Linux-Advocacy Digest #406, Volume #26 Mon, 8 May 00 09:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (mlw)
Re: Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!! (Geoff Lane)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (mlw)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (mlw)
Re: Malicious scripts on Unix (mlw)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 ("ROW Software")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Boris")
Re: Microsoft invents XML! ("Boris")
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Bracy")
Re: computer viruses on LINUX ("Rene")
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Browsers and e-mail ("Nik Simpson")
Re: Browsers and e-mail ("Nik Simpson")
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! ("Nik Simpson")
Re: KDE is better than Gnome (Roberto Alsina)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! ("Nik Simpson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 07:25:37 -0400
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > But that's just it. The script doesn't execute in the context of the
> email
> > > program. It executes outside of it because the user has told the email
> > > program to execute the attachment.
> >
> > A vbs script is interpreted on the context of a vb dll, which is loaded
> > by the e-mail client. Are you telling me that it is impossible to add
> > limitations to the environment in which code executes? If so, then
> > Microsoft should get out of the browser and e-mail business right now.
>
> No, the DLL is not loaded by the email client. What happens is that the
> script name is passed to the shell. The shell then executes the application
> registered for the file type of the script, in this case WSH. The VBScript
> DLL is loaded into the context of WSH, not the email program.
Not necessarily true. If the dll for the script is an in-proc server
then it executes in the context of the application, if it is registered
as a separate app, then it creates a new process.
Regardless of implementation, if Microsoft can't modify the rights a
script has, varying based on origin, then they should disallow scripts
and executables as received through e-mail or a we browser.
One has to think of e-mail or the web as "The front door to your house
or office." One should not ever leave the front door open, where anyone
could come in and do any thing they wish.
Fact: E-mail is a bad way to distribute applications.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
"We've got a blind date with destiny, and it looks like she ordered the
lobster"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Geoff Lane)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.fan.bill-gates
Subject: Re: Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!!
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 12:20:53 +0100
In article <8evf8k$s78$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Well, it's all part of this integration of things, web stuff,
> interactive apps, e-mail, to try make it all look the same.
> Needless to say, that makes it easy for beginners to use,
> but makes it easy to hack as well.
The technology to make it perfectly safe is available now - and it's all
open software. MS appears to have made a decision that security is
something that is best not talked about. Just like car makers in the 1950's
and '60s (until they ended up in the courts.)
--
/\ Geoff. Lane. /\ Manchester Computing /\ Manchester /\ M13 9PL /\ England /\
On a clear disk you can seek forever.
<p align="right"> Denning
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 07:34:54 -0400
Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> "Marc Schlensog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8f3vqf$e6v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in:
> > 8f39fj$3r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > "Bart Oldeman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > On Sat, 6 May 2000, Rich C wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Bart Oldeman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > On Sat, 6 May 2000, Rich C wrote:
> > > > > >
> >
> > -----8<-----------[snip]------------->8-----
> >
> > > Please detail to us how you're going to detect the difference between
> > > "dangerous" and "safe" attachments.
> >
> > Dangerous in a sense, that the attachment has access to the entire system,
> > safe in a sense, that the attachment contains a picture, a textfile, a
> > soundfile,
> > or even a JAVA-script
>
> So what about legitimate scripts ? After all, some people do roll their
> own.
I have thought about what a "legitimate script" would be or do. Think
about it, is e-mail the right method by which IS should distribute
applications and scripts, no, they will use a network share.
The issue is that execution of a script is the SAME as opening a jpeg
file. This MUST not continue to be true. Internet originated executable
content is, by definition, insecure. Any executable content must be
marked as insecure by an e-mail application.
If Microsoft is serious about this, it could append a VB comment that
says "received:internet" in a vbs script. It could add a bit field in an
exe or dll PE header so these applications run in a sand box.
They should not code the ability to do something without the appropriate
safeguards.
>
> > > As to his last two examples, it sounds to me as if someone has set the
> > > "don't ask this again" option once when opening an .avi or .doc file.
> > >
> > > The same dialog is used, I would imagine, for a reason of programming
> > > efficiency. The more special cases you have to add, the more of a pain
> it
> > > becomes to write and the more of a pain it becomes to mantain.
> >
> > I don�t quite think so. It should be about the same pain, as to offer
> > a choice to never ask again, since they have to store the information,
> > whether or not to ask. Given, that it defaults to don�t ask for .avi and
> > .doc files, is that really that hard to believe?
>
> But it defaults to asking for *all* files. Someone, somewhere, has told
> outlook not to ask again for .avis and .docs on your machine. Especially in
> the case of the latter, I suggest you turn this off.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
"We've got a blind date with destiny, and it looks like she ordered the
lobster"
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 07:42:48 -0400
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Sun, 7 May 2000 20:20:45 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > >Bart Oldeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> > Please detail to us how you're going to detect the difference between
> > >> > "dangerous" and "safe" attachments.
