update-manager --no-focus-on-map ??
lproven at gmail.com
Fri Jan 8 15:29:08 UTC 2016
On 8 January 2016 at 16:12, Oliver Grawert <ogra at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> no, thats indeed not correct, you can make unity totally locked down
> and 100% secure,
*Nothing* is 100% secure.
One of the last OSes that I recall getting an official security rating
was Windows NT 3.5 back in 1994, which the US National Security Agency
awarded a TCSEC C2 rating.
Note that C2 is the 6th level down:
N.B. Most of the higher levels are only achievable either if the
computer is not connected to the Internet, or not connected to a
network at all.
But anyway, you go on to contradict your own statement in your next paragraph:
> as i said in my other mail in this thread, the data you provide goes to
> an entitiy that already has full root access to your system via the
> package manager ... if canonical wanted to mess with your data there
> were surely other ways to do that via some package postinst etc ....
> if you dont want to trust a distributor your only possibilities are LFS
> or gentoo i guess :) in binary distros the distributor *always* has
> full root access to your system ...
> a thing that many people dont seem to realize is that this extends with
> every additional archive layer you add.
> i.e. if you use mint your system is accessible by canonical as much as
> by the mint team ... if you then add some PPA you give the PPA owner
> root rights too ...
Also a good point.
But, look, I do not mean to say that Ubuntu is a particularly insecure
OS. It isn't. It's very competitive with other modern OSes, and
indeed, it's getting better. The introduction of Amazon links etc.
*which the user could not easily disable* was a bad move, but the
company has recognised this and addressed it.
But Canonical has to make money some way!
I use modern OSes. I even have Windows 10 in a VM on this Mac,
although I don't actually use it for anything, it was just to explore
the new OS a little.
I really love features like my calendar synching automatically across
2 smartphones, my desktop and my laptops. The fact that it's a free
service is better still. For this, I will tolerate a few ads!
I think Ubuntu is a great OS. I have used it since the first release,
I recommend it all the time. I co-started a company selling Ubuntu-
and Mint-based products. I've even met Mark Shuttleworth and visited
his old apartment in London!
It is a great OS and possibly the best for COTS PCs.
It does not contain serious known privacy or security risks, and the
small minor issues can, as you say, be disabled.
All I am saying is that if someone, such as Rikona, is so worried
about privacy that they won't even use a browser that contains Google
code, if they are that paranoid, then Ubuntu is not the OS for them.
Either they should switch to something far more secure, even if that
means learning far more tech skills, or they should relax and stop
worrying about software that occasionally "phones home" but does not
contain any real, genuine, security or privacy risks.
Liam Proven • Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk • GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com • Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Cell/Mobiles: +44 7939-087884 (UK) • +420 702 829 053 (ČR)
More information about the ubuntu-users