Linux-Advocacy Digest #176, Volume #26 Tue, 18 Apr 00 00:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! (josco)
Which Linux and which hardcopy? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Solaris (was Re: Windows 2000 etc.) (Bart Oldeman)
BALUG meeting Tue 19th Apr in San Francisco - Bruce Perins (Arthur Tyde)
Re: We need a new subject was (Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do
you?) (Roger)
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000 or server software? (josco)
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! (C Lund)
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! (C Lund)
Re: Solaris (was Re: Windows 2000 etc.) (Mike Marion)
Re: Solaris (was Re: Windows 2000 etc.) (abraxas)
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000 or server software? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Which Linux and which hardcopy? (Salvador Peralta)
Another crosses the floor (David S. Hamilton)
Re: 'To Be Up or Not To Be Up' (Craig Kelley)
Re: simply being open source is no guarantee of security. (Craig Kelley)
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000 or server software? (Craig Kelley)
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000 or server software? (Craig Kelley)
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000 or server software? (Marty)
LILO saves the day (Craig Kelley)
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000 or server software? (Joseph)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 16:20:43 -0700
On Mon, 17 Apr 2000, dcorn wrote:
> Jim Polaski wrote:
> Why do you need to go to a course to 'manage' the NT registry? I don't.
>
> And there are courses in how to use the Mac, too - the local community
> college has several of them, including "Introduction to the Macintosh" or
> somesuch. Just because a course is out there doesn't mean people need it.
I taught a Intro to the Mac course - it's called computer literacy and a
requirement for functioning in college.
Look at the TOC for an O'Reilly book.
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/manwinreg/toc.html
This is rocket science.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Which Linux and which hardcopy?
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 23:10:29 GMT
I have recently purchased a second hard drive with the intention of
installing Linux as an additional operating system. I am currently
thinking of Mandrake, Red Hat or SUSE, and would also like to purchase
some hard copy documentation. I have extensive experience with operating
systems, but am a Linux virgin. I don't have the patience for books that
spend three chapters explaining the basics; I'm looking for books that
assume a computer background and quickly get down into the trenches. I
will probably be doing software development on Linux, for education if
nothing else. Given that, what advice can you give on my choices? Is
there a chart anywhere comparing what is included in the various
distributions? Would I be better off wait for the 2.4 kernel?
I'd prefer a reply here, but you can send anything not of general
interest to my acm dot org address (shmuel) and it will reach me once my
computer comes back from the shop.
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
ABM
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Bart Oldeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Solaris (was Re: Windows 2000 etc.)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 22:37:10 GMT
On 17 Apr 2000, abraxas wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Bart Oldeman wrote:
> >> On 17 Apr 2000, abraxas wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I dont hate linux, I use it at home and at work in great capacity...:)
> >> >
> >> > I like solaris ALOT more, and well...macs have always been close to my heart.
> >>
> >> I log in on a solaris box for the first time and get dumped in csh:
> >>
> >> i press the up arrow to get my last command back:
> >>
> >> host% ^[[A
>
> Thats because your default shell is probably Korn, not bash. It
> is worth everyones while to learn the ins and outs of a few shells
> so that one does not find one's self limited by unix flavor.
>
> >> Tab doesn't work either.
> >>
>
> Tab-completion does not work in csh or korn naturally.
Well it was csh as I said. But why should I learn the ins and outs of csh
if there's also tcsh, which is different from bash, but at this level
roughly works the same? Frankly, I just see plain csh as a dinosaur, just
like plain vi (compared to the newer variants like vim).
> >> Now why does Sun give you such an awful system by default?
> Because its UNIX, not linux. Welcome to a small part of the
> difference.
Because they don't like GNU? :-)
> >> Or have they
> >> finally changed that in the newest version?
> No, they havent made GNU (Gnu is Not Unix, ironically) an intrinsic
> part of the latest version. They have no reason to, seeing as
> how they arent shipping linux.
Hmm. Fine. But why they keep those "dinosaurs" around is something that
goes beyond my (of course limited, because I'm also a mere
mortal;-) perception.
> > Couldnt it be that youre just "Linux centric" ? :-)
> There ya go...:)
:)
Bart
------------------------------
From: Arthur Tyde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: BALUG meeting Tue 19th Apr in San Francisco - Bruce Perins
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 23:26:41 GMT
All,
Bruce Perins of the Linux Capital Group will be the featured speaker at
BALUG tomorrow (Tuesday 19th) evening at the Four Seas in San Francisco.
