by default, or any number of other issues, paths aren't the same as their examples, etc.

But again, the qualification is not just a version. I can look for Windows 7 or Windows 10. But most users running a distro won't be looking for specific Linux kernels or package managers or shell environments, or even know to distinguish.
They will still say "I run Linux! That one Linux called Mint!"

It would be nice to ignore the kernel, but it's impossible. As it stands, one has to know if it's Debian based or RH or whatever, which shell is used, what package manager, and what window manager is used. And all that just to know if they can install something.

@wirestyle22 said in Simple Proofs that Linux Is Not an Operating System with Ubuntu and Debian:

@guyinpv said in Simple Proofs that Linux Is Not an Operating System with Ubuntu and Debian:

@wirestyle22 said in Simple Proofs that Linux Is Not an Operating System with Ubuntu and Debian:

@guyinpv There are base Linux commands and then specific commands for the package managers and packages etc.

Right. But still the average person doesn't search for "how do I do X in bash with Debian-based linux kernel operating system distros using Aptitude".

My point is that the general public who toys with drop-in OSes like Mint, will either search for "how do I do x in Mint", or "how do I do x in linux" (hoping to get Mint-compatible answers).

Either we have to speak to people using their vernacular, or we have to teach them to understand ours. And one of those two options is a lot easier than the other!

My experience here has shown me that we (ML) are not interested in doing things the easy way. The only concern is being accurate and doing things the right way. In this instance, Linux is the kernal and Mint is the OS.

That's perfectly acceptable as long as there is still general language that can be used. For example Mint is an "operating system", but it's not Windows or Mac, it's specifically a "Linux operating system", but then, "Linux operating system" is not a real thing! So what are we left with? "Mint, the linux-based operating system". hrm

See this is where pedantic language gets in the way and people just ignore it and say Mint is a Linux operating system anyway. Only the cyborgs will say Mint is an "operating system based on the Linux kernal distro Ubuntu". or whatever

The world needs a hero. A hero of few words. It might not be the hero they want, but it's the hero they need.

The idea of the backup software "pulling in" the backups is an interesting idea. No real inbound connection possible. The traditional "backup software", whatever that is, would just have to prepare the backup before hand. Or the backup server would have to get full access to everything that needs backing up.

[In the context of this discussion, I'm really talking about backup solutions for plain old Windows boxes]

@wirestyle22 said in Simple Proofs that Linux Is Not an Operating System with Ubuntu and Debian:

@guyinpv There are base Linux commands and then specific commands for the package managers and packages etc.

Right. But still the average person doesn't search for "how do I do X in bash with Debian-based linux kernel operating system distros using Aptitude".

My point is that the general public who toys with drop-in OSes like Mint, will either search for "how do I do x in Mint", or "how do I do x in linux" (hoping to get Mint-compatible answers).

Either we have to speak to people using their vernacular, or we have to teach them to understand ours. And one of those two options is a lot easier than the other!

@DustinB3403 said in While on the topic of ransomware...:

@guyinpv said in While on the topic of ransomware...:

This is why I'm wondering, why couldn't there be a way to have a network drive, or even a local drive, that is simply a protected entity and only certain programs can unlock and access, such as the backup software?
Double-click drive "F" and up pops a login screen. Simple right? It would allow the user and backup tools to access but, presumably, would be much harder for malware to figure out.

AetherStore.

Nice tech.

Seems like it just creates what amounts to a "normal" drive though. Still vulnerable?

But we still have to function in the real world.
I saw this list at the bottom of some website:

Here they are, referencing "in Linux" like it's an operating system itself.

Don't forget how the internet works, with search engines, and how websites design content around SEO, which is tied to how search engines work.

If someone wants to learn how to use the find command, they aren't going to search for "how to use find in a linux distro". They probably won't even search for "how to search for files when I have bash" or whatever.

The fact is, most all the content on the web uses the single word "Linux" to generally represent everything. I certainly do it. I search for "how do I do X in linux". Well "in linux" makes it sound like linux is a standalone operating system. Just like how I'd search for "how to do X in Windows". I don't mention the version, or the kernel structure.
Nobody is going to search for "how to do X in [insert one particular distro only] with linux kernel" because that will likely reduce the number of valid results they might get, and literally makes little sense grammatically.

The world will continue to say "linux" to represent any operating system running linux kernel which is found on a desktop.

And speaking of marketing, nobody is going to search for "how to do x in linux cell phones". The branding of Android has separated it from its kernel. "How to do x in android", much more likely.

When we go from "Ubuntu, the cool Linux operating system", to "Ubuntu, a cool operating system", then we can make progress. Stop saying "Bubbagoo, a new Linux operating system distro thingy", and instead just say "Bubbagoo, a new cool operating system".

It's the marketing that matters. Stop presenting the distros as a set of core underlying technologies, and simply market it as a new thing period. Put the tech stack in some footer link somewhere for nerds to find if they want.

Certainly there is a conversation in tech about ethics.

If I'm a programmer, I probably have certain ideas about what makes good or bad software or what is good or bad practice.

