Linux-Advocacy Digest #410, Volume #26 Mon, 8 May 00 15:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Browsers and e-mail ("Nik Simpson")
Re: Microsoft invents XML! (Eric Bennett)
Re: Browsers and e-mail (Darren Winsper)
Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!!
([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul E. Larson))
Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!! (2:1)
Re: Which OS is WORST? (2:1)
Re: computer viruses on LINUX (abraxas)
Re: Which OS is WORST?
Re: Microsoft invents XML! (Esther Schindler)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Tim Kelley)
Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!! ("Cihl")
Re: DCOM versus CORBA, some history (Stuart Krivis)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Tim Kelley)
Re: Microsoft invents XML! (Jim)
Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Browsers and e-mail
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 12:51:47 -0400
"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 8 May 2000 08:41:01 -0400, Nik Simpson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"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.
>
> However, In Unix, a perl script is commonly regarded as an executable and
> treated as such by the system even at the kernel level.
Only through the #! mechanism, which is analagous to Windows file
associations.
>In this respect,
> you can call a perl script simply by typing the filename at the command
> line, just as you would a binary executable. At a lower level, when a perl
> script is executed (either by a command shell or by an application) a call
> is made to execve() (usually after a fork()) with the filename of the
> script as the first argument to execve(). When you open a data file like a
> jpeg, you cannot open it directly with execve(). Instead, you must
> explicitly execve() the jpeg veiwer and pass the jpeg filename to the
> viewer as an argument, just as you must explictly call the veiwer as a
> command.
execve is the Kernel end of the #! mechnism that lets you associate a
particularly file with an executable. In this case (and I know its a fine
distinction) you are not executing the file, you are executing the PERL
interpreter with the file as an argument.
>
> execve() in Linux specifically is handled by the kernel level call
> do_execve(). When do_execve() is called, it will first check the
> permission bit of the file passed to to see if execution is permitted. If
> so, it will then determine how to handle the file by checking the first
> few bytes of the file. If the file begins with "#!", then do_execve() will
> pass the file to the specified interpreter. If the file is an ELF binary,
> then it must begin with characters '0x7F' 'E' 'L' 'F', or do_execve will
> not know what to do with the file. Similarily, their are other headers
> used for other binary executable types.
>
But in the case of scripts, the file is not "execed", rather the script
interpreter be it PERL or KSH is invoked and given the file to interpret.
>
> >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
>
> And when my compiler builds an ELF binary it must "tell the OS" that it is
> an ELF binary, with a \x7fELF at the beginning of the file. Open some
> Linux binaries with a hex editor and see for yourself.
OK, let me try and explain the difference again. In the case of the ELF
binary, the application that gets "execed" is the ELF binary. In the case of
a PERL or other script language, the application that is execed is the
interpreter for the script, not the script itself.
>
>
> >2. Give the file execute permissions
> >
> >An executable only needs the latter step.
>
> No, the only difference is how execve() handles the executable file after
> it has read the beginning bytes . A script executable is passed to an
> interpretor. A java binary is passed to a jvm. ELF binary text and data
> segments are loaded into memory directly with mmap(). Other non-native
> binaries are passed to whatever kernel module handles them.
>
> The fact that windows regards a script file like any other file that is
> simply "opened" by an "application", like a jpeg file is opened by a
> viewer, and does not in any way discriminate between the two is a security
> issue for windows.
I can't see any significant difference between how a Windows file
association works and how what you've described works. In the former case,
someone creates an association between a file with an extention of .vbs and
the Visual Basic Script interpreter, without that association, the file is
just another text file. In the latter case, the #! at the begininng of the
script defines the association between file and the interpreter. There are
just as many potenital holes in the latter approach.
--
Nik Simpson
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[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, 08 May 2000 13:06:04 -0500
In article <8f6ma8$7dp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Eric Bennett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <8f5ivb$24u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Hopefully you're rolling your eyes at David Ignatius, the writer of
> > > that
> > > piece ?
> >
> > I'm not sure who to roll my eyes at. Do you think Ignatius just made a
> > random guess at who invented XML, or do you think Microsoft gave him a
> > hint?
>
> Given the ignorance exhibited by the average journo, I'd have my money on
> the former.
