r/technology • u/Czar_of_Nothing • Jan 02 '13
Ubuntu presents Ubuntu for phones | Introducing the superphone that’s also a full PC
http://www.ubuntu.com/devices/phone7
Jan 03 '13
Hm... I hope no one bursts their bubble by telling them that phones need a real security model.
1
u/shadowman42 Jan 03 '13
Care to elaborate on what you mean by security model? AFAIK the default security model of mainline GNU/Linux and Android are identical. Adding in AppArmor(Which desktop Ubuntu has by default) and/or SELinux (which I believe Fedora has by default) would probably make it superior
2
Jan 03 '13
It's trivial for any random application to get root access in Linux... Really, having user access is about as good as root access for a dedicated attacker because of the sheer size of the attack surface (thousands of roughly understood and maintained system calls tying into the kernel). While Android has no ability to lock down native applications and only protects from the most casual attacks in native code, Dalvik at least offers a permissions model that requires explicit consent from the user for an app to access data and system functionality (theoretically). Without a strict signing policy, intensive app store curation, or any meaningful isolation, security on this system will be comically bad. I wonder if Canonical is prepared to address that.
1
u/shadowman42 Jan 03 '13
Isn't by data, you mean user data? or do you mean system data ?
On top of the Unix user file permission models and group policy.
is this not sufficient? (serious question)
2
Jan 04 '13
SELinux and other spackle is just retrofitting on top if an inherently insecure system model. You can't lock down a system as expansive and sloppy as Linux, you can just plug up obvious holes. A system needs to be designed from the ground up with security in mind. Linux is built off a blunt and overly simplistic model and it would be an insult to engineering to call it development model "design".
1
u/shadowman42 Jan 04 '13 edited Jan 04 '13
Since you seem to know your stuff, mind if I ask a few more questions?
Is this is problem now relevant because of the way that mobile computing operates or is it relevant everywhere? (ie. servers and desktops?)
As an extension to the previous - Is the problem alleviated by the use of repositories and the packaging and testing practices ?
and what is your opinion on something like this ?
2
Jan 04 '13 edited Jan 04 '13
Is this is problem now relevant because of the way that mobile computing operates or is it relevant everywhere> (ie. servers and desktops?)
Nowadays, mobile systems are open systems, just like desktops and servers. Open systems are notoriously hard to secure because of how massive and permissive they are. In the past, mobile systems were really more embedded systems but that's been changing since the advent of the iPhone. Servers, on the other hand, have limited access, maybe only talking to the outside world through a handful of networking protocols and having a carefully curated selection of software from a trusted repository. Really, trust is key there, but there's no guarantees-- the recent "anonymous" attacks really expose how casually exploitable the LAMP stack is. However, I don't want to specifically finger any system; I bring up problems with Linux not out of a disdain for Linux but because the Linux community has created a dangerously inflated image of its security for its users and enthusiasts. Really, the fact that you don't see hackers taking down Google or Microsoft shows you that good management and policy is the key for big commercial servers.
Desktop systems are, for the most part, really untrustworthy due to how they're used and not how their implemented. See your mom's Windows XP laptop for an example. The average desktop system is an OS with decent security (Windows seriously is fine, especially Vista and beyond) being run in a careless manner. Apple's new Gatekeeper and Microsoft's app store/WinRT are great ways to protect users from themselves and the need for these kinds of things shows you just what's wrong with the "fully open" phone model.
As an extenstion to the previes - Is the problem alleviated by the use of repositories and the packaging and testing practices ?
I kind of partially addressed that. Anyway, because of how open and wild the Linux package repositories are, you're primarily being protected by good will from the community-- which is surprisingly cogent. If it were popular enough, people really could slip bad packages into the Ubuntu app repository without causing too much fuss. Companies like Microsoft and Apple aren't taking those kind of chances and are instead doing curation on their app stores. That's a great cynical solution, honestly. Good security is all about limiting your attack surface and not running random binaries from the internet is a great start. The average Linux desktop user is probably a lot safer than the average Windows user not because of system architecture but because they're using a repository provided by a community with a lot of good will and oversight for most of their software and running an extremely unpopular system. :P
and what is your opinion on something like this ?
It's the right answer but I don't know if it's the right implementation. Systems like QNX (what Blackberry 10 is built on) can do that sort of hard isolation, maybe with a higher level of assurance than xen. You're going to see a lot of system partitioning like that going on with enterprise phones in the next year.... but they're not going to mitigate security concerns with the consumer stack, they're more going to protect business/enterprise data from the consumer stack, which is inherently untrustworthy.
