Revisiting Linux Part 1: A Look at Ubuntu 8.04
by Ryan Smith on August 26, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Linux
Applications: Everything Else
Sometimes there is an advantage to not being a large, profit-generating target. If you are Microsoft or Apple, there are some things you just can’t take a risk on doing, the consequences of it backfiring are too great. In this case you would never see either of those operating systems include a BitTorrent client. While BitTorrent is legal, it can be used for many illegal things, making it an enemy of groups like the RIAA and MPAA – both of which Apple and Microsoft need to get along with for business reasons (imagine Windows without a DVD player) and because both have deep pockets should a fight erupt.
Canonical (the company backing Ubuntu) is not a large, profit-generating target and as a result they can get away with more here. We’ve already talked about legality issues encompassing codecs, but BitTorrent is another area where their size lets them get away with more. Ubuntu includes Transmission, a full-featured BitTorrent client, making it wholly unique (at least when compared to Windows/Mac OS X) for doing so. As a regular BitTorrent user, this is a most welcome type of application to include.
With there being so many BitTorrent clients I’m not going to get in-depth with features here other than to say that Transmission is a full-featured BitTorrent client. Instead the fact that it’s included at all is a big deal. Although it’s going to be a slight exaggeration, I would put the inclusion of a BitTorrent client up there with a web browser, an email client, or a media player. I consider BitTorrent an essential function, so a proper client is something that ideally would be included with every operating system. It’s that important.
There is one thing I’d like to add about Transmission in particular though. In my time using it, I’m not convinced that other BitTorrent clients are properly respecting it. I’ve noticed that some other clients appear to be ignoring or blocking it, and while it doesn’t appear to be opposed by a large number of clients, it’s enough that in my completely unscientific testing that this looks to make Transmission slightly slower compared to something like Azureus. Wikipedia notes that a version released over 2 years ago was commonly blocked for not being completely compliant with the BitTorrent specification, but I don’t know if this is related or not.
Moving on, there’s one other thing in Ubuntu that caught my eye, and that’s the inclusion of a Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) client, going under the name of Terminal Services Client. Not to be confused with VNC, the open source remote desktop system commonly used on *nix systems, Remote Desktop Protocol is Microsoft’s proprietary remote desktop protocol and associated applications. While I had expected Ubuntu to include a VNC client, I had not been expecting a RDP client.
As I have a Windows Home Server for file storage and backing up my Windows machines, I need a RDP client to administrate it and the rest of my Windows machines. By “playing nice” and including a RDP client in spite of the fact that the protocol itself is proprietary and Ubuntu does not use RDP itself, this made Ubuntu much more useful for me straight out of the box. Among other things, with it I was able to immediately connect to my server and diagnose why I was having so much trouble connecting to my SMB shares, something which I’ll explain in greater detail in a moment.
Really the only downside to this is that it’s not as well built of a client as Microsoft’s own Windows client is, which is to be expected. Even on a gigabit LAN Terminal Services Client lags a bit compared to the real thing, but then again so does Microsoft’s official RDP client for the Mac. Ubuntu seems to be at a bit of a disadvantage here since it seems that Windows machines have an inherent advantage in being RDP clients. Nevertheless it’s fully usable, it’s just a bit slower.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
195 Comments
View All Comments
ioannis - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
...sorry, I think it's Alt+F2 by default. I'm talking about the 'Run Command' dialog.Eeqmcsq - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
Oh, yes you're right. I stand corrected.sprockkets - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
Ubuntu doesn't ship with the firewall on eh? Weird. SuSE's is on, and that has been the default for quite some time. GUI management of it is easy too.clarkn0va - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
For incoming connections I don't quite grasp what good a firewall will do on a system with no internet-facing services. With no open ports you stand little to gain from adding a firewall, and any internet-facing service you might add, well, you don't want to firewall that anyway.I can see two theoretically plausible arguments for a host-based firewall, but even these don't really stand up in real-world use: 1) a machine that has open ports out of the box (I'm looking at you, Windows), and 2) for the folks who want to police outgoing connections.
In the case of the former, why would we open ports and then block them with a firewall, right out of the box? This makes as much sense to me as MS marketing their own antivirus. Third-party firewalls were rightfully introduced to remedy the silly situation of computers listening on networks where they shouldn't be, but the idea of MS producing a host-based firewall instead of just cleaning up their services profile defies common sense.
In the case of outbound firewalling, I've yet to meet a home user that understood his/her outbound firewall and managed it half-way effectively. Good in theory, usually worse than useless in practice.
db
VaultDweller - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
Just because a port/service is open, doesn't mean you want it open to the whole world.Examples:
SMB
NFS
VNC
RDP
SSH
Web (intranet sites, for example)
And the list could go on... and on and on and on, really.
Also, it's erroneous to assume that only 1st party software will want to open ports.
And that is to say nothing of the possibility of ports being unintentionally opened by rogue software, poorly documented software, naughty admins, or clumsy admins.
Host-based firewalls help with all of these situations.
clarkn0va - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
Windows firewall doesn't filter by source. In other words, if you want SMB or any other service open to some peers and not others, Windows firewall can't help you; you'll need a more sophisticated product or a hardware firewall for that.I'm not saying there's no case for host-based firewalls, I'm just saying it's pointless for most users out of the box, where Ubuntu doesn't need it and Windows should be looking at fixing the problem of unneeded services running, rather than just bolting on another fix.
VaultDweller - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
"I can see two theoretically plausible arguments for a host-based firewall, but even these don't really stand up in real-world use"That sounds to me like a claim that there is little or no case for a host-based firewall; at least, that's how I interpreted it.
"Windows firewall doesn't filter by source. In other words, if you want SMB or any other service open to some peers and not others, Windows firewall can't help you"
That is incorrect, and you should check your facts before making such statements. The Windows Firewall can filter by source. Any firewall exception that is created can be made to apply to all sources, to the local subnet only, or to a custom list of IPs and subnets.
The firewall in Vista and Windows 7 goes a step further, as it is location aware. Different ports and services are opened depending on the network you're plugged into, as exemplified by the default behavior of treating all new networks as "Public" (unknown and untrusted) until instructed otherwise.
clarkn0va - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
"The Windows Firewall can filter by source. Any firewall exception that is created can be made to apply to all sources, to the local subnet only, or to a custom list of IPs and subnets. "In that case I retract my assertion that an out-of-the-box firewall makes no sense in the case of Windows.
As for Ubuntu, or any other desktop OS having no open ports by default, I still see including an enabled firewall by default as superfluous. Meanwhile, firewall GUIs exist for those wishing to add them.
Paazel - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
...not enough pictures. admittedly my interest additionally waned when i read the newest ubuntu isn't be reviewed.philosofool - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
I'm not done with this article, which I'm loving. However, there's a grammatical/spelling quibble that's driving me nuts: "nevertheless" is one world.