I agree with the point David Steinberg makes.
In the past, I've seen Microsoft spit out press releases where they
leave the uninitiated reader with the distinct impression that Microsoft
created the basic technology discussed in the release. Microsoft's
ClearType press releases are one example. They don't actually
explicitly claim that Microsoft started that entire line of work, but
the releases are clearly crafted to leave the reader with that
impression. I would not be surprised of Ignatius fell victim to this
sort of thing. If you don't know the history of the technology, you
don't see through the tricky wording. That is what I mean by Microsoft
giving "a hint". They probably didn't explicitly tell Ignatius they
invented XML, but left him with some extremely leading comments that
pointed him clearly in that direction.
If so, I think I can roll my eyes at both Ignatius and Microsoft.
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect,even when you take into
account Hofstadter's Law.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Browsers and e-mail
Date: 8 May 2000 17:26:30 GMT
On Sun, 07 May 2000 22:24:03 GMT, Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I detailed a fix for all .vbs based viruses in another message.
I discovered another vbs virus the other day. This time, it copied
itself using the file-sharing system. I found a copy in my Startup
folder. A quick glance through the code showed it simply tries to
reproduce by probing random addresses and trying to copy itself.
Yes, you may all now flame me for forgetting to disable file-sharing
while on the internet.
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
DVD boycotts. Are you doing your bit?
This message was typed before a live studio audience.
------------------------------
From: whistler<blahblah>@twcny.rr.com (Paul E. Larson)
Subject: Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!!
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 17:28:11 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Sun, 07 May 2000 23:08:26 -0400, proculous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>The net result of a virus infestation is a loss of productive time of
>>the persons involved. What better example of Linux as an operating
>>system.
>>
>>Talk about a waste of time! I spent 2 weeks trying to install this
>>piece of shit and finally gave up. I have installed every OS under the
>>sun and moon since DOS 1.0 and could not get this piece of junk, Linux
>>to operate correctly.
>>
>
>WOW! You're a real moron.
>
>1) put CD in drive
>2) push reset
>3) click OK at all the prompts.
>
Only if you PC is bootable from CD, if you have a SCSI card it may or may not
be bootable. If you are willing to accept the basic configuration and it
works on your system. If you did your homework the cards in your PC will have
support in Linux, if not you are SOL.
And now you have installed a basic Linux system with minimal security.
Paul
Get rid of the blahs to email me :}
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=67063&a=635208 - 1999 Hancock Airshow
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=67063&a=2618171 - National Warplane Museum
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!!
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 18:37:19 +0100
"whistler @twcny.rr.com (Paul E. Larson)" wrote:
>
>
> >
> >WOW! You're a real moron.
> >
> >1) put CD in drive
> >2) push reset
> >3) click OK at all the prompts.
> >
>
> Only if you PC is bootable from CD, if you have a SCSI card it may or may not
OK, buy a distro.
Put the floppy in the drive (mine came with a boot floppy)
Put the CD in the drive
Push reset...
-Ed
> be bootable. If you are willing to accept the basic configuration and it
> works on your system. If you did your homework the cards in your PC will have
> support in Linux, if not you are SOL.
>
> And now you have installed a basic Linux system with minimal security.
>
> Paul
>
> Get rid of the blahs to email me :}
>
> http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=67063&a=635208 - 1999 Hancock Airshow
> http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=67063&a=2618171 - National Warplane
>Museum
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold weather is
because
of all the fish in the atmosphere?
-The Hackenthorpe Book Of Lies
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Which OS is WORST?
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 18:44:49 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Linux of course....It sucks so bad, has no usable applications and is
> truely a nostaglic trip back into how computing was done in the 1970's
> Green screen city dude..... In short, we are not interested...
What's wrong with green screens. A sample from my .Xdefaults is
XTerm*foreground: green
XTerm*background: black
But that aside, no installation of linux I've seen comes with green
screens.
Does anyone know how to make everything on the consolg green all the
time?
I *like* green screens. They're easy to look at. Now I have to find
someone willing to sell me a green screen moniter for my BBC Micro...
-Ed
>
> Take your shit operating system somewhere else.
