Linux-Advocacy Digest #454, Volume #26 Thu, 11 May 00 10:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (Se�n � Donnchadha)
Re: Why Solaris is better than Linux (abraxas)
Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic) (abraxas)
Re: Window managers (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Microsoft invents XML! (rj friedman)
Re: Not so fast... (Tim Kelley)
Re: Microsoft invents XML! (rj friedman)
RE: win millenium ("Alberto Trillo")
RE: Why Solaris is better than Linux ("Alberto Trillo")
Re: win millenium ("Robert L.")
Re: Which distribution ("wfpatrick")
Re: X Windows must DIE!!! (Peter Petersen)
Re: Not so fast... (Jeff Szarka)
Re: Window managers (Sierra Tigris)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Se�n � Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 09:10:52 -0400
On Wed, 10 May 2000 19:24:10 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I have actually tested this on netscape, it it complains. I have setup
>two application accociations in netscape, one a pdf file and another a
>shell script. The pdf opens up without a single question, the script
>pops a windows, "This is an executable "sh" script..." and goes on to
>warn me what could happen if I run it. There is NO way to get rid of the
>warning.
>
>One of the few things Netscape does right. One of the numerous things
>netscape does better than MS.
>
How is this "better than MS"? Outlook pops up a warning whenever you
try to launch any attachment. There's no way to get rid of that
warning either. This just goes to show that most Microsoft bashing is
totally mindless.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Why Solaris is better than Linux
Date: 11 May 2000 13:12:22 GMT
Bobby D. Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> There is some activity
>> in products like this for Linux, but still nothing like what's available for
>> Windows, not even 1%.
> So. Solaris is better because, even thought *it* can't beat Linux, something else
> can?
Solaris is better than linux because it scales better. While linux can scale
tremendously well on the small side (embedded systems, etc), solaris scales
on the large side (E10000+) and remains exactly the same operating system as
it does on the small side (ultra1-).
Solaris is better than windows because its not windows.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic)
Date: 11 May 2000 13:19:08 GMT
John Culleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK lets return to the original question. Is it possible to hurt
> a Linux system through a mail bomb type of attachment to email?
> Is it possible for an ordinary user (not root) to destroy the
> system from a terminal?
No.
> I think we can all concede that any
> system can be destroyed from the console and any system can be
> destroyed by one with superuser privileges.
Yep.
> A part of the problem here is that Linux source code is available
> to anyone. If you have a plan of the castle it is easier to
> attack it.
Its also easier to defend...:)
> But I would like to see/hear about a successful attack
> strategy through terminal access, ftp, mail, whatever that does
> not involve prior knowledge of the root password. (Attacks that
> ferret out the root password through some strategy are valid.)
There are thousands of these, nearly all of which have been patched. New
ones are discovered now and then, most notably a recent gnapster bug which
allows remote users to write directly to the filesystem.
Go look at Rootshell.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Window managers
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 23:29:14 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Wed, 10 May 2000 14:05:34 GMT...
...and Alberto Trillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi everyone. I've been thinking about KDE and GNOME and at
> how each other window manager is changing its code to make it
> GNOME and KDE hints compatible, and I've decided that I do
> not like that.
[schnibble]
Before we continue this thread, please tell me that you understand
that KDE and GNOME are not window managers.
mawa
--
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line.
It's the size of a county and it comes every 150 seconds.
-- a Londoner
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (rj friedman)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft invents XML!
Date: 11 May 2000 13:32:24 GMT
On Thu, 11 May 2000 02:25:14 Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
�> Now you see why I used to think he was a moron (knows
�> nothing, yet has an opinion on everything).
�And how did you leap to that assinine conclusion? Seems like you think you
�know everything.
Isn't behavioral conditioning wonderful? Now they've figured
out how to teach a RAT to type. Look at the RAT. See the RAT
type. Type RAT, type.
________________________________________________________
[RJ] OS/2 - Live it, or live with it.
rj friedman Team ABW
Taipei, Taiwan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To send email - remove the `yyy'
________________________________________________________
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Not so fast...
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 08:32:33 -0500
Jeff Szarka wrote:
>
> As one would expect, there are many people in this group who refuse to
> believe any sort of viruses or trojans could be created for Linux.
> While it is true that the current fad of .vbs based viruses only
> targets Windows there are a number of ways a viruses writer could
> target Linux.