"Bruce Perens, president, is a luminary in the Linux and Open Source
software community. He is a highly regarded computer scientist as well as
an authority on free software licensing. His views are widely published in
media publications from Wired Magazine to the Wall Street Journal. He is
the primary author of the Open Source Definition, and, as such, is well
respected in the international network of Open Source programmers and
computer scientists. Perens has intimate knowledge of this landscape and
maintains key personal relationships with many Linux developers."
Meeting starts at 7:00 PM, a full banquet style chinese dinner is served
for only $10.00 per person. Companies and individuals are welcome to
arrange for table space, donate door prizes, and help with the operation
of the users group. Information, directions and RESERVATIONS may be made
at http://www.balug.org.
Many thanks, Art...
--
Arthur F. Tyde III
Bay Area Linux Users Group
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: We need a new subject was (Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get
it, do you?)
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 23:42:57 GMT
On Mon, 17 Apr 2000 17:44:51 -0400, someone claiming to be Keith T.
Williams wrote:
>Actually Max, the debate was on copyright limitations in general, not
>whether or not Microsoft steals.
* Every * discussion that Max involves himself in it about the evil
that is MS -- even those that aren't.
Why?
<Max> Because I Said So! </Max>
------------------------------
From: josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000 or server software?
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 16:53:08 -0700
On Mon, 17 Apr 2000, Drestin Black wrote:
> The string found in that DLL in that version of FP98 for those types of
> servers is not a backdoor.
>
> Specific enough?
That fiasco has proven folks can have little to no confidence that MS even
understands what is engineered into their "crown jewels" codebase.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (C Lund)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 01:51:45 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >"People" generally being Wintrolls who find that to be an undesirably
> >complicated task...
> I haven't yet met a Windows user who thinks its at all complicated.
Really? You should read this forum more often.
> But doesn't it seem odd to you that an OS whose main purpose was to
> shield users from having to figure out settings expects them to know
> about memory management?
Strngely enough, I never found that to be a difficult thing to do. Even
when I was fumbling around with my first mac, the IIsi.
--
C Lund
http://www.notam.uio.no/~clund/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (C Lund)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 01:56:48 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Craig Kelley
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > And I think Apple should remove the "Mac" in front of OS X. It *isn't* a
> > Mac OS; it's something completely different.
> How about "Next"? :)
Hmm... It isn't strictly "NeXT" either, is it. It's got big chunks of both
Mac and NeXT so it's more like a hybrid of some kind. But I suppose it's
more NeXT than Mac. Still, I wouldn't call it neither Mac nor NeXT.
How about Apple OS 3? Counting the Apple ][ OS (being some kind of DOS) as
Apple OS 1, and counting the MacOS as Apple OS 2....
--
C Lund
http://www.notam.uio.no/~clund/
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Solaris (was Re: Windows 2000 etc.)
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 01:01:36 GMT
Bart Oldeman wrote:
> I couldn't find fastfind (machines running
> "SunOS 5.7 Generic October 1998").
Whoops... turns out it was something put into our environment a long time ago.
It did come with SunOS 4.x... just hasn't with 5.x I guess.
> Not wrong, just unfriendly. I mean, what's the point for Sun for keeping
> csh if tcsh is available and using UNIX tar if GNU tar is there (and
> all are "backwards" compatible, as far as I know).
Actually I _have_ seen a case where a file tar'd with Sun's tar didn't properly
untar with gnutar.
csh is kept because there are slight differences between csh and tcsh, and some
users prefer csh over tcsh.
> True if you are root. But if you're on a 10 MB quota you can't just
> install all GNU utilities next to your normal work (this of course has
> everything to do with a friendly admin).
> (not that i'm in that situation anymore).
I agree about the gnu tools, but I've never known an admin that didn't put the
vast majority of them on a box. I mean solaris without gnu tools has a lot of
shortcomings. So you might think, why doesn't sun write their own? Probably
because there's no point; the Gnu tools already do it. As for include...
they're starting to.
> a) setting your .login in such a way that you get tcsh or bash by default.
Uh.. chsh?
I've had so many users try what you're saying, but doing it in their .cshrc..
then wondering why the can't login (when they're actually running an infinite
loop).
> b) trying to convince your sysadmin to install tcsh or bash if they are
> not there ;-)
Very few admins will not, and Sun might not have the right to install tcsh out
of the box.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
Why is it always Segmentation's fault?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Solaris (was Re: Windows 2000 etc.)
Date: 18 Apr 2000 01:02:55 GMT
Bart Oldeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Tab-completion does not work in csh or korn naturally.
