Linux-Advocacy Digest #455, Volume #26 Thu, 11 May 00 11:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Microsoft Office Linux Edition! (Billy Gatos)
Re: Which distribution (Yns)
Re: KDE is better than Gnome (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Linux will remain immune ("Ed Valle")
Re: What have you done? (Steve Harvey)
Re: Window managers (John Culleton)
Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic) (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Programs for Linux (aflinsch)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Chris Wenham)
Re: Which distribution (John Culleton)
Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk (Salvador Peralta)
Re: Here is the solution ("Chad Myers")
Re: Not so fast... (abraxas)
Re: Which distribution (abraxas)
Re: Not so fast... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Need to make UNIX autoresponder ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Billy Gatos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Office Linux Edition!
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 10:25:29 -0400
JUST IGNORE MICROSOFT.
AND MAKE OTHER PEOPLE IGNORE MS TOO.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> On 9 May 2000 14:19:49 -0700, david parsons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>If MS created anything on the Linux platform, it would almost be
> >>garaunteed to be of the same buggy nature as most of thier current
> >>Windows software.
> >
> > *snort*
> >
> > You're too young to have seen Microsoft being competitive.
> > They're a hell of a lot bigger, smarter, and scarier than
> > anyone in the Unix world, and when they have to compete
> > they can crank out some pretty fine code.
>
>
> Yeah...
>
> How long did it take them to surpass NS after undermining
> Netscape's availablity to pay for development?
>
> How long did it take them to achieve parity with a competitor
> they couldn't bully out of existence? (intuit)
>
> How long have they been trying to out-Unix Unix?
>
> [deletia]
>
> Color me skeptical.
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 15:29:30 +0100
From: Yns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help
Subject: Re: Which distribution
wfpatrick wrote:
>
> "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
Hi,
As the original poster of this thread, I would like to add that
it is the helpful attitude of most linux users that is
so refreshing.
I am still a linux newbie (having installed Redhat 6.2 then
Mandrake 7.0 then RedHat 6.2 again.) I have ditched my windows
partition - since I could not get it to dual boot (I didn't
persevere on that one).
I am glad to say that I have got the hang of it now - I was
considering compiling my kernel yesterday because linux could
not read one of my CD-WR discs. I've come a long way in a short
while (methinks!).
Having jumped the first few hurdles I find myself quite
confident and enjoying the OS.
I have one tip to present to newbies - after reading the
faq (details given by Peter above (thanks Peter!)) if
you still cannot find an answer, go to www.deja.com and
do a power search on all discussions. There you
can specify which discussion groups to search in -
I specify '*linux*'. I have found many answers that way.
Thanks again, especially to WFP - I feel a little better!
--Yunus
=============================================================
To reply by e-mail replace 'lovelyspam' with 'Yunus'.
=============================================================
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 14:20:21 GMT
In article <Ww3S4.869$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"none2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> one thing i hate about KDE is that
> (a) it looks likes windows
> (b) gnome doesnt
Well:
(a) Those are two things
(b) Why do you hate KDE because of the way GNOME looks?
(c) Why bother hating inanimated objects?
[snip]
> btw I run Windowmaker/Gnome, and it looks *nothin* like windows.
I run KDE2 on ModernSystem style with Be decorations, and it looks
nothing like windows.
> linux and damn proud of it.
I am not linux, but I am a linux user. Anyway, congratulations, O linux
incarnate. ;-)
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Ed Valle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux will remain immune
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 07:33:37 -0700
Perry Pip wrote...
>
...
>
>And where does the article claim that the open source
>model is foolproof??
>
>Perry
>
Hi Perry,
Do you understand what you read before you post? Here it is, since
apparently you missed it the first time around:
"Put bluntly, most developers in the Linux community would not be
*stupid* enough to create a program as insecure and dangerous as
Outlook. And if anyone were foolish enough to do so in the open source
community, such a design would not be likely to survive the peer review
it would receive."
You do know what the word "create" means, right?
It also says very clearly that most developers in the Linux community
are stupid. Do you agree with that?
Now, it is kind of funny to see you parade this childish rant in front
of the world only to desperately backpeddle trying to save face after C
shut you down with one single post.