Jeff Szarka, Chad Myers and Stephen Edwards all have one thing in
common. they all consistently lie, boldfaced, about what "people
in this group" (linux advocates and users) say and think.
Everyone in this group knows linux is susceptible to trojans. No
one has denied this. What we do say is that the damage caused is
kept to a minimum by the design of the system, unlike windows,
where the system has no design, and the users are forced to think
about every little thing they do. So much for windows-populism.
> 2) User stupidity
Unlike windows, linux is fairly well protected from end user
ignorance. The contempt you have for end users is revealed here,
as it was always suspect. Again, so much for windows-populism.
> 6) User zealotry
> A virus could spread simply because everyone running Linux thinks
> they're safe. I'm sure many don't give a second thought about the
> possibility of a virus outbreak. How many people blindly trust RPM's
> to be safe? Lots.
Unlike the windows install shield disaster, rpms can be checked.
man rpm:
rpm --checksig <package_file>+
This checks the PGP signature built into a package to
ensure the integrity and the origin of the package. PGP
configuration information is read from /etc/rpmrc. See
the section on PGP SIGNATURES for details.
> Something to think about before everyone climbs up into their ivory
> towers and pretends it can't happen here.
No one is pretending it can't happen. But it is FAR less likely
than with windows.
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (rj friedman)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft invents XML!
Date: 11 May 2000 13:33:32 GMT
On Thu, 11 May 2000 02:26:34 Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
�You have again unwittingly, and witlessly answered my question. Thanks again.
So, which is it? Are you a moron or a RAT. Don't be shy -
squeak right up.
________________________________________________________
[RJ] OS/2 - Live it, or live with it.
rj friedman Team ABW
Taipei, Taiwan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To send email - remove the `yyy'
________________________________________________________
------------------------------
From: "Alberto Trillo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: win millenium
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 13:36:54 GMT
> after 6 years, they have not delete the MBR bug, what a great companie
!!!!!
> Linux bug are delete in almost 1 day.
> So, which one is better?
That can hardly be called a bug. Just do not remove MBR erasing, because
it
does not interfere with any of its OS's, why should it care about GNU/Linux
? :-)
Solaris and SCO does not care to much about other OS's either.
> PS I have 2 computer, 1 with dual boot WinME/Linux RH5.2, and the other
with
> only Linux RH 5.2
> The second one have 8 Meg ram, so it's imposible to even run the install
> program.
Congratulations.
------------------------------
From: "Alberto Trillo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Why Solaris is better than Linux
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 13:36:55 GMT
> It can be.
> GNU/Linux doesn't hit 5 9's in my experience.
> More like 3 or 4.
Well, enough for me. And with a couple of redundant machines,
enough to serve whatever. And with bewulf you've got whatever
you want to science computing at a fraction of the cost.
> More like a Sun strategy to capture those who want better quality, cheap
> tools who don't care about free software as in liberty.
Cheap ? Sun compiler cheap ? By tools, do you refer to the OS itself ?
Well, Solaris 7 for x86 came even without gzip and tar, yeahm you've got
plenty of tools :-)
------------------------------
From: "Robert L." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: win millenium
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 13:45:26 GMT
"Martijn Bruns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Robert L." schreef:
> >
> > they have not corect the MBR bug, my lilo have been erase.
> > BTW, i have 2 rescue disk, i was certain that the mbr gonna
> > be erase, so i protect myself ( and Linux ).
> >
> > oh, i'm beta tester for Win millenium, and i have the french beta 3.
> >
> > after 6 years, they have not delete the MBR bug, what a great companie
!!!!!
> > Linux bug are delete in almost 1 day.
> > So, which one is better?
> >
> > PS I have 2 computer, 1 with dual boot WinME/Linux RH5.2, and the other
with
> > only Linux RH 5.2
> > The second one have 8 Meg ram, so it's imposible to even run the install
> > program.
>
> What more can you tell us about it? It's good to know about the
> competition :-)
>
> (What did you say?) The hardware requirements have gone up even
> further?!
> Are there a lot of bugs like in Win98SE, or have they improved
> upon something else, besides the (unneeded) features?
It now need 32 meg ram ( 16 for win98, 8 for win95 ). After one day, it
crash twice. But it's a beta version, so we can't ask a perfect system (
even stable version have bug )
The improvement are the look, a lot of app. have been change to feel better.
16-bit seem to be completely remove, autoexec.bat don't exist anymore. It
seem to be an emulator than the real msdos.
Overall, it seem to have some difference, but can't see them after one day.