> > >>
> > >> Every binary and vb-script is potentially dangerous. A jpeg, text file,
> > >> java file executed in a sandbox is not. It's easy enough.
> > >
> > >vbscript executed in a sandbox is equally as safe. The problem is that
> this
> > >is executed outside the sandbox because it's an attachment. The same
> would
> >
> > Then clearly the calling application, the email client is at fault.
>
> Thank you for finally recognizing that this is not a problem with the OS,
> but rather the mail client.
Well, I would argue that Windows lacks any security at all and NT's
security is bypassed on a regular basis because many Windows
applications are coded such that they assume they can write anywhere
they wish. There are even a few technotes in Microsoft's knowledge base
where users must give themselves "administrator" rights to run Microsoft
applications.
>
> > If there is a facility through which it could limit the potential
> > effects of malicious code when the app in question is perfectly
> > aware of the questionable origin of that code: then that app & it's
> > originator are grossly negligent.
>
> The app in question is NOT perfectly aware of the questionable origin of the
> code. How does the app know the origin is questionable? Even more so, how
> does the app know that a given text file happens to be a harmful script? As
> far as the app knows, it's just text.
I don't understand how you can say this. The app must be able to find
out what kind of file it is because it ends up running it. If it were
just a text file, it would open it up in notepad, no, it must have the
facilities to "run" it. All an app needs to do is make a few registry
calls.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
"We've got a blind date with destiny, and it looks like she ordered the
lobster"
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,local.unix.general
Subject: Re: Malicious scripts on Unix
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 07:44:34 -0400
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8f566h$2s8s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> You've ignored a rather significant difference between Windows
> > >> and Unix (or NT W2k) systems: no security. Even if a malicious script
> > >> is executed on a properly configured Unix box it will only affect the
> > >files
> > >> accessible to the luser, *not* crucial system files.
> > >
> > >Irrelevant. The biggest problem with the love bug virus is that it sends
> > >copies of itself to other users on their mailing lists. This has been
> > >clogging email systems and bringing them to a crawl. This is doable with
> or
> > >without security.
> >
> > That may be the biggest problem for most people, but it also deletes
> > graphic files. If you happen to be a graphic artist and it deletes
> > all your archived work I don't think you would be real happy.
>
> Yes, it does. But that's not what makes this virus so bad. Under NT, the
> virus can only delete files it has access to as well.
And if you follow Microsoft's tech notes for using NT with some of its
applications, you will have Administrator privilages on your NT machine,
making just as secure as your Windows machine.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
"We've got a blind date with destiny, and it looks like she ordered the
lobster"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: 8 May 2000 11:56:57 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Damien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Arclight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>| In theory yes, but can you point to anything which actually does
>| [handle new features gracefully]?
> SGML, HTML, TeX, httpd.conf. . . that's all I can come up with right
> now. I think postscript, and dvi would qualify too but I don't know
> enough about them to say for sure.
SGML, and particularly HTML can, though it does depend on the way that
the DTD is handled. (IIRC HTML was supposed to handle new features
unrecognised tags and attributes from the beginning.)
TeX strictly doesn't, but the basic format is extremely well known and
has hasn't changed for donkeys' years. LaTeX has changed more, but it
has a pretty reasonable backward-compatability mode. You can usually
get something reasonable out of a partial interpretation of a document
too.
Postscript and DVI do not qualify, but (like TeX) the formats haven't
changed for a very long time. They are also very carefully specified
so there isn't a lot of room for conflicting implementations (except
in the case of DVI where there is a defined extension interface. But
even there there are a set of widely understood uses that most layers
that understand DVI can comprehend.)
I believe (though I have no first-hand evidence for this one way or
another) that Wordperfect handles backward compatability very well.
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: "ROW Software" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 07:01:23 -0500
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
Hash: SHA1
Wow...what a thread!
Regards,
Kurt Weber
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Mon, 08 May 2000 02:06:06
> GMT
> >On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 22:03:27 -0400, someone claiming to be T. Max
> >Devlin wrote:
> >
> >>Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Wed, 26 Apr 2000
> >>01:10:13 GMT
> >
> >>>If I thought you were a person of honour, [...]
> >
> >>Well, you don't. So quit wasting my time.
> >
> >Once again, I do not post for your benefit, liar.
>
> Then why is it me you seem intent on boring to death?
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> Manager of Research & Educational Services
> Managed Services
> ELTRAX Technology Services Group
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
> my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
> applicable licensing agreement]-
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBORaskW4I3AOszg9bEQLMHwCeINggLV7jAvhoy1/8YmosMLEcSP4AoL78
3iEAU8cIsHEHWq3PgzkDxTiz
=knLO
=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====
------------------------------
From: "Boris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 05:03:18 -0700
> Given Microsoft's track record for sabotaging competitors, I would not
> be surprised if there were plenty of APIs which revealed whether the
> app was Microsoft friendly and if not, some random spurious msgs
> would be generated causing that app to fail or perform badly.
