Linux-Advocacy Digest #189, Volume #30 Sun, 12 Nov 00 10:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? (The Great Suprendo)
Re: OS stability (sfcybear)
Word 2000 - just as shitty as ever? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Patrick Raymond Hancox")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Curtis)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Curtis)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (Curtis)
Re: OS stability (Stuart Fox)
Re: KDE vs GNOME: specific issues (Tim Smith)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Giuliano Colla)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: The Great Suprendo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 13:11:10 +0000
A certain , of comp.os.linux.advocacy "fame", writes :
>OK, let's accept the claim that MS OS's aren't really multiuser systems.
>
>Why?
>
>My guess: MS and perhaps application software companies decided that
>it makes it easier to force an organization to purchase one copy of a
>piece of software for everyone.
They've already done that. You need a separate licence just to connect
to an NT box (mad).
> If organizations really started
>picking up on the client/server model (that is, those with Ethernets),
>it would be a little harder to prevent orgs from purchasing one copy of
>a program and placing it on one machine.
It is not any harder for an organization to pirate software in a
client/server organisation than it for them to simply install it on
several machines. You could install an application from the login script
if you wanted to.
Indeed Terminal Services makes it easier for an organization to adhere
to it's licensing requirements as you can much more easily audit how
much use an application gets. If Microsoft ever wanted to do an audit
their job would be made much easier if Terminal services were in use.
>In particular, for Microsoft, if it were really multiuser, you could
>have graphics terminals running applications remotely off a server. So
>you wouldn't have to purchase NT/2000 for those terminals...
Microsoft have realized that users are getting tired of having to
upgrade their machine with every OS release. That's why they've bundled
Terminal Services into the game.
--
ROAR UP MY TWAT!!!
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 13:06:22 GMT
Oh franky you really do not understand security or linux do you? The
fact that a bug exisits in the linux kernel code does NOT mean that it
is compiled INTO the code! It also does NOT mean that it can not be
fixed without a reboot. The kernel code has MANY modules that can be
recompiled and re-installed WITHOUT a reboot. Even still, MANY exploites
require certain conditions inorder to be exploited. If those conditions
are NOT present, the exploit can NOT be used. In order to prove that the
boxes that are on that record up time list are not secure, you MUST
provide proof of ALL of the following:
1. a security hole exsistes.
2. That it can be exploited Via remote means
3. THat it can and was NOT fixed with out a reboot
4. That all the conditions required for the exploit exsists on the
system.
5. That the exploit can amd is not stopped by other means.
6. In the case of Linux, that the vunerable code is actualy compiled
into the kernel.
Your posts have only shown the first 2 at best. If any other any of the
other 4 conditions are not meet the the bug is not exploitable and the
system is still considered secure. You have NOT proven the last 4 true
with your silly little post, so you have not proven that the insecurity
exsists on the systems.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.linux.sucks
Subject: Word 2000 - just as shitty as ever?
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 13:22:51 GMT
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Mon, 6 Nov 2000 11:11:35 +1300
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> No waiting for the WSIWYG to catch up, no bugs because you're using the
> >> newest version of Word.
> >
> >News flash! Microsoft today released a new version of word. All
> >4876835582 bugs from previous versions are now considered fixed.
>
> Wait, Word has bugs? I thought Microsoft never had bugs.... :-)
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
I've been finding a fair amount of weird behavior in Word 2000.
Not enough to hurt its usefulness, but sometimes annoying.
Word 2000 converts to HTML in an interesting way. It adds
some fake xml to encode the Style setting. And at least the
nesting is correct now. It is still hard-to-read, and has a lot
of extra tags in it, but at least this extra crap lets you
convert it back to a Word doc without losing any styling.
Chris
--
[ ] Encrypt Microsoft.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Patrick Raymond Hancox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Patrick Raymond Hancox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 05:31:25 -0800
Speaking of stupid. Your .sig has irked me for some time. Since your a
*Unix* Systems Engineer, surely you have read the RFC's and are solidly in
favor of following the published standards like this one.
RFC 1036 Draft (Son of RFC1036) or the
http://www.chemie.fu-berlin.de/outerspace/netnews/son-of-1036.html
--
Early difficulties in inferring return addresses from article headers led to
"signatures": short closing texts, automatically added to the end of
articles by posting agents, identifying the poster and giving his network
addresses etc. If a poster or posting agent does append a signature to an
article, the signature SHOULD be preceded with a delimiter line containing
(only) two hyphens (ASCII 45) followed by one blank (ASCII 32). Posting
agents SHOULD limit the length of signatures, since verbose excess bordering
on abuse is common if no restraint is imposed; 4 lines is a common limit.
NOTE: While signatures are arguably a blemish, they are a well-understood
convention, and conveying the same information in headers exposes it to
mangling and makes it rather less conspicuous. A standard delimiter line
makes it possible for reading agents to handle signatures specially if
desired. (This is unfortunately hampered by extensive misunderstanding of,
and misuse of, the delimiter.)