I have to test it more.
I'll make a website for it...
------------------------------
From: "wfpatrick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help
Subject: Re: Which distribution
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 13:22:06 GMT
"Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8d1uq6$g10$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.help Yns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : I am a linux newbie (although I'm not new to unix), can anyone
> : point me in the right direction ......
>
> : Which distribution of linux is considered to be fastest
> : and robust?
>
> Meaningless question.
>
> : I'm currently considering RedHat, but I'm told that FreeBSD is
> : noticably quicker.
>
> Quite possibly. But then FreeBSD isn't a linux. Have you considered
> solaris? Or BeOS?
>
> : Also, is it possible to run software downloaded from the GNU website
> : on the above implementations.
>
> Yes, definitely.
>
> : Thank you for your time.
>
> Instead of putting up with getting stupid answers to an extremely
> stupid set of questions, why not save yourself the pain and save
> us our nerves by reading the FAQ for the linux newsgroups and any others
> that may meet your fancy. You'll find them over on comp.answers. Or at
> ftp://rtfm.mit.edu. Scan the back articles for the last posting of the
> FAQ on comp.os.linux.misc, for example!
>
> Peter
Peter,
Instead of putting up with and getting stupid answers from self proclaimed
Linux gurus
why don't you just answer the questions or NOT. Preferably NOT in this
case. If you
can't help someone, keep your mouth (fingers) silent. Linux is complicated
enough and
manuals and FAQs sometimes don't make sense to a newbie. If Linux is to
become a viable
friendly OS, the people (and I use that word loosely) that have Linux
knowledge need to
become user friendly also. In my perusing of ALL the Linux newsgroups I
have noticed
others with your piss poor attitude. (You could have said the same thing
without belittling
the person asking the question.) RTFM is NOT a response, it's an insult.
Many have RTFM
and couldn't make sense of it. Linux is NOT user friendly, yet! Maybe
someday one will not
have to know hardware specs and how to program in order to install/run
Linux. That day isn't
now and those with knowledge need to HELP newbies in a friendlier manner.
A 30 years computer veteran,
WFP
------------------------------
From: Peter Petersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: X Windows must DIE!!!
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 15:50:11 +0200
On Mon, 1 May 2000 23:36:55 +0200, Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Full Name wrote:
>> All my family and friends use Win95/98 without problem. I guess they
>> are lucky to have someone around who is good with computers...
>
>Its a lie!!!
>
>Just today i had to rescue a customers PC. The problem: She had not
>reformatted the machine for 3 years.. so IE 5 could not be unistalled ,
>protocols could not be added...etc. etc. Solution reformat the crap and
>reinstall!!
>This is sad. I allways recomend my customers that they should reformat and
>reinstall after 4 months if they install many programs in their machines.
>Unfortunattely NT and W2K use the same strategy with the registry, so it
>will certain be corrupt after 3 to 4 months if youre an average user.. so
>my solution will be "REFORMAT AND REINSTALL"..
Normally, I don't like getting actively involved in this advocacy crap.
But here, I get angry!
Although I am not the one you are talking to, I feel offended by your
attack "it's a lie!!!".
My personal experience as both a win95 (version b) and linux user for
many years now has been that I *never* *had* to reformat or reinstall
windows95, never, not a single time!
To be more precise (and look at "I never *had*"):
I *once* reinstalled win95b, but only because I was in error (in my
early days of using windows95) and thought I was shut off my system due
to my playing with policy editor; later, I found that I would not have
needed to reinstall...
Besides, I had to reinstall linux several times due to apparent kernel
bugs in older kernels which resulted in serious ext2 filesystem crashes
or complete disasters. But fortunately, with my current kernel 2.0.36
(yes, I know, but there are reasons for it and preventing an upgrade to
2.2.*) this seems to be a thing of the past...
As I see it, it is a sign of incompetence (either of the "expert
adviser" or the poor user) to see no other solution than to reformat or
reinstall, once there is a problem with win95.
This is primitive behaviour, sorry, but that's how I consider it.
With both systems I am a user who really uses and stresses his system, I
can't count the times I installed, uninstalled, reinstalled, modified...
all kinds of software (under win95 as under linux).
If you really know how to deal with your system (backing up your
registry whenever you change something (installing, uninstalling); not
cancelling scandisk; defragging from time to time; throwing away
software which always causes trouble; etc...) you won't see a *need* to
reinstall or reformat...
