EXP: Geekbuzz - Share your Warez: Set Up a Secure Server

ForumSafari

New member
Sep 25, 2012
572
0
0
Personally I've never had a problem with unsecured shares and will just change them to read only. If you're concerned about share security there's an argument that you're better off making sure your perimeter security is up to scratch. There's nothing wrong with chmod 777 on a share if the share settings within Samba are then set to read only, there's also not much of an issue having an unsecured share at all if your router firewall is properly configured and your wireless password is strong, bear in mind any malware that enters your LAN will be able to access mounted shares anyway so securing a share with a password isn't helpful in the vast majority of cases.
 

TheNarrator

New member
Feb 12, 2010
49
0
0
Strazdas said:
I agree with you. This seems unnecessarely obtuse and much mroe complicated than it ever needs to be. If anything, it shows how little Linux developers have done in comparison to other platforms. If you need to work the terminal to set things up your doing it wrong.
I've been using Linux casually for years now, and the few times I actually need the terminal, it's almost always trivial to find the exact commands I need by simply googling my problem. I can understand why you wouldn't want your mum to give it a try, but anyone with basic computer literacy has no reason to be afraid of the terminal. After a while, you'll also be using the terminal because for certain tasks it's a lot faster than clicking around in a GUI (you spend less time looking for things, you just type what you need).

I'm not saying that Linux is exceptionally user-friendly, but it's an irritating and common misconception that Linux is too hard for young, computer literate people to grasp, usually by people who have never used or even seen a modern Linux distro, based off some rumours that were relevant a decade ago. You don't need to touch the command line at all for common tasks if you don't want to (setting up a server is not a common task), and rarely for less-common issues. And when you do need it it's generally not exactly rocket science to figure out what you're supposed to do.

Driver issues are probably the most important lingering problem these days, but even that's getting a lot better. Nvidia and Intel GPU's have really solid Linux drivers today.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
Whoracle said:
Strazdas said:
If you need to work the terminal to set things up your doing it wrong.
Erm... no. Absolutely not. If you need a graphical interface because your terminal commands are too obtuse to be figured out, you're doing it wrong. If I need a graphics stack (be it X11 or wayland or whatever), a bunch of extra libraries and tools and overall a bunch of added unneeded complexity, then you're doing it wrong. A GUI can be a nice thing, but in no way, shape or form can it ever be better or faster than a GOOD cli. The only thing you NEED a GUI for is graphical programs, but things that are by their very nature text-based don't need a GUI. Period.

And a case example: I can spell a command on the phone. Easy Peasy. But try to tell people over the phone where to find their GUI and to make sure they've clicked (with the right mouse button, no less) on the right spot on a modal interface (i.e. a GUI) and you're going to have a bad time.

It's
"Type f-i-r-e-f-o-x in the black box..."
vs.
"OK, click on the Firefox Icon... The one you use to go on the internet... No, NOT the blue "E"... Aha... No, I don't know where the Firefox Icon is on your desktop... It looks like a fox wrapped around a globe... YES, Mozilla, that sounds about right... NO, Mother, that's your MAIL client... See? It has a phoenix around an envelope, not a fox around a planet... y'know what? I'll just come over..."
This is not 1990. An average user should not see terminal at all in their usage. Terminal commands should be handled by software with GUI. That is the bare minimum standard we must uphold if we want linux to be widespread. Its not about how complex it is for the machine, its about how complex it is for the end user. and end users understand GUI.

Your example is grasping for straws. i can tell you the exact same story about trying to tell a person over the phone trying to tell a person how to start a command prompt.
Also i actually had people type "enter" in command promt instead of pressing it. yes, really.

The remote desktop (while unsecure) is very popular now simply because the best way to teach people is to show them. and text based interface wont work here.

TheNarrator said:
I've been using Linux casually for years now, and the few times I actually need the terminal, it's almost always trivial to find the exact commands I need by simply googling my problem. I can understand why you wouldn't want your mum to give it a try, but anyone with basic computer literacy has no reason to be afraid of the terminal. After a while, you'll also be using the terminal because for certain tasks it's a lot faster than clicking around in a GUI (you spend less time looking for things, you just type what you need).