NOTE: The choice of delimiter is somewhat unfortunate, since it relies on
preservation of trailing white space, but it is too wellestablished to
change. There is work underway to define a more sophisticated signature
scheme as part of MIME, and this will presumably supersede the current
convention in due time.
NOTE: Four 75-column lines of signature text is 300 characters, which is
ample to convey name and mail-address information in all but the most
bizarre situations.
--
This is just from a common net FAQ.
---
Signature, Finger, & Customized Headers FAQ
http://www.non.com/news.answers/signature_finger_faq.html
Subject: 3.0 What to Put in Your Signature and Finger Files
It is good netiquette to keep your signature to four lines or fewer.
And many news posters, such as some versions of inews(1), will not
post an article that has a signature with more than four lines in
it. So, put large large pictures, your philosophy of life , etc. in
your finger files or in your Web pages and point people to those in
your signature.
For signatures it's a good idea to keep the width less than 75
characters so that if your signature is included in a followup
preceded by an attribution character (like `> '), each line will
still be on one line.
---
I've thought you stupid for for some time and wanted you to know it..
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> I see Windows users all around me. They're stupid, and they don't even
know it.
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> ICQ # 3056642
>
> http://directedfire.com/greatgungiveaway/directedfire.referrer.fcgi?2632
>
>
> H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
> I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
> J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
> The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
> also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
>
> A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
> B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
> C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
> D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (C) above.
>
> E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> her behavior improves.
>
> F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
> G: Knackos...you're a retard.
>
------------------------------
From: Curtis <alliem@kas*spam*net.com>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 08:31:45 -0500
Colin R. Day wrote...
> > When you double click a file in Windows, you've chosen to execute it with
> > the associated application.
>
> No. If you double-click a text file, you have an editor (say Notepad) execute
> with the text file as an object. The same would hold for jpeg and mpg123 files.
Thanks for the clarification. :-)
> > > For example if you
> > > want to type in the name of your program to run, or drag the
> > > attachment to a program on the desktop, go ahead. What needs
> > > to be disabled is the auto-executing something chosen by the
> > > sender instead.
> >
> > Well, if a program is auto-executed that's bad. I'm not sure what you
> > mean by auto-execution though. If you mean that once the message is open
> > the attachment does it's thing then that's bad. If you mean that the user
> > deliberately chooses to run the file and the associated application is
> > started as determined by the extension, then I disagree.
> >
>
> Deliberately?
Yes! The average user knows what will happen when he double clicks the
file or they certainly hope it will happen .... i.e.... that it will be
run. :-) You see, they don't know what's out there and what can be done
to their machines. If they did, you'd see how quickly they start learning
the necessary stuff to keep themselves protected.
> Does the average Windows user know the difference between
> viewing a video clip and running a shell script?
I'd say no.
> Isn't Windows touted as
> an OS that renders such knowledge unnecessary?
Yes, and isn't this correct. Don't they play their video clips and run
their scripts without having to know anything about interpreters etc? :-)
Of course that's a sad state of affairs because they are now extremely
vulnerable to malicious behaviour.
> > > No - the lines should distinguish *what* you are going to execute.
> > > Dragging the attachment to a program is going over the white line,
> > > but that is your business if you crash.
> >
> > I see no difference. I set my file associations so that I don't need to
> > be dragging and dropping.
> >
>
> But does the average user?
No. Some of you argue as if anyone who uses Windows is at the mercy of
these attachments. My argument is that this is certainly not the case and
it's only those who choose to be ignorant and expect the computer to do
things for them safely and securely without their having to learn
anything that are the vulnerable ones.
> What are the defaults?
The bad ones. :-) The ones where the user doesn't have to decide
anything. Everything will be done for the user because the user doesn't
know anything about what is happening. He sees the computer as an
appliance and a computer is certainly nowhere near being treatable as
such once information exchange is a part of that computers use. I don't
know how my TV actually works, I just hit the on switch and things
happen. The same should happen with the attachment.
Bad attitude to have. MS however sees the resistance to learning and
capitalizes on it. UNIX therefore remains in the hands of professionals,
while Windows reaches the homes of the masses with children using it.
For every action there's a consequence. If ignorant users are using
computers today, to get things done without having to call anyone for
help often then default associations are necessary and these users are
vulnerable.
> > How so. Are you speaking only about .vbs files? If so, then we're on the
> > wrong track. I'm speaking about all file types that may be obtained
> > through e-mail attachments. Windows associations default to certain apps
> > depending on what's installed. However, the user pretty much has full
> > control over file associations via folder options.
> >
>
> But shouldn't an association with a shell interpreter be off by default?
I think it should be. But if it's off, this creates a great inconvenience
for the ignorant user at home, who apparently should remain that way
(ignorant). They won't be able to run legitimate scripts.
> > I fail to see how my argument is system specific.
> >
> > > It is like advocating that
> > > people learn to drive only one peculiar kind of car.
> >
> > You're misunderstanding me.
> >
> > > > Please show me where you think I said that people are dumb and I'll
> > > > clarify for you. I'm not interested in being a part of the 'jumping
> > > > hoops' team trying to find ways of protecting users who refuse to learn
> > > > from themselves. I do admit that it's a necessary evil in a corporate
> > > > environment where one has to give systems to these types of users to use.