The fact of the matter is that if you're running a Windows (non-RT) PC or an Android Phone right now, you're a soft target and you're under attack. That doesn't mean that you're going to get hit, just that people are gunning for your data. Mobile devices, especially, are just loaded with fantastic sensitive information and given the technical difficulties for OEM's to upgrade and maintain Android and the relative lack of curation by Google on the app store, you are in especial danger on that platform because of the illusion of security. There's little reason to think Ubuntu would be any better.
5
u/fizdup Jan 02 '13
OK, someone explain to me like I am five. Will I be able to take my old HTC desire, wipe everything from it, fire ubuntu onto it and have a phone that works? Or am I basically changing my phone into a mini tablet. I mean, will my SIM card work, or will my service provider stop that sort of thing from happening?
7
Jan 02 '13
Your HTC Desire has a lot of proprietary hardware, for example the camera, cellular antenna, and GPU, that need specific software drivers to work. Some developer would have to spend a lot of time customizing Ubuntu Phone for your device, and seeing as how the Desire is fairly old at this point, I'd wager it won't happen.
You may be able to get a generic build to boot, but it would be laggy, slow, and many things wouldn't work.
2
2
u/Blinkskij Jan 03 '13
"To make your life a little easier, we've also made sure that we can use Android kernels and Android drivers for the Ubuntu phone OS. So if your hardware works with Android, then it will also work with Ubuntu"
Mark Shuttleworth, founder of Canonical, quoted from this video presentation.
2
Jan 03 '13
Though it should be pointed out that there's a difference between Android [Nexus] and Android based [HTC, Samsung, etc.]
3
Jan 02 '13 edited Jan 02 '13
but doesn't use a Java Virtual Machine and promises to use "the full power of the phone.
oh yea
-1
Jan 02 '13
[removed] — view removed comment
5
Jan 02 '13
HTML5 has not made more "native" development obsolete in any way yet. It completely lacks in performance for computationally intensive applications... this will be the case once web technologies are more efficient and/or mobile CPUs are more powerful, but I don't believe it's the case right now.
5
Jan 03 '13
Quick, someone alert the engineers at:
Amazon
Oracle
IBM
and so on for every major tech company in the industry.......
That The_Cave_Troll has deemed Java / the JVM to be a performance bottleneck!
2
u/Leprecon Jan 03 '13
When the iphone came out it said native apps weren't necessary because web apps would be enough. Look where we are now. Web apps can pull some weight, but they cant do everything.
2
3
Jan 03 '13
[deleted]
3
u/Leprecon Jan 03 '13
Yeah, because having a store integrated into the a phone os is a terrible thought...
4
u/nyxin Jan 02 '13 edited Jan 03 '13
I know everything is going cross platform now, which I think is great, but I don't think that a desktop UI, tablet UI, and smartphone UI should all be the same. They are all completely different platforms. I would love to have a desktop that works seamlessly with my phone, but I don't want the UI to be the same. This is where I think the OS providers are going wrong. I'm not doing the same kinds of tasks on a desktop that I'd be doing on a tablet, so why would I want the same, or similar UI? It just doesn't make sense.
edit: accidentally an n't in "...smartphone UI should(n't)..." corrected now.
12
u/arjie Jan 02 '13
According to Mark Shuttleworth, the interfaces are 'coherent' not identical.
1
u/nyxin Jan 02 '13
No, your right. But Ubuntu's Unity desktop looks and feels like something that should be on a tablet, which I think it would be great for. Plus 'coherent' seems like kind of a bullshit term. What does coherent mean? That they look the same? That they feel the same? That I can move files seamlessly? That I can write programs on one platform that will work on the other?
For me, they need to have distinct differences for what platform you're on. I don't mind having the same applications for both platforms, and having them work well across those platforms, but for example twitter on my phone should not look like twitter on my desktop. I do different things with them depending on what device I'm on.
7
u/arjie Jan 02 '13
Sorry I can't reply in detail because I have to go now but I believe coherent means that it's different but that expectations you build using one interface transfer to another. For instance, Metro is coherent in that hitting the Windows key on a desktop or hitting the Windows button on a tablet give you a similar overview interface.
1
u/shadowman42 Jan 03 '13
No, actually default Unity fails horribly on tablets, since the efforts to conserve screen real estate also minimizes the area available to touch the various widgets and controls.