I'm not saying that Linux is exceptionally user-friendly, but it's an irritating and common misconception that Linux is too hard for young, computer literate people to grasp, usually by people who have never used or even seen a modern Linux distro, based off some rumours that were relevant a decade ago. You don't need to touch the command line at all for common tasks if you don't want to (setting up a server is not a common task), and rarely for less-common issues. And when you do need it it's generally not exactly rocket science to figure out what you're supposed to do.

Driver issues are probably the most important lingering problem these days, but even that's getting a lot better. Nvidia and Intel GPU's have really solid Linux drivers today.
You assume the intelligence of the user. That is unrealistic. You are a "power user". Most people arent. most people will not think about googling stuff. i could tell you plenty of stories how "advanced computer knowledge" courses teach people such stuff as how to change your desktop background - and those people dont actually know beforehand.
The "young computer literate" is a very small minority of computer users. actually the word "young" wont really fit here. young people arent more computer knowledgable. most people wouldnt know it past their daily interface.
Yes, it is not rocket science. Neither is cooking, but how many of you are chiefs? Most people dont know and do not want to know, they just want to click this and let the magic happen.

I always had more software programs on linux (especially firefox strangely) than drivers, but then i do make a rule of using very widely available hardare after some hard lessons from limited series hardware that does not even have driver support on any OS form the manufacturer or the seller (i had to scavenge hosting sites to find somones backup when fixing that one up)
 

Whoracle

New member
Jan 7, 2008
241
0
0
Strazdas said:
This is not 1990. An average user should not see terminal at all in their usage. Terminal commands should be handled by software with GUI. That is the bare minimum standard we must uphold if we want linux to be widespread. Its not about how complex it is for the machine, its about how complex it is for the end user. and end users understand GUI.
No. End users understand close to nothing. neither GUI nor CLI. And end users shouldn't have to configure anything, really, which is why sensible defaults are important, no matter if GUI or CLI.

Your example is grasping for straws. i can tell you the exact same story about trying to tell a person over the phone trying to tell a person how to start a command prompt.
Someone who is unable to click on "Start" and then type 3 letters is equally unable to download teamviewer and give you the ID/passcode.
I work in 3rd level tech support, and I meet people like that every week... but those people have no (and I mean aboslutely no) need for interchanging files between different OSes, since they don't even know what a file IS or where it resides in the file system, OS be damned.

Also i actually had people type "enter" in command promt instead of pressing it. yes, really.
I believe that, but even then you can get them to read what it says EXACTLY on the prompt, as opposed to "But I clicked the mozilla icon". Also, have you considered that this specific example might be your fault? I don't want to attack you or anything, but I had a similar experience once, where I told a guy that I needed his logos for his website, and if he could send them to me. I got them printed out in the mail. And yes, that was my fault, because in his world, "to send" something doesn't mean by email.
Maybe the same with you: "Type COMMAND and then ENTER" as opposed to "Type COMMAND and then press the ENTER Key".

The remote desktop (while unsecure) is very popular now simply because the best way to teach people is to show them.
People don't want to be shown. They want someone to just "fix it" for them. They don't listen, they don't care. And neither CLI nor GUI will help there. And if there's a will to learn, it's easier for people to write down commands than GUI interactions. But I'm not talking about USING software via the CLI. I'm talking configuration here. And such people simply should never get to the point where they have to install and configure a service on their system.
Hence my first post in here: "Why samba? Let them create the share under windows and just click 'Browse Network' in their file browser of choice. Maybe let them install cifs-utils first, which doesn't need to be configured."

Yes, it is not rocket science. Neither is cooking, but how many of you are chiefs? Most people dont know and do not want to know, they just want to click this and let the magic happen.
While I concur with the rest of your paragraph, this is a false analogy. Yes, not everyone is a chef, but almost everyone can at least cook well enough to not poison themselves and not starve. No one expects the general user to configure his OS from the ground up, bells and whistles and everything. But people should have at least HEARD of a file browser, and should be able to input simple one line commands into a text prompt. Only on the computer, that is asked too much apparently. Even if said people do EXACTLY that every day, only not with a text prompt, but with a word processor.