>
> Windows rulllezzz dude's.....And don't you forget it!!!!
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold weather is
because
of all the fish in the atmosphere?
-The Hackenthorpe Book Of Lies
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: computer viruses on LINUX
Date: 8 May 2000 17:49:39 GMT
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8 May 2000 07:59:01 -0700, david parsons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> GNOME already barks at you for running as root.
>>
>> Oh, so Gnome is nannyware? Good, that's another reason to keep it
>> off my systems.
> ...only barks if you're DUMB enough to run a desktop as root.
Ahh...the psychology of a nannyware advocate...
There are actually a few reasons to run X as root, briefly.
Gnome really does suck, seriously.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Which OS is WORST?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 18:05:41 GMT
On Mon, 08 May 2000 03:10:52 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Linux of course....It sucks so bad, has no usable applications and is
>truely a nostaglic trip back into how computing was done in the 1970's
>Green screen city dude..... In short, we are not interested...
>
That's pretty funny considering windoze uses technology made obsolete in
the 60's.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Esther Schindler)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft invents XML!
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 18:13:26 GMT
Eric, I think you're absolutely right. This is the sort of "create an
impression but don't actually *say*..." PR that Microsoft is good at.
(And their expertise at PR makes me wonder what could have been
accomplished if their technology was up to the same level....)
For instance, I (and, I dare say, a thousand other journalists) got an
email from a Microsoft PR person saying, in part, "Knowing you're a
person who follows Microsoft and XML, I just wanted to
bring to your attention a survey released on March 23rd by Zona
Research that illustrates how Microsoft is the leader in driving the
adoption of XML" and pointing to a Zona Research report at
http://www.zonaresearch.com/deliverables/qemail/qstat032300.htm
Among the text claiming that "Microsoft's involvement with XML is
deep" they say, "Microsoft initiated the XML schema work at the W3C
with the submission of XML-Data over two years ago (Jan. 1998). They
helped form the W3C working group for XML schemas and they have been,
and will continue to be, active participants in this exciting
process."
Well, that part is actually _true_. They _are_ involved in XML. But if
someone doesn't know the XML landscape it would be entirely too easy
to get the wrong impression (which is nonetheless "good for Microsoft"
from Microsoft's point of view), that Microsoft "invented" XML.
Sigh. It's tough to be knowledgeable about every technology out
there... and even tougher to know every technology well enough to
recognize it when someone misleads you.
--Esther Schindler
Technology Editor
Sm@rt Reseller (soon to be Sm@rt Partner)
http://www.zdnet.com/sr
On Mon, 8 May 2000 18:06:04, Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| In article <8f6ma8$7dp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
| <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| > "Eric Bennett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
| > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
| > > In article <8f5ivb$24u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
| > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > >
| > >
| > > > Hopefully you're rolling your eyes at David Ignatius, the writer of
| > > > that
| > > > piece ?
| > >
| > > I'm not sure who to roll my eyes at. Do you think Ignatius just made a
| > > random guess at who invented XML, or do you think Microsoft gave him a
| > > hint?
| >
| > Given the ignorance exhibited by the average journo, I'd have my money on
| > the former.
|
| I agree with the point David Steinberg makes.
|
| In the past, I've seen Microsoft spit out press releases where they
| leave the uninitiated reader with the distinct impression that Microsoft
| created the basic technology discussed in the release. Microsoft's
| ClearType press releases are one example. They don't actually
| explicitly claim that Microsoft started that entire line of work, but
| the releases are clearly crafted to leave the reader with that
| impression. I would not be surprised of Ignatius fell victim to this
| sort of thing. If you don't know the history of the technology, you
| don't see through the tricky wording. That is what I mean by Microsoft
| giving "a hint". They probably didn't explicitly tell Ignatius they
| invented XML, but left him with some extremely leading comments that
| pointed him clearly in that direction.
|
| If so, I think I can roll my eyes at both Ignatius and Microsoft.
|
| --
| Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
| Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
|
| Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect,even when you take into
| account Hofstadter's Law.
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[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, 08 May 2000 13:14:46 -0500
Craig Kelley wrote:
>
> Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Capitalism is moving inexorably towards corporate centralization
> > and has been for the last 100 years at least, despite the ravings
> > of US libertarian capitalists. Look at the media.