Perhaps you should stop listening to absolutes from Linus and think for
yourself instead. Example: "Software is like sex. It is better when it's
free." Anyone who understands why those who charge for sex are called
"professionals" would laugh at such childish generalizations.
Based on this I can assume you think that Gimp is better than Photoshop.
Ed.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Harvey)
Subject: Re: What have you done?
Date: 11 May 2000 14:34:18 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <RsmS4.15586$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Christopher
Browne wrote:
>>Then use ssh. I'm pretty sure Samba supports some form of password
>>encryption as well, but it's been a while since I've looked at that
>>part of the documentation.
>
>Any standard system that uses standards that are more than 15 years
>old have some excuse for being "a tad creaky." FTP was first
>implemented in RFC 141, back in _1971_. That's nearly 30 years old.
>
>No, it doesn't offer password encryption; they didn't consider that
>important 30 years ago.
Actually, I was installing Samba last night, and yes, it does support
encrypted passwords out of the box (I was talking about Samba in my
previous post; not ftp).
>There does indeed need to be a file transfer service that doesn't
>transfer passwords in clear text; layering FTP atop SSH is a quite
>appropriate way to cope with this.
There's also a secure copy tool - scp - that is part of ssh, and
serves this purpose very nicely.
>>Or just turn off those ports altogether in /etc/services, no? I could
>>hardly see spending "a week" at such a task in any case.
>
>/etc/services is merely a local source of information regarding
>(potentially) available Internet services. Eliminating ports from the
>file doesn't buy you any security.
My bad. I meant to say inetd.conf, not /etc/services...
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Window managers
From: John Culleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 07:33:57 -0700
On odd days I run kde apps under fvwm2. Fvwm loads faster, and
scrolling between desktops is possible. But kde plays that neat
music when you fire up ;-).
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic)
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 14:35:28 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, John Culleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Thu, 11 May 2000 05:46:12 -0700
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>OK lets return to the original question. Is it possible to hurt
>a Linux system through a mail bomb type of attachment to email?
One could in theory overload the partition containing the mail
spool, which would be a sort of DoS [*]. Of course, this isn't
limited to Linux -- and presumably sendmail et al have defenses
against that sort of silliness.
>Is it possible for an ordinary user (not root) to destroy the
>system from a terminal?
By "terminal" I assume you mean a remote access point.
Unless there's a bug or a badly-programmed suid executable
or suid script, probably not. Of course, that's not saying
a lot, but in this case, old is good; GNU and Unix code has
been eyeballed, beaten on, and on occasion compromised (and
quickly fixed). One would think that such a system is more
secure than a proprietary OS without GNU code -- although
I suspect Microsoft has incorporated GNU code in some of
its products (this is AFAICT allowed by the license as long as
Microsoft either doesn't modify the code, or modifies the
code and resubmits it to the world).
Note also that, by default, Linux and Unix don't allow remote
login into the superuser account.
>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.
If one has a bootable DOS floppy with "FDISK.EXE" and "FORMAT.EXE"
on it, goodbye any OS. Rogue kernel modules could also be an issue,
although again, this requires root access.
>
>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. 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.)
See CERT (http://www.cert.org) and other sites. There are a number
of attacks -- AFAIK, all patched for :-) -- that have been attempted
and/or succeeded in the past. Many of these attacks involve
buffer overflows dropping the attacker into a root shell.
Some of them allowed the attacker to steal passwords, compromise
other systems, or set up DDoS [+] attacks. A very old trick
involves replacing /bin/login with a Trojan that steals passwords.
None of these, however, spread with the rapidity of the ILOVEYOU worm.
[.sigsnip]
[*] DoS - Denial of Service.
[+] DDoS - Distributed Denial of Service, which basically attacks
any computer from so many other (presumably compromised!) systems
that the target is overwhelmed by the sheer bandwidth.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: aflinsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Programs for Linux
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 10:31:28 -0500
Friedrich Dominicus wrote:
>
> "Jackie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > (1) Oracle in Linux?? Where to get??
>
> www.oracle.com?
Actually it is at technet.oracle.com .