young people arent more computer knowledgable. most people wouldnt know it past their daily interface.
And picking this out, as well, since this is so true it isn't even funny anymore. I've got a nice little anecdote to tell about that one:
A friend of mine thought tom himself after graduating University he'd go and learn something "down to earth", so he went and got himself an apprenticeship as a precision mechanic (I hope that's the correct translation...). So he with his 35 years of age is sitting in school again with a bunch of 16 to 18 year olds. All of those have their iDevices and AndroBots and whatnot.
One day they had CAD class. The assignment went "Take this thumb drive, copy the file on there over to your computer and open it with the CAD program."
And I shit you not, almost half the class sat in front of their computers and patted and pawed the screens, wondering why nothing happened, completely stumped by the concept of mouse and keyboard...
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
Whoracle said:
Strazdas said:
This is not 1990. An average user should not see terminal at all in their usage. Terminal commands should be handled by software with GUI. That is the bare minimum standard we must uphold if we want linux to be widespread. Its not about how complex it is for the machine, its about how complex it is for the end user. and end users understand GUI.
No. End users understand close to nothing. neither GUI nor CLI. And end users shouldn't have to configure anything, really, which is why sensible defaults are important, no matter if GUI or CLI.
I had much better exeprience telling people to "press this button that look like a disc" than telling people to enter commands. console seem to confuse people for some reason much more than nice looking pictures. But you are right, most users dont understand anything. however it is much simpler for them to learn to use GUI, and they have to learn unless they want to come running to me every day.
Sensible defauts does not mean most restricted. I remember there was a firewall (i wont name it now) that had all restrictions on by default. i took half an hour to set everything to "Sensible" levels where instead of automatically blocking everything it would indeed ask me if this new program i installed to conenct to internet really should connect to internet. most users - bah, itnernet is gone, it doesnt work, lets delete it (and they delete files and not uninstall meaning the firewall still blocks the internet and they call ctech support). On the other hand another firewall would allow all connections unless told to be blocked. It stopped being supported 4 years ago and people still use it sucesfully.
Simple user does not need restrictions. simple user need things to work. and since we dont know their configuration we should make the default settings as open to that as possible.

Someone who is unable to click on "Start" and then type 3 letters is equally unable to download teamviewer and give you the ID/passcode.
I work in 3rd level tech support, and I meet people like that every week... but those people have no (and I mean aboslutely no) need for interchanging files between different OSes, since they don't even know what a file IS or where it resides in the file system, OS be damned.
they usually get confused at finding command prompt. they seem to be unable to use the run program. mostly thgey end up writing the console commands into the run program line. Teamviewer though? send it via skype (and they all know how to use skype here, there isnt anyone with internet without skype in my country sadly (skype is shit)) they run it and bam your inside.
You do have a point with most of them not wanting file sharing between OSs since they usually dont even know what OS is, but that does not mean we should make such sharing unnecessarely complicated.

I believe that, but even then you can get them to read what it says EXACTLY on the prompt, as opposed to "But I clicked the mozilla icon". Also, have you considered that this specific example might be your fault? I don't want to attack you or anything, but I had a similar experience once, where I told a guy that I needed his logos for his website, and if he could send them to me. I got them printed out in the mail. And yes, that was my fault, because in his world, "to send" something doesn't mean by email.
Maybe the same with you: "Type COMMAND and then ENTER" as opposed to "Type COMMAND and then press the ENTER Key".
Granted im going from memory here but i believe i told him to type in command and "press enter". so what he did was press E N T E R on keyboard..... Hilarity ensued when i tried to tell him that there is a button called enter and he refused to believe me.
Yes prompt can read you things exactly (assuming they dont just go "oh and it says a bunch of numbers i dont understand" and dont read it, but you can also do exact stuff with the interface since interface is standardized enough. Also with interface once they do it they will know how to do it again. No such luck with command promt i fear.

People don't want to be shown. They want someone to just "fix it" for them. They don't listen, they don't care. And neither CLI nor GUI will help there. And if there's a will to learn, it's easier for people to write down commands than GUI interactions. But I'm not talking about USING software via the CLI. I'm talking configuration here. And such people simply should never get to the point where they have to install and configure a service on their system.
Hence my first post in here: "Why samba? Let them create the share under windows and just click 'Browse Network' in their file browser of choice. Maybe let them install cifs-utils first, which doesn't need to be configured."
Most people just want things to work. Thats why they are more willing to try to "fix" it themselves than turn the thing in for repairs, they dont want to bother. and if they end up needing to call multiple times for same issue they end up "fixing it themselves". of course that does not always mean they know what thiey are doing, but people are willing to learn for convenience. They dont like to call you as much as you dont like them calling.
However people are much more willing to learn GUI than commands. Maybe its irrational, maybe its just the way our brain works, but thats how it is. There is a reason why computers only became popular when almost everything went into GUI. people dont like consoles.