Of course, in your job with customer support, this may look a little
different, when you have to support clueless computer users who have
seriously neglected their system. So your method of suggesting
reinstalling and reformatting may prove o.k.
But:
It's your claim that windows95 has to be reinstalled/reformatted every 4
months or so, obviously regardless of the type of user, which I dislike
and which I consider as untrue. And don't dare anyone to call me a liar
now.
It is a myth that windows95 cannot run any longer than a few months in a
reliable way without being reinstalled or without reformatting
everything. Nothing but bullshit.
Of course, for clueless people this may be true, but then it would be
true for linux as well...
Never let your love of linux and your hate of Microsoft make you blind.
Just my opinion. Flaming me is pointless, because I -myself- am not here
to flame anyone, just to correct some bias and to express what is my
true and real experience and the point of view of someone who is neither
married to windows nor to linux, but who is *only and solely* in love
with his girlfriend, not with an OS. :)
Thanks
Peter Petersen
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Not so fast...
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 14:02:13 GMT
On Thu, 11 May 2000 08:32:33 -0500, Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
:Jeff Szarka wrote:
:>
:> As one would expect, there are many people in this group who refuse to
:> believe any sort of viruses or trojans could be created for Linux.
:> While it is true that the current fad of .vbs based viruses only
:> targets Windows there are a number of ways a viruses writer could
:> target Linux.
:
:
:Jeff Szarka, Chad Myers and Stephen Edwards all have one thing in
:common. they all consistently lie, boldfaced, about what "people
:in this group" (linux advocates and users) say and think.
:Everyone in this group knows linux is susceptible to trojans. No
:one has denied this. What we do say is that the damage caused is
:kept to a minimum by the design of the system, unlike windows,
:where the system has no design, and the users are forced to think
:about every little thing they do. So much for windows-populism.
Does it really matter that your OS is fine when all your data is gone?
Not to mention there will always be people who run as root regardless
of all the warnings against doing so.
:> 2) User stupidity
:
:Unlike windows, linux is fairly well protected from end user
:ignorance. The contempt you have for end users is revealed here,
:as it was always suspect. Again, so much for windows-populism.
Odd.. I've had a number of people here tell me I felicitate end user
ignorance because I think software should be easy to use.
I have no contempt for end users except when they're doing something I
have warned them about MANY times. They're so worried about getting
viruses yet ignore warnings not to open attachments. They have to
realize at some point the blame shifts from the virus to their own
actions. Not to apologize for the Outlook flaws but... If users just
didn't open ILOVEYOU there wouldn't be a multi-billion dollar loss to
companies across the word. If Microsoft had fixed the problem it also
wouldn't have happened. That seems to split the blame 50/50.
:> 6) User zealotry
:> A virus could spread simply because everyone running Linux thinks
:> they're safe. I'm sure many don't give a second thought about the
:> possibility of a virus outbreak. How many people blindly trust RPM's
:> to be safe? Lots.
:
:
:Unlike the windows install shield disaster, rpms can be checked.
:
:man rpm:
:
: rpm --checksig <package_file>+
:
: This checks the PGP signature built into a package to
: ensure the integrity and the origin of the package. PGP
: configuration information is read from /etc/rpmrc. See
: the section on PGP SIGNATURES for details.
Fair enough. Do all RPM packages have a PGP sig? Do other package
formats have it? Does anyone actually use -checksig? What protection
is there against non-compiled binaries? (besides the easy detection of
the source modifications?) If someone modified the source and created
a new RPM with a PGP sig wouldn't it still pass?
:> Something to think about before everyone climbs up into their ivory
:> towers and pretends it can't happen here.
:
:No one is pretending it can't happen. But it is FAR less likely
:than with windows.
I think many to pretend it can't happen and it's really just far less
likely due to market share. Look at the Windows viruses that have
been very dangerous. Most are very simple trojans. The credit Linux
deserves here is that actually spreading a virus in the way that
ILOVEYOU did would require more work than copy and pasting some visual
basic code although I'm sure it can be done.
------------------------------
From: Sierra Tigris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Window managers
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 14:04:42 GMT
Matthias Warkus posted May 10 re: Re: Window managers
|Before we continue this thread, please tell me that you understand
|that KDE and GNOME are not window managers.
I know that GNOME is an enviroment, but I thought KDE was a mananger
running on the KDM enviroment Obviously by your statement I am wrong, plese
elucidate.
--
Da Katt
[This space for rent]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