But really, what can they do? It's like a military-esque "sir yes sir" and just follow orders to program stuff. Why? Because you like money. And having a job is better than having no job. And some people think it's better to ask forgiveness than permission. And when questioned later the response is "I was just doing what I was told".

If I've landed a coveted job at a big corp with all the benefits and latest toys and clearing 6 figures and my whole lifestyle hangs on "build a little keylogger", it's kind of a hard choice.

How do these product meetings go? And how does someone learn programming without understanding the vulnerabilities in this?

Lead: "So we need to basically monitor all keystrokes. Would be a good idea to store them all in a plain text file too, just in case. All management and CEO think this is a great idea."

Programmer: "Seems legit. There's probably a Windows API hook for this.....[runs back to desk]"

So moral of the story; don't bother with a $2.50 VULTR instance.

@JaredBusch said in 2.50/month host available at Vultr:

@coliver said in 2.50/month host available at Vultr:

Didn't have any issues installing from an ISO or running anything on the server. But you're probably right they are likely oversubscribed.

Tried it 3 times this morning.

That's very interesting. Did you contact support per chance?
And secondly, are the specs of the cheap box supposed to be able to run what you wanted? Not just looking at purely under-powered instance?
I mean, it IS under-powered, but by the books, does that instance meet the hardware requirements of what you wanted to load?

But what is the technique?
No local drives or drive letters.
No LAN connections.

The malware needs access to the files as a drive. it has to directly access them and fiddle with them "in place".

A tech like FTP would work, simply because it cannot actively "work on" a file in place. It would have to download the file, encrypt it, and upload it, replacing the previous version. But without the FTP credentials, or even knowing such a connection were possible or saved somewhere, it would stay safe.
Thus a backup program which makes an FTP connection (or -insert any other FTP-like connection-) is a pretty safe bet assuming the credentials are stored and used safely.
But again, I'm talking about local high-speed backup options.

This is why I'm wondering, why couldn't there be a way to have a network drive, or even a local drive, that is simply a protected entity and only certain programs can unlock and access, such as the backup software?
Double-click drive "F" and up pops a login screen. Simple right? It would allow the user and backup tools to access but, presumably, would be much harder for malware to figure out.

@scottalanmiller said in Simple Proofs that Linux Is Not an Operating System with Ubuntu and Debian:

@guyinpv said in Simple Proofs that Linux Is Not an Operating System with Ubuntu and Debian:

If my grandpa says to me "I'd like you install Linux on my computer" (which he has), I'm not going to give him a blank stare and act like, "what, he wants a kernel or something?"
Of course not, it means he wants me to install Mint or Ubuntu probably. And trying to correct his language not only makes me look like a cyborg, but also a douche.

But just installing Ubuntu when he wanted ChromeOS is not useful either.

This is the power of marketing.
ChromeOS is a brand, a standalone "thing". We all know a BigMac or a Whopper, everything else is just a "burger".

Ubuntu, while certainly is marketed well, has still done so on the back of being a "Linux thing", and so the two are inextricably linked and therefore interchangeable. Like "pickup truck" versus "truck".

@scottalanmiller

To the average person, they will call anything a "shirt" even if it's technically a henley or a polo or an oxford or a tank top, etc.

Who is harmed by it?

The McDonalds worker will want to clarify with someone asking for a Whopper, but what if they simply ask for a "hamburger"? Well, perhaps technically what makes something a hamburger is the "kernel" of a patty of beef. But if they ask for a hamburger, you simply clarify what kind of hamburger, what kind of stuff do they want on top of the kernel?

My point is simply that we still require common language, that's all. If people cannot refer to "Linux" as "that OS which is not Windows or Mac", then what do they have left?

We can teach people to say "Linux distro", sure. But that will always simply be cut back to "Linux" just to shorten the phrase. Because that's how language evolves it seems, people shortcut and abbreviate things.

It's like people who refer to a "truck" when they really need to say "pickup truck". They just drop one word and you still get the drift. Yet other people refer to their SUVs as trucks, because they can pull things.

I don't know, I just think it's common language is all. No other words have emerged that are better suited. If we dropped "Linux" and just said "distro", well who is to say the distro is built on Linux?
The common thing is not that it's just a distro, or that it's just an OS, but that it's built on Linux, hence people just call various OSes "Linux".

To 99% of people using casual language, there are three desktop operating systems; Windows, Mac, and Linux.

This is easy, common language.

If you eliminate using "Linux" as a term for "operating system", then there are no longer three desktop OSes, but untold numbers because now it's Windows, Mac, Ubuntu, FreeBSD, Mint, whatever, hundreds of them. And yet somehow in the back of people's minds the thing that connects all those is something something about Linux something something.

Sure it would be nice to always use perfect accurate language like the good cyborgs we all want to be, but at the end of the day, this is just casual language.

If my grandpa says to me "I'd like you install Linux on my computer" (which he has), I'm not going to give him a blank stare and act like, "what, he wants a kernel or something?"
Of course not, it means he wants me to install Mint or Ubuntu probably. And trying to correct his language not only makes me look like a cyborg, but also a douche.

Unfortunately, it seems like we are bound to use common vernacular or face looking like a bunch of elitist douches.