>
> The web obviates all that.
>
> Witness Slashdot.
>
> The ultimate goal of a CEO may be towards corporate centrailzation,
> but our (Earth's) nature does not tolerate uniformity, no matter how
> hard they try. It's one of the beauties of the free market, it
> requires little maintenance to keep it functioning fairly because
> there will always be an individual who is unhappy with the market
> leader's product.
There really is no "free market", corporations are tools for
controlling such, and are doing quite a good job so far.
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Cihl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!!
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 18:15:54 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Sun, 07 May 2000 23:08:26 -0400, proculous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >The net result of a virus infestation is a loss of productive time of
> >the persons involved. What better example of Linux as an operating
> >system.
> >
> >Talk about a waste of time! I spent 2 weeks trying to install this
> >piece of shit and finally gave up. I have installed every OS under the
> >sun and moon since DOS 1.0 and could not get this piece of junk, Linux
> >to operate correctly.
> >
>
> WOW! You're a real moron.
>
> 1) put CD in drive
> 2) push reset
> 3) click OK at all the prompts.
>
> Total time to install: 45 minutes.
?? 45 whole minutes?
Isn't it about time to ditch the 386?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stuart Krivis)
Subject: Re: DCOM versus CORBA, some history
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 14:16:08 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 21 Apr 2000 13:17:56 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>SeaDragon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>This is a fundamental flaw in free software which has been identified
>>years ago by the critics of free software. The advantage of a single
>>vednor who defines standards is that they can control the standards.
>
>You have one very strange concept of standards. When there is
>only a single vendor, their main goal is to keep it that way
>and make it as difficult as possible to interoperate with
>anything else.
He is using newspeak. The word formerly known as "proprietary," shall
henceforth be known as "industry standard."
--
Stuart Krivis
*** Remove "mongo" in headers for valid reply hostname
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[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, 08 May 2000 13:37:34 -0500
David Steinberg wrote:
> "Had those toolbars been created elsewhere, they no doubt would have been
> patented and never incorporated into Windows." <bill gates>
what's funny is that (putting aside that the statement is false)
this is an argument against patents more than anything, coming
from the patent whores themselves!
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft invents XML!
Date: 08 May 2000 14:42:34 EDT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Esther Schindler) wrote:
> Sigh. It's tough to be knowledgeable about every technology out
> there... and even tougher to know every technology well enough to
> recognize it when someone misleads you.
>
But not so tough to learn to "consider the source," and have your
skepticism alraedy out of the box, especially when the source has a
track record like M$'s.
--
Jim Naylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 18:56:40 GMT
On Mon, 08 May 2000 18:15:54 GMT, Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Sun, 07 May 2000 23:08:26 -0400, proculous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >The net result of a virus infestation is a loss of productive time of
>> >the persons involved. What better example of Linux as an operating
>> >system.
>> >
>> >Talk about a waste of time! I spent 2 weeks trying to install this
>> >piece of shit and finally gave up. I have installed every OS under the
>> >sun and moon since DOS 1.0 and could not get this piece of junk, Linux
>> >to operate correctly.
>> >
>>
>> WOW! You're a real moron.
>>
>> 1) put CD in drive
>> 2) push reset
>> 3) click OK at all the prompts.
>>
>> Total time to install: 45 minutes.
>
>?? 45 whole minutes?
>Isn't it about time to ditch the 386?
>
The limiting factor was probably my 8x scsi-2 cdrom. However, I simply
started the thing and came back a coupla hours later.
The rest of the system is a 128MB 500mhz PIII, and two 10KRPM u2-scsi
drives.
I'm pretty sure the CDROM was the limiting factor.
That 45 minutes includes the time to drive to the fedex branch and pickup
up my copy of RH6.2.
Sending two weeks is just pathetic! I didn't spend 3 whole days when I
upgraded and had to try 2 different video boards before I found one I
liked.
I didn't spend two weeks setting up a LAN so that print jobs would go to a
junk windoze PC (running my junk winprinter) running gsview and
ghostscript with files being queued over samba and VNC installed to watch
the process.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
