<rant>
The bottom line here is that you don't want to take responsibility for
something that is quite obviously your fault. Until someone agrees
with you you're going to whine incessantly about how "someone
else" should protect you from yourself. Ever heard of Personal
Responsibility?
Get a grip.
</rant>
Chad
P.S. I apologize to the list for being so short with him, but I'm tired
of people blaming everyone else for their own mistakes.
On 28 Apr 2001, at 1:50, Greg Kettmann wrote:
> Pardon me? What planet are you (Brad) and Benjamin from? Surely not
> this one. You invalidate your own arguments before you've finished
> making them.
>
> I'll accept what happened to me is all my fault. You say however that
> Linux is OK for amateurs. However you expect that amateur to be able
> to properly secure their machine, after all they're responsible for
> it. So, do you really think an amateur is somehow going to create and
> install a firewall script, fix the Bind exploits, watch the security
> advisories and know which services they can or can't shut down? Come
> on, get real. Face it 99.9% of the users out there have neither the
> time nor expertise for this. You've totally shaken my belief in Linux
> and I've changed my opinion. Windows may be a "brick" but at least
> it's not a tool to wreak havoc on the web, exactly as configured out
> of the box. Perhaps a warning on the Linux box, "Warning, Linux is an
> extremely powerful operating system and only experts, trained in
> Internet security and certified in Linux should consider using this
> Operating System in anything but a standalone environment".
>
> And back to the cracker's please. Seems they're getting a free ride.
> No one wants any policing of the Internet but it's already happening,
> I just got kicked off didn't I. Is it such a stretch to suggest that
> we actually go after the bad guys? I certainly don't encourage
> anything drastic. However, instead of just kicking someone off the
> Internet for Port Scanning why don't you then run a trace on that
> machine and try to capture the offending behavior. Your suggestion
> that the "users" will do it is absurd beyond comprehension. Go ahead,
> ask your mom to find the cracker that's attacking her computer. How
> about your 12 year old child? I know, I know, don't let them use
> Linux. Give them a Windows "Brick" instead. Linux is reserved for
> that .1% suitably trained and with sufficient time to baby-sit their
> machines, certainly not for the masses. Certainly puts a major crimp
> in my Linux Evangelism.
>
> You should really take a sniff at what you're shoveling because it
> sure doesn't smell very good, nor bode well for Linux. If I were to
> believe what you suggest I would very strongly suggest it be pulled
> from every shelf and book out there because I absolutely guarantee you
> that most of the people installing Linux from these sources are doing
> it for the first time, that they're NOT proficient in Linux or
> Security and that they are connecting it to the Internet. As such
> they are NOT securing their machines but are "drunk driving" and
> remember their "ignorance is no defense". Proof positive we need a
> warning label.
>
> Now, darn it, I want my Internet back. My kids are hounding me
> constantly and it's making me cranky. Can't you tell :-)
>
> Brad Maxwell wrote:
>
> > >police to monitor our highways. The choice is anarchy. The only
> > >people who can truly provide the required "policing" are the
> > >service providers. The fact in the matter in this whole thing is
> > >the only person unaffected is the cracker. It's likely they've
> > >cracked other M1 boxes as well. I'm not complaining about being
> > >temporarily kicked off. I am complaining about it's "permanent"
> > >nature and about the complete lack of anyone trying to fix the real
> > >problem... the crackers.
> >
> > Sorry I can't let this go.
> >
> > Your use of the highways is a
> > priveledge - lisence - contract for service
> > contigent upon your compliance with a
> > EULA - set of laws
> > which can be revoked permanently by the
> > service provider - government
> > when they detect that you have violated the
> > EULA - law
> >
> > for example port scanning or drunk driving
> > in both cases ignorance is no defense
> >
> > if the
> > service provider - government
> > determines that there have been others
> > involved
> > cracker - bartender - automaker
> > punisment is distributed accordingly
> >
> > Or another analogy
> > if you own a piece of equipment which can be used for harm
> > Gun - Sophisticated Computer / OS combination (this
> > removes
> > windows from the discussion)
> > and you don't adequately protect the society from damage
> > done by
> > another with your equipment
> > the kid stole my gun - the craker hijacked my system
> > you will be held responsible along with the idividual (if
> > they can
> > be found)
> > further if you hide the responsible individual
> > "wasn't my kid - don't know who" - "I deleted the
> > logs"
> > You may be held liable for abetting as well as enablement
> >
> > Napster has never been accused of stealing music only
> > enabling
> > others to and look at what it got them.
> >
> > Yes you are partially a victim. In recognition of that fact M1 gave
> > you to opportunity to solve the delima without any lasting
> > repercussions
> >
> > Napster was given the opportunity to change their business structure
> >
> > You didn't take advantage of that opportunity.
> >
> > Napster is trying to
> >
> > You are out of business
> >
> > Napster may yet stay alive
> >
> > How far removed from this planet and do you actually live?
> >
> > **********************************************************
> > To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
> > *body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
> > unsubscribe gnhlug
> > **********************************************************
>
>
> **********************************************************
> To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
> *body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
> unsubscribe gnhlug
> **********************************************************
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