First join technet, then download all 600Mb of it, from what is
competing for the title of slowest ftp server on the net.
Next read all available docs (do a couple of websearches for linux and
oracle).
Then good luck in installing it with what is competing for worst
installation program ever. You might need to get the 1.16 jre from
blackdown, and you WILL need 128M or more of ram to get thru the
install.
After installation, download the current patches for Oracle (once
again from the slowest ftp server on the net)
Apply the current patches - You wont be able to create a database
without them.
Create your database(s)
Have Fun !!
And yes - it can be done.
------------------------------
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
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 14:43:47 GMT
Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > "Getting convicted" isn't a behavior. It's an event that can happen
> > to a company.
>
> You are an absolute silly person. Getting convicted results from illegal
> behavior. Most companies do not engage in illegal activity. Microsoft did.
>
> Your conduct here is unwelcome. This is an ADVOCACY group for ONE product
> and ONE product ONLY - Warp.
>
> Your advocacy of MS crap is a rude intrusion. Therefore you deserve rude
> treatment.
>
> Go poo-poo yourself you worthless accrument of sillyness.
Yes, illegal activity, such as Microsoft's, is a behavior.
Convicting lawbreakers is a behavior of the judicial system.
"Getting convicted" is not a behavior of the lawbreaker.
I thought it was important to make that clear.
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Which distribution
From: John Culleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 07:43:01 -0700
I find Slackware easy and the most generic distro. We should
perhaps tell new users that Linux is for fiddlers. It does not
just install itself and run without some decision making on the
user's part.
We should answer all questions courteously. There are no stupid
questions. There are sometimes stupid and/or arrogant answers.
John Culleton
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 07:47:26 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You are correct. There identification of an "evil other" as the root of
one's problems is not unique to WWII Germany. Neither is the
expansionist political and economic agenda of the country during that
time. My point is simply that no government that calls itself democatic
should actively promote intolerance and exclusion based on differences
such as religion or race. That the German government is restricting
free speech and free religion in this way is frightening given what was
happening there 2 generations ago.
mlw wrote:
>
> Salvador Peralta wrote:
> >
> > I don't represent Scientology. You called it frightening, and I am
> > asking what you know about it. As for German government, I believe that
> > they are promoting intolerance in this stance. Their position on M$ has
> > nothing to do with the product, and everything to do with paranoid
> > intolerance of an alternative world view. Given the history of the
> > country, that is one government that I do not like seeing actively
> > promoting intolerance.
> >
>
> When you look at what happened in Germany in WWII, you will see a very
> common human reaction to hard times. Slaughter of who you think is your
> enemy is quite common. Look what the whites did to the indians of this
> land. look at what the turks did to the armenians, look at history in
> general. The german people are no more to blame for there actions than
> the countless other peoples and nations which have had similar
> atrocities. Fire up enough people, and one can do historic amounts of
> evil in the name of god, mother, and/or nation.
>
> As for "scientology," who cares? All religions that attempt to bring in
> recruits are evil. My upbringing is that you find what you believe as
> you live. I have no right telling anyone what they should believe. Why
> should I be bombarded by religious zealots telling me I should believe
> in some hokey 2000 year old religion about some guy who got nailed to a
> dead tree?
>
> Be it an old religion, or a new one, it does not matter. If they attempt
> to extend their influence, they are dangerous. Human beings are very
> irrational in their actions when it comes to pleasing a deity through
> the commands of a religion. True believer's of any religion are, by very
> definition, irrational.
>
> > Christopher Browne wrote:
> > >
> > > Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Salvador Peralta would say:
> > > >What do you know about Scientology, Chris?
> > >
> > > Nothing that particularly fits this newsgroup.
> > >
> > > Do you represent Scientology in some manner? Your approach of subtly
> > > implicating that the German government has no right to make any dictums,
> > > based on their "intolerance," is a most _wonderful_ way of causing people
> > > to associate the present government with that at the time of WWII without
> > > ever actually mentioning any of the "key words" that would cause anyone
> > > to forcibly conclude a "Godwinning" (or "Godlosing") of the thread.