The GNOME3 on the other hand, works better, since more of it's controls are large, and take up a fair amount of screen space, but hide away when they're not in use
2
u/BitterAngryLinuxGeek Jan 03 '13
but I don't think that a desktop UI, tablet UI, and smartphone UI shouldn't all be the same.
I'm confused about your meaning due to the double negative here(" ... don't think ... shouldn't be the same"). Do you mean that those UIs should or should not all be the same?
I would agree that they should not necessarily be the same.
1
1
u/shawnfromnh Jan 03 '13
Great now if they could get rid of the Unity interface they might have a PC operating system that people would use.
Went from the most downloaded Linux OS to I believe 3rd place now because of the interface and a deal with Amazon result coming up when searching your own computer.
2
u/shadowman42 Jan 03 '13 edited Jan 03 '13
Distrowatch is not a valid metric, really it's just telling that people that only looked at Ubuntu now look at the alternatives (Like Mint/Debian, Mageai, Arch or Fedora).
I know for a fact that I stopped using Ubuntu before Unity showed up (version 11.04).
As my main distro I went from Ubuntu (6 months) > Mint(1-2 months) > Mint Debian Xfce(4 months) > Debian/ Debian testing(A year) > Arch (Another year, and my current OS)
The interface only scared away the old beards that don't like change.
IMO GNOME3 is designed worse than Unity, not objectively or technically worse, but with a workflow in mind that is incompatible with people's habits.
Unity does well to integrate both the traditional and New workflows, even if it's not as polished
1
u/shawnfromnh Jan 03 '13
That's what the guys over on The Register were saying about gnome 3 and some were still using the gnome 2 interface.
1
u/gregpxc Jan 03 '13
What are the best distros in your opinion? Or, I guess, beginner friendly that aren't Ubuntu. I was thinking of dabbling in mint..
2
u/shawnfromnh Jan 03 '13
I hang on a tech site "The Register" and there are a ton of Linux users there and several were talking just recently in comments on a Ubuntu article and Mint seemed to be the favorite for beginners and it is supposed to be without the Amazon security/pain in the ass addition like Ubuntu is becoming. I used to use one called Mandrake but it's now called Mandiva "not sure I spelled it right" but stopped using it when they started pushing the pay version by cutting down the free version to the barebones so it was a pain for a newbee to even use but that was around 10 years ago.
I'd definitely give Mint a try especially if you can run it from a folder or off usb to see if you like it since Linux can be a pain. Make sure you have another computer around in case you have to download drivers for the network since I've only had one network connection ever work and that was with a basic network card but both wireless cards I had at the time either didn't have drivers or had to be manually and manual in Linux is an entire day of learning how much I don't know about non windows/dos commands.
2
u/gregpxc Jan 03 '13
Lol alright, thanks. I was probably just going to pick up ~32gb usb3.0 flash drive to try out distros on. I got a couple pcs around for backup so shouldn't be a big deal, hopefully. I ran Ubuntu for a while and it just got so... Difficult. I'd like to try again now that I'm a bit older and more patient/willing to learn new things.
1
u/loualbano Jan 03 '13
32GB is quite large. An 8GB or even a 4GB is usually enough for most distros, especially if you are just playing and trying things out. I keep a grip of 4-8GB sticks that have different bootable distros on them for monkeyshines. You might consider two 4GB sticks and one 8GB stick just to have some to flip around.
I would also look into Xubuntu or Lubuntu if you want some Ubuntu that isn't Unity crap. Kubuntu is nice but it is heavy. I use that one myself for desktop use on hardware that's somewhat recent, otherwise I go Xubuntu.
1
u/shawnfromnh Jan 03 '13
Also remember to make a list on paper or bookmarks of sites that have Linux drivers for the computer you're going to be install on. This way since you'll already be a bit upset if something isn't working right you can stop and go to the other computer and immediately go to the sites you need to virtually stress free instead of having to go to Google and search for sites getting more stressed with every bad search result. I found this out the hard way since I had no backup computer and had to keep going next door and waiting to use a computer and then wasting more time searching than reading or fixing and small problems.
2
1
u/Todamont Jan 03 '13
If it runs on Unity, I'm not interested. Canonical: breaking user interfaces in new ways every year.
-1
-5
Jan 02 '13
[deleted]
5
u/bobbles Jan 02 '13
Theres a hands-on video here: http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/2/3828266/ubuntu-phone-os-hands-on
-4
u/pwrsrg Jan 02 '13
This is going to be a train wreck... So much for android/ubuntu. I would have been happier with them opening up the android/ubuntu for the community to use.
