Linux-Advocacy Digest #211, Volume #30 Mon, 13 Nov 00 11:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: OS stability (sfcybear)
Re: Side by side (sfcybear)
Re: Windows vs. everybody-else in the desktop/server markets. (Long!) (sfcybear)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Curtis)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Curtis)
Re: The Sixth Sense ("David Brown")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Curtis)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Curtis)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Andres Soolo)
Re: OS stability ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: We will never know what the MS intruder did (Andres Soolo)
Re: OS stability ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: OS stability ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 14:57:48 GMT
The point of the discution has been about the security of servers that
have run over a year without a reboot. Many winvocates have said it was
IMPOSSIBLE (yes, caps because it seems that to many people a missing
important points). Most of the servers in question are web servers. It
would be very bad form to use NFS or NIS on web servers for overall
security reasons, so a bug in NFS if MOOT when talking about the
POSSIBILITY of a web server being up for over a year and still being
secure. (No known exploits that can be successfuly used against the
computer)
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Nov 2000 23:21:15 GMT, sfcybear wrote:
> >In article <KKBP5.7785$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>
> >NOT ONE as bad as BN. Ther is a range of skill sets and management
Ideas
>
> I've had NFS servers on Linux where the kernel based NFS server would
choke
> every day or two, and you'd need to reboot it. This was on a stock
> distribution. Of course, I had the brains to install a userland server
> and have experienced better reliability as a result.
>
> However, the point is that any system can be unreliable if you hand it
to
> an incompetent admin.
>
> A single instance of NT/Win2k performing badly doesn't prove anything
unless
> you know how it's being administered.
Yes, but MANY instances, infact most (all that I have found) instances
shown at webcraft show that W2K is lacking. So, that would mean that W2K
software is bad or ALL the W2K admins are bad... HMMMM, from what I've
seen here, the choice is a bit ruff.... But I would say that it's the
software, because, outside of this group, I know of many W2K admins that
freely admit to W2K's short comings and wish MS would be more open so
that real communication can take place and the product improved.
>
> --
> Donovan
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Side by side
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 15:03:37 GMT
In article <n0QP5.765$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Patrick Raymond Hancox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A sign that this thread is just plain nuts. AOL has be offered as a
model of
> highly uptimes. Come on people
>
> AOL, anything AOL,good grief. let it go already
>
> "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8umgpt$1jr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > let's do some industry by industry comparisons:
> >
>
their is a differenc between the OS staying up and running and the
application or the network staying up and running. We are talking OS not
the software running on the system or the network running around the
system. I did not offer AOL SERVICE as a whole for an example, Only
their Unix uptime (BIG, HUGE, MASSIVE differance). Unix good performance
can not make up for poor networks or applications.
> >
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows vs. everybody-else in the desktop/server markets. (Long!)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 15:08:44 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Stefan Ohlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > >>Nothing that is reliable. The lack of reliable sources does not
make the
> > >>counter reliable
> > >So when you've at tracking device installed on a lot of the
webpages, in
> > >fact, it's the most installed tracking device that I'm currently
aware
> of,
> > >you say it's invalid, and do not propuse any other way to get it?
> > >Please note that I couldn't care less about the number themselves
(and
> said
> > >so in the original post) it's the precentage that interest me.
> > >
> > The problem is that different sites are visited by a different
audience.
> > The problem is also that we, as investigators, don't have any
control
> > whatsoever of what sites are used in the measurement. There is no
> guarantee
> > that the sample is not biased.
> > To give one example from each end; How many Linux users visit
> microsoft.com
> > and how many Windows users visit debian.org? How many are repeat
vistors
> and
> > how many isn't? I maintain a website using an Amiga, and the
statistics
> > for the Amiga is _severely_ biased by my checking up on the site.
> >
> > Thecounter is not totally useless though, it can give an indication
or a
> rough
> > estimate of things.
>
> Yes, I know.
> That is what I choose the largest countercompany, because the reason
it's so
> wide spread (and mostly in non-corporate sites) will help balancing
out the
> results.
A large sample does not mean it is acurate. A large company does not
mean that the sample is random enough to make valid judgements about the
overall network. The point remains, There is no agreement on the
valitity of the sites that were chosen as athoratative.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
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: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 10:29:16 -0500
Steve Mading wrote...
> In all fairness, this is a point that can't be argued one way
> or another since the meaning of "a lot of" is purely a matter
> of opinion.
Indeed it is. :-) And this depends on what you're accustomed to.
> For example, what if Ayende considers 20 to be "a lot of" commands?
> Then it *would* take memorizing "a lot of" commanda to handle Linux.
> (You've got to memorize more than ls and man to use the commandline
> effectively. "cd", "mkdir", "cp", etc... It's not enough to go looking
> those up in man each time you want to use them. They have to be
> memorized before your use of the command-line can be practical.)
>
> For us programmer types, memorizing 15 commands or so is child's
> play.
I don't think you guys find it any easier to remember the commands. This
isn't the source of the problem.
> Not because we can do rote memorization well (far from it
> in many cases), but because we have a good intuative feel by now
> for how to minimize what to memorize.