> Well it was csh as I said. But why should I learn the ins and outs of csh
> if there's also tcsh, which is different from bash, but at this level
> roughly works the same? Frankly, I just see plain csh as a dinosaur, just
> like plain vi (compared to the newer variants like vim).
You can install any shell you like under solaris. On my sparc at work,
bash is the default shell for all accounts on the system and users can
choose between that, ksh, zsh, tcsh, pdksh, csh, and sh. (though god
only knows why).
And alot of people who routinely [sic] edit system files would
disagree with you on the vi front.
>> >> Now why does Sun give you such an awful system by default?
>> Because its UNIX, not linux. Welcome to a small part of the
>> difference.
> Because they don't like GNU? :-)
Because GNU is not on the same development path as them. Theres no
reason to include it. I can install as many or as few GNU toys as
I like. Solaris is used for a variety of reasons, only some of which
are concurrent with the reasons commonly attributed to linux.
>> >> Or have they
>> >> finally changed that in the newest version?
>> No, they havent made GNU (Gnu is Not Unix, ironically) an intrinsic
>> part of the latest version. They have no reason to, seeing as
>> how they arent shipping linux.
> Hmm. Fine. But why they keep those "dinosaurs" around is something that
> goes beyond my (of course limited, because I'm also a mere
> mortal;-) perception.
Solaris is very good at doing alot of things that linux just plain
isnt.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000 or server software?
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 12:44:02 +1000
"Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > /me wonders....
> Rob (happily using *backdoor free* software).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Have you personally auditted every single line of code running on your
computer to ascertain this ?
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Which Linux and which hardcopy?
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 19:56:15 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Don't wait for a new kernel. There will always be new kernels. As for
what system to get... get any of them. If you are a motiated hacker
with a need for books, here's a tip.
The O'Reilly Book, Learning Debian/GNU is $29.95 at Fry's. The boxed CD
distro of Debian/GNU Linux is $19.95 and includes O'Reilly's Learning
Debian/GNU book. If you want reading material, and are interested in
programming linux, read the RFC's. I also like O'Reilly's Web Client
programming with Perl. Other good ones are the bat book and the horse
book.
--
Salvador Peralta
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I have recently purchased a second hard drive with the intention of
> installing Linux as an additional operating system. I am currently
> thinking of Mandrake, Red Hat or SUSE, and would also like to purchase
> some hard copy documentation. I have extensive experience with operating
> systems, but am a Linux virgin. I don't have the patience for books that
> spend three chapters explaining the basics; I'm looking for books that
> assume a computer background and quickly get down into the trenches. I
> will probably be doing software development on Linux, for education if
> nothing else. Given that, what advice can you give on my choices? Is
> there a chart anywhere comparing what is included in the various
> distributions? Would I be better off wait for the 2.4 kernel?
>
> I'd prefer a reply here, but you can send anything not of general
> interest to my acm dot org address (shmuel) and it will reach me once my
> computer comes back from the shop.
>
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
> ABM
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
Subject: Another crosses the floor
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David S. Hamilton)
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 03:10:57 GMT
I made the switch to Linux from windoze about four months ago. I'm a
tradesman and work with my hands and a hard hat on all day. But at
night, I come home and sit at the monitor and delight in the
fascinating features in Mandrake 7.0.
I'd like to call my self a hobby programmer but at this stage even
that's stretching it a bit. I nearly got hooked into VB as it was time
to progress to something a bit more challenging having been fooling
around computers a few years now. I just assumed since VB is the big
hype these days I'd buy some books and see how far I could get.
Thank fate I bought a 'publishers edition' of Red Hat to start with
(version 6.0) instead, just out of curiosity and the whole wide world
of Linux and the open source community opened up to me.
I've since downloaded Mandrake 7.0 and have never looked back. Still
have win98 on a five gig partition but Mandrake is the OS I use all
the time now. It spans 30gig over two drives. I had to use winblows a
couple of times to get on the net for help when I pulled the
ritualistic newbie botch hose.
I was impressed right away with the eight desktops and massive
amount of software in the distro. How it didn't need rebooting all the
time so I could leave it up 7/24 and come back to the same environment
I left off with the day before. Great when you're learning.
At first it was tough as I'd never seen anything remotely UNIX
before. Persistence and patience paid off. One by one I started solving
little glitches and discovering the vast power and configure-ability of
Linux. I bought 'learning GNU emacs' by O'Reilly and consider xemacs a
staple in my software arsenal.
