5 ms·

> This move is part of a broader effort by Canonical to improve the resilience and maintainability of core system components. Sudo-rs is developed by the Trifec

• wkat4242 1y ago
  I think you mean a magic bullet instead of a smoking gun :)
  • bArray 1y ago
    I meant "smoking gun" from a cyber security perspective, i.e. the conclusion or the final part of the investigation. "magic bullet" would also work here too though.
    • MaKey 1y ago
      Evidence, particularly of a crime, that is difficult or impossible to dispute. [1] Even with your explanation I don't think it fits here. [1] https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/smoking_gun https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/smoking_gun
    • nmstoker 1y ago
      You seem to have inferred the wrong meaning of "smoking gun" and that's why your usage above doesn't make sense. There's no valid reason cyber security people would take a well known idiom and repurpose it as you imply, and a quick Google suggests they haven't done this.
    • TacticalCoder 1y ago
      [dead]
  • rzzzt 1y ago
    Fish in a barrel!
• Spivak 1y ago
  > Ubuntu continuously updates itself without permission, killing apps and losing previous state. What? Is this some snap thing because apt sure as hell doesn't do this without you configuring it explicitly.
  • passivegains 1y ago
    apt won't on its own, but if you're using the official images there's probably a service running that's calling it, probably for security patches etc. The bigger problem is upgrading packages deliberately but being surprised by the results. My team's current favorite is the upgrade process itself suddenly having new interactive prompts breaking our scripts.
    • rlpb 1y ago
      > My team's current favorite is the upgrade process itself suddenly having new interactive prompts breaking our scripts. This is how dpkg and apt have worked in Debian and Ubuntu pretty much since their inception. Look into debconf, dpkg and ucf configuration to learn how to integrate these with your automation. The mechanisms for this have existed for decades now and have not substantially changed in that time.
      • aaravchen 1y ago
        dpkg grew knowledge of Source lists suddenly? If you're installing software from Debian/Ubuntu repos, you can only use aptitude or apt to my knowledge. Other tools give you the ability to install DEB files you already have, and manage what's on your system currently. And aptitude and apt are both well known for never having had a "stable" scriptable interface. In fact they themselves tell you that their commands are not stable and should not be used for scripting, despite no alternative mode or application existing. Recently Ubuntu moved to apt 3 as well, which massively overhauled the tool from apt 2. All those scripts people wrote to use apt 2 (because there was no alternative) broke recently when they now had to use apt 3.
        • 1y ago
• nottorp 1y ago
  I have the hardware for a new home server waiting to be set up (as in, I don't need a new home server i'm just messing around, so once in a while i log in and configure one more service). I tried the latest Ubuntu and it seems to be targeted at either containers or desktops. Everything I wanted to set up networking wise was a pain for my little non standard configuration. Ended up wiping it and installing Debian instead. As for this Rust thing, first question that comes to my mind is what features are missing from this new godly impervious to hackers by default implementation.
  • bayindirh 1y ago
    When there's Debian, Ubuntu is moot for servers and personal use (for power users at least). One of my former colleagues used to install Ubuntu servers. I replace them with Debian when I get the chance. I was already blacklisted for Snap, so I can't re-blacklist them for going uutils and sudo-rs, and that's sad (as in Bryan Cantrell's famous talk).
  • watermelon0 1y ago
    Worth mentioning that many packages on Ubuntu are only available via snap, which includes docker-cli, so they cannot be used inside containers.
  • aaravchen 1y ago
    After years of working with Ubuntu on desktops and servers, I can tell you that for a server Ubuntu will probably always be the wrong choice. Ubuntu seems to find it necessary to always invent some new way of doing a standard thing. Like how they use netplan for networking, a tool they invented themselves for a task that already has industry standard options available, is missing basic features those alternatives have, and adds nothing the alternatives don't also have (including any better usability). They do this all the time, and have to eventually be dragged into the modern era when they finally get sick of having no community support for their one-off inferior tool. In particular I'm just waiting for snaps to finally die. But at least that has some technical possibilities the alternatives don't, they just aren't functionally available in snaps yet. In another 20 years, if Ubuntu keeps at it with their unconfigurable, hardcoded, private snap registry and slow limited advancement snap portals-equivalent implementation, they might even have half as much functionality and packaged tools as Flatpak current has today. --- If you want a decent server, Debian is a better option, even though they have some finnicky choices, and its enough like Ubuntu you might have some cross-ober familiarity. Some of the old standbys like Fedora aren't good options because of their frequent update schedule and lack of long term support, but there are also some very good niche options if you can dig a lot more. Also worth noting: if you want to keep the server working, you should plan on pretty much everything being in containers. It adds some complexity to what you're doing, but keeps each little experiment isolated from the others and avoids polluting the global system.
• mustache_kimono 1y ago
  > That all said, Rust is not a smoking gun for incorrect application logic. It could still happily incorrectly execute stuff with the wrong permissions or blow something up badly. This side steps the issue which is "Does Rust help you make software more correct?" No one is arguing that Rust is perfect. There are plenty of bugs in my Rust software. The question is only -- are we better off with Rust than the alternatives? > I think it's also a bad idea to offer it as a drop-in replacement when clearly features are still missing since a long time [1]. Your example is the Github issue page? Look -- I agree that, say, uutils/coreutils missing locales may frustrate some users (although I almost never use them). But "close enough" is more the Unix way than we may care to realize. But especially in this instance, because sudo is not POSIX (unlike locales which are). A distro is free to choose any number of alternatives. Ubuntu wants to lay claim to "the Rust distribution" and it's hard to blame them when Linux wants to lay claim to "the Rust kernel".
  • b112 1y ago
    Linux wants to lay claim to "the Rust kernel" Entirely untrue. It may happen, but there is zero consensus to port Linux to rust. Not even the tiniest bit.