Now *this* is one of the problems. It takes time and experience with the
OS to develop this level of intuition and it's taken for granted.
> We're so used to doing
> everything by commands and parameters
EXACTLY!! This is what you do. You can't expect joe user to come across
and willingly learn a CLI to administer his machine when he could get
around nicely in Windows without ever firing a CLI session. I do admit
that Linux is getting there where through X-Windows you can get a lot
done. The problem with Linux's GUI based config dialogs is the complexity
of it simply because it offers so much flexibility and options. This
intimidates the user.
> (or functions and parameters)
> that our minds know what information to memorize for that, and
> what information is fluff that can be safely forgotten. (For
> example, memorizing the order of parameters of a system call is not
> as important as memorizing what situations call for the use of that
> system call, and memorizing the quickest path to finding the
> terse usage docs for that function call. Example: Memorizing
> that the exec() calls are the ones that replace the process with a
> new executable file is important, and remembering that exec() has
> it's own man page is important, but once you have that then it's
> safe to forget all the various forms of exec, and all their myriad
> of parameters.)
>
> This happens subconsiously, so we tend to forget how hard it is
> for someone new to the field to memorize all of this stuff.
Amen to that. The best time to catch them is before they have been
exposed to Windows. <g> They therefore haven't been exposed to an easier
way of getting most general user type things done with their computers.
--
___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.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 10:30:50 -0500
Les Mikesell wrote...
> > You've a *lot* to learn before you can "make it up as you go along"
>
> Sometimes you need to know how to read a man page. Where do
> you find the equivalent concise, fairly complete reference for
> everything under windows without having to wade through an
> intermingled tutorial about all the stuff you don't want to change?
You won't find such exhaustive help because it's not needed. Linux/UNIX
is complex so you need that sort of documentation to get going. :-)
--
___ACM________________________________________________________
"A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it."
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 16:35:50 +0100
>
>NT has, and always will have support for multiple platforms. Just because
>MS doesn't ship them, doesn't mean it's not there. You are smart enough
>to realize this, aren't you?
Since MS has a total monopoly on NT (obviously), what exactly is the
difference between "MS doesn't ship them" and "it's not there" ? There are
older systems out there running NT on non-x86 platforms, but for all
practical purposes (such as setting up a new system), NT is x86-only.
>
>NT has always had >2GB file support on every platform it's yet been
>ported to:
>
>IA32
>MIPS
>PPC
>ALPHA
>SPARC
I did not know that MS ever got NT running on a SPARC.
>
>Linux, however, took the cheap route and only supports it on specific
>64-bit platforms which illustrates the design brain power deficit.
>
>-Chad
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 09:44:05 -0600
"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:RIOP5.422$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > That is because notepad can't handle multiply files.
>
> I hate that!. My solution, and I know it only appeals to a few, was to
grab
> the source off the MSDN CD, convert it to an MDI application wrapped
around
> CRichEditCtrl, and voila! In a couple of hours, I had a program identical
to
> Notepad that handles multiple text files >64k in length.
Notepad handles files of any size in NT.
The Rich Edit control becomes pretty much unuseable after about 1-2 meg of
data.
> I wonder why MS continued to build notepad around the Win16 Edit Control
in
> and beyond Win95?
Because that's what Notepad is. A wrapper around the Edit Control.
------------------------------
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: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 10:34:49 -0500
Ayende Rahien wrote...
> > > However, it is not, and never was necessary to consider email
> > > attachments to be identical to files.
> >
> > Why not? Why confuse the joe user with a new concept. Treat it as a file.
> > He already knows what a file is. :-)
>
> Hopefully.
> Unfortantely, that isn't always true.
If even this is not true, then my question of 'why bring another concept
to confuse the joe user' becomes even more pertinent. He hasn't even
assimilated the concept of a file, much less the concept of an e-mail
attachments and what they really represent.
--
___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.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 10:43:58 -0500
Ayende Rahien wrote...
> > > However, it is not, and never was necessary to consider email
> > > attachments to be identical to files.
> >
> > Why not? Why confuse the joe user with a new concept. Treat it as a file.
> > He already knows what a file is. :-)
>
> Hopefully.
> Unfortantely, that isn't always true.
If even this is not true, then my question of 'why bring another concept
to confuse the joe user' becomes even more pertinent. He hasn't even
assimilated the concept of a file, much less the concept of an e-mail
attachments and what they really represent.
--
___ACM________________________________________________________
"A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it."
------------------------------
From: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: 13 Nov 2000 15:46:28 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[about LF vs. CR-LF as newline separator]
> Yes, Simon think it is quit normal for Gates to ignore a standard that
> had been in place for a full decade.
Well ... actually, MS followed there a standard. An old standard from
about the same era as EBCDIC's roots. The teletypes needed two separate
commands to scroll the paper and to move the print head back to the
left end of the page.
Unix and later Mac were the innovators here by replacing the CR-LF pair
with a single CR or LF, which made text file processing much easier.
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To find a friend one must close one eye; to keep him -- two.
