Prev: Can we please stop winding Rowland up?
Next: Apple RAM pricing
From: T i m on 29 Mar 2010 05:31
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:26:14 +0100, chris <ithinkiam(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>On 27/03/10 22:31, T i m wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 21:51:36 +0000, usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk (Woody)
>> wrote:
>>> The DNS setup is identical to had it been linux as I used webmin, which
>>> is what I would have done on linux (what I did do in linux).
>>
>> I installed the Ubuntu server recently then realised I could do
>> nothing with it without some sort of GUI desktop, so installed GNOME
>> (reminiscent of Windows 3.1 on top of DOS<g>), only to then find the
>> web-admin thing.
>
>Well, no surprise there.

Indeed. But what was a surprise was just how little *I* could do with
it like that.

> The 'server' version is specifically for
>running headless servers i.e. X/Gnome/KDE are superfluous.

Understood, as just like I'm running my WHS. However, it was very nice
to be able to use the box directly whilst installing and configuring
it. It's also nice to know I can do the same if / when something
should go sufficiently wrong to stop me getting remote access. It
happens to be plugged into the main TV and I will get a USB kbd with
integrated trackpad for such times when it is easier or only possible
to do stuff directly (like BIOS settings).
>
>Unless you know what you're doing, server editions of Ubuntu are no
>better than the std desktop version. You have access to exactly the same
>software in either, the just come with a different subset by default...

But I thought part of the point of the server version was adding stuff
made it 'less secure'? When I added GNOME retrospectively I thought I
had to download it first (well apt get thing did)?

Had I not given up and gone WHS at that point I think I would have
been happy with the web-admin thing (once I found it).

Cheers, T i m

From: chris on 29 Mar 2010 08:45
On 29/03/10 10:31, T i m wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:26:14 +0100, chris<ithinkiam(a)gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]

>> Unless you know what you're doing, server editions of Ubuntu are no
>> better than the std desktop version. You have access to exactly the same
>> software in either, the just come with a different subset by default...
>
> But I thought part of the point of the server version was adding stuff
> made it 'less secure'?

Where did you get that idea from? Unless you're installing malware, a
linux machine is as safe with default software as it is with extras added.

Installing 'stuff' from the Ubuntu repositories (which are signed) is
typically very safe.

> When I added GNOME retrospectively I thought I
> had to download it first (well apt get thing did)?

That's right. It is downloaded from the Ubuntu repositories.

>

From: Woody on 29 Mar 2010 09:05
chris <ithinkiam(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> On 29/03/10 10:31, T i m wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:26:14 +0100, chris<ithinkiam(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> >> Unless you know what you're doing, server editions of Ubuntu are no
> >> better than the std desktop version. You have access to exactly the same
> >> software in either, the just come with a different subset by default...
> >
> > But I thought part of the point of the server version was adding stuff
> > made it 'less secure'?
>
> Where did you get that idea from? Unless you're installing malware, a
> linux machine is as safe with default software as it is with extras added.

Actually, no it can't be. Every piece of software you install has the
risk of flaws in its construction, so presents a certain level of
vunerability, so every time you add a piece of software, you add
additional risk, unless that risk is totally covered by the same risk
somewhere eles.

> Installing 'stuff' from the Ubuntu repositories (which are signed) is
> typically very safe.


> > When I added GNOME retrospectively I thought I
> > had to download it first (well apt get thing did)?
>
> That's right. It is downloaded from the Ubuntu repositories.

gnome has had quite a few vunterabilities fixed but is still a large
piece of network aware software, so almost certainly has additional
vunerabilities yet undiscovered. So therefor a machine with gnome on is
less secure than a machine without it.

Might not be a huge amount less, but it is definately less.


--
Woody
From: Bernard Peek on 29 Mar 2010 09:13
On 29/03/10 14:05, Woody wrote:
> chris<ithinkiam(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 29/03/10 10:31, T i m wrote:
>>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:26:14 +0100, chris<ithinkiam(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>>>> Unless you know what you're doing, server editions of Ubuntu are no
>>>> better than the std desktop version. You have access to exactly the same
>>>> software in either, the just come with a different subset by default...
>>>
>>> But I thought part of the point of the server version was adding stuff
>>> made it 'less secure'?
>>
>> Where did you get that idea from? Unless you're installing malware, a
>> linux machine is as safe with default software as it is with extras added.
>
> Actually, no it can't be. Every piece of software you install has the
> risk of flaws in its construction, so presents a certain level of
> vunerability, so every time you add a piece of software, you add
> additional risk, unless that risk is totally covered by the same risk
> somewhere eles.

Agreed. If you are going to load commercially or personally sensitive
data on to a server you should bear this in mind. Every additional piece
of software you install adds to the risk and every program you run
reduces speed and reliability to some degree. Of course if you were
particularly worried about either speed or reliability you would
probably use purpose-built hardware.


--
Bernard Peek
bap(a)shrdlu.com
From: Chris Ridd on 29 Mar 2010 10:25
On 2010-03-29 13:45:30 +0100, chris said:

> Where did you get that idea from? Unless you're installing malware, a
> linux machine is as safe with default software as it is with extras
> added.
>
> Installing 'stuff' from the Ubuntu repositories (which are signed) is
> typically very safe.

Signing is irrelevant, it just proves that it came from Ubuntu.

If you install unnecessary things on a public facing server you widen
the "attack surface". Basically more stuff's there with more bugs and
it is thus more attackable.

--
Chris

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Can we please stop winding Rowland up?
Next: Apple RAM pricing