That's not true. If you take any major MS application, e.g. Office, you'll see that it
uses documented APIs only. Any developer can see that. On Windows OSes all API stuff is
inside MS-supplied DLLs. There are tools (like QuickView) which list dependencies for
any
EXE or DLL. It's easy to see that Office uses standard Win32 API calls only. Same is
true
for other MS software. 3-4 years ago some software utilities used undocumented APIs.
Not
any longer.
Boris
------------------------------
From: "Boris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft invents XML!
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 05:05:40 -0700
At least Microsoft invented SOAP!
Boris
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: 8 May 2000 12:11:43 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Damien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MS sells software licenses that allow you to install the software all
> the new computers you buy?
Yes, they do. But site licenses (as they are known) are not cheap at all.
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: "Bracy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 12:19:29 GMT
I wonder how the Macintosh ever became such a user-friendly OS
since Apple never had access to all that MS Office code?
Bracy
In article <wIuR4.75$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You are misrepresenting what he said. He said that the OS would not be
> what it is today without having taken code from it's applications and
> rolled it into Windows. He did not say that Office could not be done
> without access to Windows, he said Windows could not be what it is today
> without access to Office (and other) source code.
>
> You seem to be saying that Gates is claiming that Office couldn't be as
> good without access to Windows, but that is not what he's saying.
>
> His claim is that all software developers benefit from the work done in
> Microsoft application divisions, since Microsoft takes that code and
> makes it available to 3rd parties via Windows API's.
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Rene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: computer viruses on LINUX
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 13:54:28 +0200
Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Okay, here's some information for you.
If you use Linux, you'll probably NEVER suffer from a virus as that OS
was designed
by some fairly intelligent people.
If you use Microsoft for your operating system what happens to you is
similar to using
your butt for a gun holster! You end up shooting your butt off.
============
OK, some real information:
On Linux, the virus problem is less prominent, because:
- Most programs come with source code and author information.
- Distributions are hesitant to add new packages.
- Magazine editors are extremely careful.
- An innocent user cannot destroy the system.
- There are different Unix machines, so executables are rarely exchanged by
mail.
- There is no such mechanism as ActiveX.
- There is no such mechanism as Word-Macros.
The last two things are not exactely true, but almost. Point 4 is not really
the main point IMHO, because destroying user data, or abusing an account is
bad enough.
To add one thing: It would be desirable to have an even tighter sandbox
model than Linux has.
Rene
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: 8 May 2000 12:16:07 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> True, but natural selection also depends on having a very disperse set
> of traits. If everyone runs VC++ and Windows then we're on our way
> off a cliff some day (witness the ILOVEYOU virus which came out
> today).
Yeah. If every creature in the world was a lemming, it would be a
good idea for some of them to evolve an aversion to large drops, no
matter how much this would interfere with uniformity and standards...
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Browsers and e-mail
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 08:36:17 -0400
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Boris wrote:
> >
> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > Given the nature of both systems, i.e. the normalcy of receiving data
> > > from unknown origins, shouldn't e-mail have the same restrictions and
> > > safety precautions that browsers have?
> > I use IE5/OE5 on Win2000. And most security settings in OE are inherited
from IE. For
> > example, if I disabled ActiveX controls in IE and opened HTML post on
news group, and that
> > message contains ActiveX control, that control won't be able to execute.
> >
>
> So, OK, what's the answer? I think we all agree that something like the
> "ILOVEYOU" virus will continue to happen in increasing frequency. How do
> you stop it? You can't keep arresting 14 year olds everytime this
> happens
Me, I'm in favor of shooting a few of them, pour encorage les autres...
--
Nik Simpson
------------------------------
From: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Browsers and e-mail
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 08:41:01 -0400
"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 8 May 2000 12:32:23 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >An executable and a script are two very different things.
> >
>
> A script *is* an executable. At least it is that way on my system.
> Although an executable is not necessarily a script.
>
Perl is an executable, a Perl script is not an executable in that sense, its
just a text file that you execute using PERL. When you make a Perl script
executable you have to:
1. Tell the OS what to use to interpret the script, typically a #! in UNIX
or a file association in Windows
2. Give the file execute permissions
An executable only needs the latter step.
--
Nik Simpson
------------------------------
From: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 08:45:59 -0400
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8evc0q$f1u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <XTCQ4.375$dv6.923@client>,
> Nik Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Sure, but it would only affect the users files, not the entire
computer.
> >
> >Same goes for NT.