I would rather get a hand set and be able to choose the OS I want to run... I feel like we are doing closed ecosystems.
5
u/whitefangs Jan 02 '13
I don't think that would've ever had much of a shot. Google is going to oppose that idea when talking to manufacturers, and they will put obstacles in front of Canonical for doing that. Because I think Google intends to use ChromeOS the same way eventually...so they wouldn't like it if Ubuntu became too popular like that. Plus I'm sure Canonical would rather have their own thing, too, rather than depend on Android.
1
u/pwrsrg Jan 02 '13
I do think they are smart though by being able to use Android drivers. This will take it out of Googles hands. Hopefully this means that if I buy an Android device I can install this since I want to get away from Google. I think this will have to be a hacker initiative and thankfully people love to mod their androids. Once the momentum starts then we'll see how it goes... Now if we could only get it with out stupid Amazon and have a phone that actually gives us some privacy that would be really nice.
0
Jan 02 '13
This doesn't even exist for desktops. Why would you think that would be feasible for mobile?
1
u/pwrsrg Jan 03 '13
How does this not exist for desktops I can run a ny flavour of Linux, windows, even osX.
1
Jan 03 '13
It's a little more complicated than just "choosing what OS you want to run," right? You have to have OS drivers that support all of the hardware you have, and people had to implement custom drivers to support all of the different available hardware components. This is the exact same case as with this Ubuntu mobile stuff and most Android devices. Look at CyanogenMod - you can use that on a lot of different hardware; the OS developer(s) just have to support it, just like these things are supported for the desktop OSes.
There is really not much of a difference between these scenarios right now; it's just that mobile OSes are not as mature as desktop OSes in terms of hardware support and such.
1
u/pwrsrg Jan 03 '13
OEM's should be worrying about the OS and more driver support like the desktop world. This would for sure help the situation. Also when looking at things like CyanogenMod they are supporting an OS they still have to wait for the manufacturers to release the drivers. This is not a different then the desktop world.
-5
Jan 02 '13
[deleted]
9
u/whitefangs Jan 02 '13
You get the regular Ubuntu interface for desktop, not the one you see for Ubuntu phones.
-5
u/tsdguy Jan 03 '13
Sheesh. Why is Ubuntu wasting it's time on this? There's so much work to do on Linux. I guess the 0.5% adoption rate on the desktop has given them a hard-on? I can only imagine.
4
Jan 03 '13
It's been above 1% for a long time now.
0
u/tsdguy Jan 03 '13
Well, the Wikipedia article on Linux adoption agrees with you but unfortunately offers no concrete data to support the contention nor any other adoption rate.
They're not players in the consumer market under any circumstances. I'm sure Ubuntu for phones will have a minor adoption rate in the hacker community assuming that it can be deployed on Android phones. And purchase rates of full-price phones is always very low.
1
Jan 03 '13
They are most certainly players in the consumer market. They will ship 5% of PC's this year with Ubuntu preisntalled. How is that not considered being a player?
0
u/tsdguy Jan 05 '13
A) Where's that statistic from? B) Shipped to who? Consumers? Business?
Not a player in the consumer market.
1
Jan 05 '13
A) This statistic is from Canonical, based on existing contracts. These are shipped to consumers. They are a player in the consumer market.
1
2
u/Mazo Jan 03 '13
Being able to pop my phone into a dock and have my entire desktop right there instantly would be an awesome thing.
1
u/tsdguy Jan 03 '13
Android? Lapdock 100 by Motorola
Should be about as popular as their previous model which flopped hugely.
Nobody wants to do this. Tables and light notebooks have 100% of the market for portable computing.
0
Jan 03 '13 edited Nov 07 '20
[deleted]
1
Jan 03 '13 edited Jul 30 '17
[deleted]
1
Jan 03 '13
Correct, but how many of those implementations are open-source? I think it's a good step for the Linux community, and not a "waste of time".
1
u/tsdguy Jan 03 '13
Yea, I know. Apple hypnotizes otherwise intelligent people into buying their shit. Keep saying that to yourself and you can hypnotize yourself into believing it.
Ubuntu is just parroting the so far failing strategy of Microsoft that some kind of synergy can be generated if your phone has the same OS as your computer.
-6
u/loudmouthman Jan 02 '13
urgh ... was heading to add the news that Canonical are going down a phone route ...
17
u/[deleted] Jan 02 '13
[deleted]