    • mustache_kimono 1y ago
      > Entirely untrue. It may happen, but there is zero consensus to port Linux to rust. Not even the tiniest bit. ... But I did not say there was a consensus to port Linux to Rust? I'm sorry you misunderstood. Now, why would Linux want to lay claim to being 'the Rust kernel' and how is that different than Linux being rewritten in Rust? I believe that there are many reasons why Linus chose to give Rust for Linux a chance. I believe at least one of those reasons is mindshare. If Linux chose not to experiment with Rust drivers, then that mindshare might go somewhere else. >> Ubuntu wants to lay claim to "the Rust distribution" Notice, Ubuntu is doing a similar thing. Canonical isn't porting all of Ubuntu to Rust. It is picking and choosing bits which they can, and would like, to move to Rust. Why? Probably for similar reasons. They want to seen as friendly to the Rust mindshare.
• rlpb 1y ago
  > Ubuntu continuously updates itself without permission... It does default to installing security updates automatically. However, this is completely configurable. It isn't reasonable to have different default behaviour - otherwise the majority of users would be vulnerable from a security perspective. If you want different behaviour, just configure it as you wish. > The Ubuntu packages, drivers and kernel are laughably behind Debian and even further behind mainline. This just isn't a reasonable description of reality. Unless you're referring to an Ubuntu LTS, in which case, of course it is: that's the entire point of Ubuntu LTS, and Ubuntu users have the choice of using the six monthly non-LTS releases if they want more up-to-date packages, which Debian users do not have.
  • ptsneves 1y ago
    > It does default to installing security updates automatically. However, this is completely configurable. Man, but have you personally tried to disable it? Did you stop apt-daily.service apt-daily.time apt-daily-upgrade.service and apt-daily.timer? Did you repeat the same but masking and disabling those services. Don't forget to repeat that for unatended-upgrades.service. Even after that whenever our CI fails an apt-get we have a pstree output to figure out what other dark pattern canonical came up with. This whole debacle made me consider RedHat for my next install, and I use Ubuntu for almost 2 decades. It became unreliable in servers. Dont get me started on the lack of security updates on "multiverse" packages which starts to include more and more packages and thus LTS means less and less. This is not innocent but so you buy Ubuntu One.
    • bArray 1y ago
      Their answer will be "just make your server robust to restarts bro", not really understanding the fact that some stuff simply cannot be restarted. We have Ubuntu desktop running a robot arm (not our choice of OS, but the manufacturer). Mid-operation snap decides to kill the robot that would otherwise be happy operating away and sending stats to the cloud. I'm personally moving to Debian. It's 99% how Ubuntu used to be and most Ubuntu stuff is just a .deb that is relatively compatible.
    • rlpb 1y ago
• reissbaker 1y ago
  Ubuntu continuously updates itself without permission, killing apps and losing previous state I've never seen this happen and I've run Ubuntu in production for years. Apt does not auto-update unless it's configured for unattended upgrades — and both Debian and Ubuntu allow you to configure unattended upgrades in apt. And unattended upgrades via apt should not kill running user processes or cause data loss. The Ubuntu packages, drivers, and kennel are laughably behind Debian. This is just plain wrong — even for the steelman argument of Debian unstable or testing, which are not intended for general use. Debian unstable and testing are on kernel 6.12. Ubuntu 25.04 is on kernel 6.14. Debian stable, meanwhile, is on 6.1. Ubuntu has the far more-recent kernel. I don't know what you mean by "drivers" — there aren't separate drivers on Linux from the kernel; they're shipped in the kernel. Ubuntu's are also more recent than Debian, since the kernel version is more recent. With respect to packages, obviously I can't check every package version, but e.g. coreutils in Ubuntu are on 9.5, released in March 2024; systemd on Ubuntu is a version released this year (and until last month Debian unstable and Ubuntu were identical); gcc is identical; etc. While Ubuntu occasionally lags Debian unstable, it's not by much. If you compare to actual Debian stable, it's not even close. Debian stable is ancient. And ultimately... Why are you using Debian unstable? It's called "unstable" for a reason. It receives basically no testing. Even the "testing" version is more stable, and that's not intended to be stable at all and doesn't necessarily receive security updates. Ubuntu is less-stable than Debian stable, but far more up-to-date; Debian testing is less-stable than Ubuntu... And usually still not even as up-to-date. Debian unstable is basically untested; if you want that you'd be better served by a rolling release distro like Arch where the packages are going to be way more up-to-date anyway. The Debian wiki cautions against treating unstable or testing releases as general purpose, so I truly don't think even this steelman is viable. [1] In fact, they refuse to even call Debian unstable a "release" since there are no release practices associated with it and the code is effectively untested. Ubuntu is nowhere near my favorite Linux distro, but claiming it's more out of date than Debian is just FUD. Debian is very very stable — at least, Debian stable is — and people love it for that. But the tradeoff is that everything in it is ancient. If you want something that's like Debian, but more up-to-date but slightly less stable — that's Ubuntu. If you want a rolling release, that's Arch. (And of course, there are even more-different distros like NixOS or ostree-based ones; there's the Red Hat universe of RHEL and the closer-to-bleeding-edge Fedora; etc etc.) Using Debian unstable is either a magnanimous act of sacrifice in order to help test future Debian versions, or it's self-harm. Personally if I wanted to use a Debian-derivative on the desktop, though, I'd probably use System76's PopOS, which is basically a cleaned-up Ubuntu with some nice GNOME extensions. I'm more curious in the future to try out ostree-based distros, though, like the various Fedora Atomic ones, since they have nice rollbacks without the user-facing complexity of NixOS. 1: https://wiki.debian.org/DebianUnstable https://wiki.debian.org/DebianUnstable