>
> But, if every user opens the attachment and wipes out his own
> files locally and on the servers, there still won't be much left.
>
Again, though no difference with UNIX there!
--
Nik Simpson
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 12:35:26 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It was the Thu, 04 May 2000 14:07:52 GMT...
> ...and Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Ok, sorry, but I'll go a bit offtopic for the thread :-)
> >
> > > /opt/enlightenment/bin/enlightenment depends on 20 libraries;
> > > /opt/gnome/bin/panel depends on 31;
> > > /opt/gnome/bin/nautilus even depends on 44.
> >
> > Hey, interesting numbers! Just for kicks:
> >
> > [ralsina@server ralsina]$ ldd `which kwm` |wc -l
> > 10
> > [ralsina@server ralsina]$ ldd `which kwin` |wc -l
> > 17
> > [ralsina@server ralsina]$ ldd `which kicker` |wc -l
> > 19
> > [ralsina@server ralsina]$ ldd `which kpanel` |wc -l
> > 10
> > [ralsina@server ralsina]$ ldd `which konqueror`|wc -l
> > 22
> >
> > I'll remember this the next time people say KDE's components are too
> > interdependent ;-)
>
> Well, the reason for the high number of dependencies of, say, the
> GNOME panel, compared to, say, kpanel, is the greater modularity of
> the supporting libraries GNOME uses.
Actually, no. It's because KDE's modularity is done better ;-)
> For example, kpanel only links to
> libjpeg. Probably, other image formats are loaded by loaders built
> into libqt or one of the libkde*s directly. (Or maybe you don't even
> support formats other than JPEG and XPM while we can load about every
> format in the known universe, frankly I don't know.)
It loads pretty much anything. However, to do that, you don't need to
have the libraries linked, which increases startup time.
> panel links to libtiff, libjpeg, libpng (thus, also to libz); it links
> to libgdk_pixbuf, thus it links to libart_lgpl, too etc. etc. For
> legacy reasons we still link to libgdk_imlib, we'll drop Imlib with
> GNOME 2.0, however.
>
> Also, the GNOME panel uses CORBA. ORBit and GNORBA means another five
> libraries. Using GTK+ means linking to GDK and glib, too.
>
> GNOME has got panel applets, KDE hasn't yet; that means linking to one
> more library etc. etc.
KDE2's kicker has applets (in fact, everything in it is an applet), and
it is in the list above.
> As a whole, it's hard to compare. However, we've contemplated lumping
> large numbers of support libraries into one huge "libgnomesupport.so"
> for easier distribution and to make the amount of libraries look less
> daunting. But I don't think the GNOME project wants to impress people
> by a seemingly low number of dependencies, anyhow that support library
> idea was dropped AFAIK.
Well, it sounds like a pretty pointless thing to do, really, so it's
probably a good idea not to do it :-)
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 08:56:38 -0400
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8evl5a$iu5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Brian Langenberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8evci2$dkj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> : So your solution is that every user who has important files they're
> > working
> >> : on has them set +i and harasses root whenever they want to make some
> > changes
> >> : ?
> >>
> >> That's what "sudo" is for. But how convenient the process of securing
> >> files is was not the original issue. If you have a more convenient
> >> method of securing files from deletion I'd love to hear it.
> >>
>
> > From *deletion* ? ACLs in NT will do exactly that - allow writes but
not
> > deletion.
>
> > The whole point here is that Unix is no more inherently resistant than
NT,
>
> Yet there are almost no viruses that work on UNIX, and buttloads that work
> on NT. Why is that again?
Because people target viruses (or in the current case Worms) at widely used
platforms to ensure the maximum "fun." Right now, assuming somebody chose to
write a PERL attachment to attack UNIX systems in the same way that this VBS
worm worked its effect would be much more limited:
1. Difficult to make it work on all versions of *NIX because of differences
in the install layout and files used for particular mail systems. That's not
to say a general purpose script couldn't be written, just that its
non-trivial because the lack of standardization across *NIX platforms.
2. Generally more sophisticated user base. People running *NIX would have
more idea of the dangers inherent in running unknown attachments. By it's
very nature and success, there are a lot more people running Windows systems
who have no clue about file security or anything else. This is not meant in
anyway as a criticism of Windows or of the millions of barely computer
literate people running Windows, it's just a statement of fact. Note, if the
LINUX world gets its way and weans these people of Windows on to a LINUX
based platform then they'll have to deal with the same issue.
3. Small target population. Given (1) and (2) the spread of the worm on a
UNIX platform would be much slower and more manageable.
So the reason you don't see such attacks on UNIX based systems is simply
that its not such an inviting target, not that it would be impossible to
target. Put simply why write a virus to affect 5-10% of the computers on the
net when you could write one that might affect 80-90%.
--
Nik Simpson
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