My advice to newbies is read, be patient and then read more. Once you
start getting it, the time investment pays off for ever more and Linux
totally rocks way beyond winlame. Now I'm getting into Python and
Shell Programming.
I hear good things are coming down the pipe with kernel 2.4. Can't
wait! Linux Rules!
Dave Hamilton.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: 'To Be Up or Not To Be Up'
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 17 Apr 2000 21:35:15 -0600
Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Mathias Grimmberger wrote:
> > "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > "C't" = German "The Register"
> > >
> > > 'nuff said
> >
> > Muhahahahaha! Bwahahahahaha! OH MY GOD.
> >
> > Well, I would certainly think twice before making a complete fool of
> > myself in front of a worldwide audience.
> >
> > It is easily possible that c't has been published for longer than you
> > have known about computers. :-)
>
> Isnt C'T only about 10 years old?
It would probably still be much older than Drestin's computer
experience. ;)
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: simply being open source is no guarantee of security.
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 17 Apr 2000 21:42:38 -0600
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[snip]
> Exactly my point. Open Source sounds good on paper (kinda like Communism)
> but it's not effective in practice.
You say things like this, and you expect anyone to take you seriously?
If you can't see the obvious mounds and MOUNDS of evidence to the
contrary, then your aversion must give you one hell of a whiplash.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000 or server software?
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 17 Apr 2000 21:44:17 -0600
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > /me wonders....
> > Rob (happily using *backdoor free* software).
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Have you personally auditted every single line of code running on your
> computer to ascertain this ?
Common sense says that each and every individual does not have to
verify every line of code.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000 or server software?
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 17 Apr 2000 21:45:57 -0600
josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 17 Apr 2000, Drestin Black wrote:
>
> > The string found in that DLL in that version of FP98 for those types of
> > servers is not a backdoor.
> >
> > Specific enough?
>
> That fiasco has proven folks can have little to no confidence that MS even
> understands what is engineered into their "crown jewels" codebase.
... and that it is acceptable to have a buffer overflow which, at
minimum, can cause an instant DOS for IIS; all for the sake of saying
that Netscape engineers are "weenies".
What a joke. Those engineers should be fired for lack of tact, if
nothing else.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000 or server software?
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 03:53:23 GMT
Craig Kelley wrote:
>
> josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, 17 Apr 2000, Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > > The string found in that DLL in that version of FP98 for those types of
> > > servers is not a backdoor.
> > >
> > > Specific enough?
> >
> > That fiasco has proven folks can have little to no confidence that MS even
> > understands what is engineered into their "crown jewels" codebase.
>
> ... and that it is acceptable to have a buffer overflow which, at
> minimum, can cause an instant DOS for IIS; all for the sake of saying
> that Netscape engineers are "weenies".
>
> What a joke. Those engineers should be fired for lack of tact, if
> nothing else.
The article said that they were fired.
------------------------------
Subject: LILO saves the day
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 17 Apr 2000 21:52:08 -0600
Here's a new one:
A techie of mine had problems with an NT workstation machine.
It appears that some bootsector virus had ruined the MBR. He tried
reinstalling NT4 a few times, but it always failed with the BIOS
complaining that there was no operating system.
I popped in a DOS disk and typed `fdisk /mbr` and it returned "No
Fixed Disks Present" -- which is funny because you could go to the C:
drive and use any file.
It was obvious that the MBR was hosed -- it was an IDE drive, so no
low-level format was available, so I booted up with a Linux floppy and
installed LILO on the MBR with one partition "DOS" to hda1. After
reseting the machine, everything worked.
For once, LILO actually saved the day.
The techie (MCSE, of course), if any one is interested, wanted to get
a new drive for the machine instead. :p
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 21:11:10 -0400
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000 or server software?
Marty wrote:
>
> Craig Kelley wrote:
> >
> > josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > On Mon, 17 Apr 2000, Drestin Black wrote:
> > >
> > > > The string found in that DLL in that version of FP98 for those types of
> > > > servers is not a backdoor.
> > > >
> > > > Specific enough?
> > >
> > > That fiasco has proven folks can have little to no confidence that MS even
> > > understands what is engineered into their "crown jewels" codebase.
> >
> > ... and that it is acceptable to have a buffer overflow which, at
> > minimum, can cause an instant DOS for IIS; all for the sake of saying
> > that Netscape engineers are "weenies".
> >
> > What a joke. Those engineers should be fired for lack of tact, if
> > nothing else.
>
> The article said that they were fired.
I haven't seen any article saying any MS empolyee was fired in
conjunction with the "weenie" bug.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