> > > > I however, don't advocate it as how it should be for me or other users
> > > > willing to learn as they should.
> > >
> > > Why don't you advocate systems that don't impose this sort of problem
> > > on you in the first place?
> >
> > Because running away from a harsh reality by masking it from users will
> > not help one bit.
>
> Really? It helped make Bill Gates the richest person in history (so far).
But it helps ignorant users remain ignorant and as a result make them
vulnerable. The sad thing is that most of these users don't even have
insight into the implications behind their ignorance. Some may feel that
they're being exploited by MS. Weeeeellll, I wouldn't necessarily say so
because if the UNIX type approach was all there is, computers wouldn't be
so commonly used in the household setting. People would get frustrated
because they'd actually have to learn to have fun.
[..]
--
ACM.
________________________________________________________
"A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it."
------------------------------
From: Curtis <alliem@kas*spam*net.com>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 08:35:41 -0500
Giuliano Colla wrote...
> Life is not as simple as that. Maybe you've noticed that in order to
> fake a faster boot, icons do appear before they can be actually used.
> Usually if you click "My computer" too soon nothing happens. Apparently
> there's a split microsecond when things are only halfway setup, and if
> you just catch that moment you may get a BSOD out of a very innocent
> operation. I was setting up networking and for each change I was
> prompted to reboot, so I was acting faster than normal, after the umpth
> reboot. I tried to reproduce the problem, and it was very hard to do,
> but I succeeded at least once more.
Hmmm. I'm one like you who tends to be hasty and start hitting icons
before they actually become usable. Usually nothing happens. No
bluescreen. You're an unlucky guy. <g>
--
ACM.
________________________________________________________
"A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it."
------------------------------
From: Curtis <alliem@kas*spam*net.com>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 08:38:53 -0500
Patrick Raymond Hancox wrote...
[...]
> Look at OS Opinion (http://www.osopinion.com) some time for examples of
> really pathetic "advocacy".
Indeed. :-)
--
ACM.
________________________________________________________
"A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it."
------------------------------
From: Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 13:54:18 GMT
In article <8um3k5$onk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <ColP5.7666$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >
> > I suppose you don't change the oil in your car either. The whole
Oil
> > Changing thing is a ruse designed to sell more oil and is completely
> > unneccesary. Right?
>
> I don't have oil in my computer! I don't have ANYTHING that REQUIRES
> regular changing. Please povide documented evidance were a computer
> manufacture recomends changing ANYTHING the way car manufactures
> recomend changing OIL!
>
> Your loosing it franky!
>
Whoosh!
What was that?
Just another analogy shooting over Matt's head...
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: KDE vs GNOME: specific issues
Date: 12 Nov 2000 06:23:27 -0800
Reply-To: Tim Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bill Kocynjski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>John Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Jeff Jeffries wrote:
>>
>> > I need to choose either GNOME or KDE. I will be doing computationally
>> > intensive C++, with very heavy disk I/O. Results will be displayed in 3D
>> > preferrably with OpenGL.
>> >
>> Dumb question, but why do you need to choose? They're both free
>
>You are suggesting that my question is dumb?
1. Why are you pretending to be Jeff Jeffries?
2. The expression "Dumb question, but..." means that the person saying
"dumb question" is about to ask a question whose answer seems so obvious
that the question they are asking must be a dumb question. John Meyer
probably thinks that they program will have very little that actually
depends on GNOME or KDE, so is wondering why not make the program work
under both of them.
--Tim Smith
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 14:58:21 GMT
Curtis wrote:
>
> Giuliano Colla wrote...
> > Life is not as simple as that. Maybe you've noticed that in order to
> > fake a faster boot, icons do appear before they can be actually used.
> > Usually if you click "My computer" too soon nothing happens. Apparently
> > there's a split microsecond when things are only halfway setup, and if
> > you just catch that moment you may get a BSOD out of a very innocent
> > operation. I was setting up networking and for each change I was
> > prompted to reboot, so I was acting faster than normal, after the umpth
> > reboot. I tried to reproduce the problem, and it was very hard to do,
> > but I succeeded at least once more.
>
> Hmmm. I'm one like you who tends to be hasty and start hitting icons
> before they actually become usable. Usually nothing happens. No
> bluescreen. You're an unlucky guy. <g>
>
I agree with you that it's a very unlikely thing to happen. Maybe it's
related to other unlikely conditions. Perhaps you've noticed that in NT
if you alter your network setting it turns out that your shared
directories still appear to be shared (the icon is that of a shared
thing) but actually they aren't. You must remove the sharing and then
share again. At this point the folder or the drive is again visible
netwise (rather crappy, but it works like that). As I was setting up
networking, it's possible that I was in this particular condition of a
C: drive shared/not shared. Were it the only stability problem with
Windows NT, one could neglect it as irrelevant.
I only mentioned it because Ayende appeared not to believe that a BSOD
may come out of a drag-and-drop operation (which actually I too have
experienced a few times). So I brought forward my experience of an even
simpler operation which *may* produce a BSOD.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