> > >
> > > You merely _implied_ some association between the present German
> > > government and the Nazis, as opposed to coming out and saying that
> > > anti-Scientology legislation indicates that they _are_ Nazis.
> > >
> > > I'm happy to see the thread end, and don't care to "win" any argument
> > > here, so I'll call a spade a spade; you did a _good_ job of implying
> > > the current government to be just another fascist government without
> > > actually coming out and saying it.
> > >
> > > Point: Salvador Peralta.
> > >
> > > >My PoV is that it world government, especially the German government,
> > > >should be tolerant of diversity. What I know of Scientology deals less
> > > >with religion and religiosity than it does with organizational
> > > >principles.
> > > >
> > > >Government should never actively promote intolerance
> > >
> > > Never?
> > >
> > > Ah. So governments should not promote intolerance towards child
> > > molestation? They should be tolerant towards wife beating?
> > >
> > > I think not... It is quite clear that there _are_ things that governments
> > > should be _quite_ intolerant about.
> > >
> > > It seems reasonable for governments to be intolerant about those that
> > > commit serious crimes. That's pretty much what "prosecution" is about,
> > > namely an indication that the government won't tolerate the crime.
> > >
> > > >Christopher Browne wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Salvador Peralta would say:
> > > >> >Unfortunately, the article had nothing to do with m$ being a security
> > > >> >risk from the software standpoint and everything to do with m$
> > > >> >incorporating some of scientology's philosophies into their corporate
> > > >> >model. The german government has already given us enough intolerance
> > > >> >for the next 2 centuries, IMHO. Let's not applaud them for giving us
> > > >> >more.
> > > >>
> > > >> Unfortunately, anything I can see of Scientology's behaviour seems to
> > > >> me to be Rather Frightening.
> > > >>
> > > >> It is not at all obvious that being unwilling to tolerate Scientology
> > > >> connections represents a move towards evil.
> > > --
> > > Rules of the Evil Overlord #155. "If I know of any heroes in the land,
> > > I will not under any circumstance kill their mentors, teachers, and/or
> > > best friends." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
> >
> > --
> > Salvador Peralta
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://www.la-online.com
>
> --
> 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"
--
Salvador Peralta
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.com
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 09:49:03 -0500
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8fd9su$25gv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Can you write a backup domain controller capable of syncing
> contents with an NT domain controller? Or a replacement
> primary controller that can sync to a Microsoft backup
> controller?
HP was able to with their AS9000 (IIRC that's it's name). It's a very good
NT Server implementation on HPUX
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Not so fast...
Date: 11 May 2000 14:51:39 GMT
Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Odd.. I've had a number of people here tell me I fellatiate
Dont listen to them. Theyre just bullies.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help
Subject: Re: Which distribution
Date: 11 May 2000 14:55:39 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy wfpatrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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,
Why is this always the assumption?
> the people (and I use that word loosely) that have Linux
> knowledge need to
> become user friendly also.
And why is that, exactly? Cant you follow instructions?
> In my perusing of ALL the Linux newsgroups
ALL of them, eh? And how many would that be, exactly?
> 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.
Only to the stupid and lazy.
> Many have RTFM
> and couldn't make sense of it.
Then they need to GTFO. If you are incapable of RTFMing, you need to
find something else to do, because you're too stupid to make a computer
work.
> 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.
Hah...Cant you even tell me how much RAM the machine you're on right now
has?
> That day isn't
> now and those with knowledge need to HELP newbies in a friendlier manner.
Yeah, you're really making me want to help you.
> A 30 years computer veteran,
If you are the result of 30 years of computer use, you have got to be the
single most incredibly stupid person who has ever lived.
Retention is the key.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Not so fast...
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 14:55:46 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jeff Szarka
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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?
No, the only person who could make an authentic signature would be the holder of the
private key.
>
> :> 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: tw.bbs.comp.unix,alt.2600,comp.mail.sendmail
Subject: Need to make UNIX autoresponder
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 14:49:53 GMT
I would like to make an autoresponder in Perl on a UNIX server. Any
ideas tips about doing that? I look forward to hearing from you. Thank
you.
--
Auction Booth:
http://page.auctions.yahoo.com/booth/acunet3278
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