While I concur with the rest of your paragraph, this is a false analogy. Yes, not everyone is a chef, but almost everyone can at least cook well enough to not poison themselves and not starve. No one expects the general user to configure his OS from the ground up, bells and whistles and everything. But people should have at least HEARD of a file browser, and should be able to input simple one line commands into a text prompt. Only on the computer, that is asked too much apparently. Even if said people do EXACTLY that every day, only not with a text prompt, but with a word processor.
Anecdotical evidence, granted, but pretty much every married woman i know think thier husband dont know how to cook at all. I know enough not to starve, though im no chef, but i often get praised for maknig my own food instead of just going to eat in diners and all, because those people dont know how to do much more than boil eggs and put things in microwaves. sadly the new generation are terrible at cooking. sure they wont starve, as long as there is pre-prepared food in the store.
I hope for the day when the average user were knowledgeable enough to configure his OS. Not from ground up obviuosly but with the GUI we have in for example windows now they can configure it (even though i still think XP was more configurable on that level).
We resort to calling file browser "going to my computer" here because thats what people actually know.

Yeah there seems to be a problem of people not being able to work otuside of their confort zone. word processor - they can do anything. command prompt - unable to type simple command. But that seems to be common human trend and not in computers alone.

And I shit you not, almost half the class sat in front of their computers and patted and pawed the screens, wondering why nothing happened, completely stumped by the concept of mouse and keyboard...
God, its sooener than i anticipated. Hoard the tech! apocalypse is coming.
Its not that bad here but were getting there. Sad thing is, we got touchscreen monitors now, so they may as well be the future....
 

NixiePixel

New member
Sep 23, 2013
20
0
0
I like this thread. =3

The only thing I can think of is: "Unix is simple. It just takes a genius to understand its simplicity."


~ Nixie Pixel ~
ESC newbie. Recovering misanthropist.


Talk nerdy to me on:
My Facebook [http://facebook.com/nixiepixel]
Google + [http://bit.ly/nixgoogleplus]
@nixiepixel [http://twitter.com/nixiepixel]
 

proghead

New member
Apr 17, 2010
118
0
0
Strazdas said:
Default settings always have to be least restricting. If you give most retricting settings as default you are signing your own death warrant. This is because majority of computer users arent smart enough to ever remove these restrictions and will just declare the program as "not working". And they will be very vocal about it.
That, again, is the fault of the software for making it too hard. The defaults should have no side effects. Period. If you need more than the defaults, then there should be an easy way to configure advanced settings. Windows does that pretty well.

Or in other words: it's the dev's job to think and work harder so the user doesn't have to.
 

Whoracle

New member
Jan 7, 2008
241
0
0
NixiePixel said:
The only thing I can think of is: "Unix is simple. It just takes a genius to understand its simplicity."
Oh dear hurd, how I hate that quote... No, general computing is not simple. Neither Windows, nor OSX, nor Unix and derivates. It's not that hard nowadays, but it's far from simple. Which is why people should learn how to use their systems. We don't allow people to steer 1 ton heaps of metal down the streets without SOME kind of understanding of how to work said heaps, but we allow people to create botnets left and right because they can't be arsed to learn what file extensions are and why you would want to view them, and thus the developers simply hide the extensions...
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
proghead said:
Strazdas said:
Default settings always have to be least restricting. If you give most retricting settings as default you are signing your own death warrant. This is because majority of computer users arent smart enough to ever remove these restrictions and will just declare the program as "not working". And they will be very vocal about it.
That, again, is the fault of the software for making it too hard. The defaults should have no side effects. Period. If you need more than the defaults, then there should be an easy way to configure advanced settings. Windows does that pretty well.

Or in other words: it's the dev's job to think and work harder so the user doesn't have to.
Yes, which is exactly the point i was making with GUI that people felt was "So wrong".

NixiePixel said:
I like this thread. =3

The only thing I can think of is: "Unix is simple. It just takes a genius to understand its simplicity."
I bring carnage everywhere i go :D
Yeah, Unix i not simple. If it takes a genius to understand it that should already prove that. If we use this measurement of understanding then rocket science is simple, it just takes a genius to understand it.