-- Norman Douglas
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 10:54:44 -0500
sfcybear wrote:
>
> In article <h4iP5.245349$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:z%gP5.18759$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:QeeP5.245274$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > It is not particularly difficult to find x86 equipment with hot
> spare/hot
> > > swap
> > > raid drives or standalone boxes with a variety of interfaces with
> that
> > > capability. It is true that most PC hardware is built to be cheap,
> but
> > > you can still buy reliability if you want. Even with your
> exponential
> > > risk factor, a raid 5 array with a hot spare has to lose 3 drives
> before
> > > you get one replaced to take you down, and since you don't have to
> > > shut down for the replacement that can be a pretty small time
> window.
> >
> > Sure, and we're running RAID file servers and the whole shebang. But
> we're
> > dealing with statical probabilities here. We want to be able to
> replace
> > drives when they fail, but we don't want to wait until our drives fail
> > before replacing them. Nor do we want to take chances with
> motherboards,
> > network interfaces, memory, and so on.
> >
> > > > Contrary to your assertion, we have found that hardware failures
> > generally
> > > > cause computer systems to stop. At that point, NT, DOS, Unix and
> Linux
> > are
> > > > all equally reliable.
> > >
> > > But, if you have good filtered power you hardly ever lose anything
> but
> > > disk drives, power supplies, and maybe a modem if anyone still uses
> > > them.
> >
> > Yes... and that's one reason why we perform scheduled maintenaince.
> >
> > Scheduled maintenaince isn't a bad thing. I don't know of any large
> company
> > that doesn't do it, regardless of what anyone thinks about Unix
> reliability.
> > If you were to look at our internal computer systems, you would find
> that
> > none of them have been up for longer than 6 months or so. But, again,
> that
> > has nothing to do with Unix (or any other OS) reliability. In the
> majority
> > of companies, uptime is not a good indicator of OS reliability.
>
> The real question is: how much bang for you buck are you getting? In a
> clustered invironment that can handle failures, it may not be cost
> affective to do the type of scheduled maintance that you have suggested.
How much is your DATA worth?
> Please look though my posts for the full explination. I have worked in
> several large financial institutions and I can tell you that some of the
> nations bigist DO NOT DO any scheduled maintenance on there PC or UNIX
> servers only their big iron
>
> >
> > -- Mike --
> >
> >
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
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: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: We will never know what the MS intruder did
Date: 13 Nov 2000 15:50:13 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> yadda") is that it is very hard for third parties to identify bugs
>> without access to source.
> This is a false presumption. People are finding bugs at a rate almost
> as frequent as Linux, although it's waning now in the past few months.
I happen to know there are people who routinely walk on the rope as a
show in circuses. Still, the action can be considered very hard.
> Ah yes, the old "Linux is just a kernel" copout. I'm sick of you guys
> changing the goal line when it suits your purposes.
- Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
- Erm ... you know ... that question has builtin false assumptions ...
- Stop changing the topic, we're talking about human freedoms here!
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Words are the voice of the heart.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 10:56:10 -0500
Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:h0XO5.7562$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Sorry, but I would *MUCH* rather take a server down for regular *HARDWARE*
> > maintenance every so often, than risk a spontaneous failure, which will
> > leave my site unavailable and losses of data since the last backup.
>
> Do you have to polish up those disk platters once in a while or what?
No, but he does do a new wax job every month whether they need it or not.
> I just copy things over to a new machine every 4 or 5 years.
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 10:57:59 -0500
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8unv68$ar4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > : Chad Myers wrote:
> > :>
> > :> "Andrew Suprun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > :> news:8MmO5.20966$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > :> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ayende Rahien) wrote in
> > :> > <8ubtp8$9cd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > :> >
> > :> > >> Microsoft: "MSDE doesn't limit the number of users who can connect to
> > :> > >> its database, but it is optimized for five users. For a larger numbers
> > :> > >> of users, you should use SQL Server 7.0."
> > :> > >
> > :> > >Not so.
> > :> > >It's installed optimized for 5 users, there is nothing to prevent you
> > :> > >from re-optimzing it to much larger numbers of users.
> > :> >
> > :> > MS Access is open sourced already?
> > :>
> > :> Contrary to popular Linux belief, not everyone is a C programmer.
> > :>
> >
> > : And the point of you're repeating this old bromide is??????
> >
> >
> > : clue for the fucking clueless
> >
> > : it doesn't matter if *you* personally know C or not...
> > : as long as a large group of people who *do* can review it,
> > : and you are able to hear/read their evaluation.
> >
> > Chad's view is like saying that you don't care whether or not
> > your car's technical manuals are available to the public. After
> > all, *you* don't know what to do with those manuals, so obviously
> > it doesn't matter if they are out there. This naive viewpoint
> > ignores the fact that it's kinda nice that your *mechanic* can
> > get access to those manuals.
>
> Mechanics have access to much more technical and accurate documentation.
> The manual becomes irrelevant.
And this applies to Microsoft how, exactly?
They don't document their shit properly...and EVERYBODY knows 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: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 10:01:11 -0600
"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8uo50o$8kb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > I have no repect for your technical skills at this point. As the
> kernel
> > > patch that I have discribed before the PATCH is in the KERNEL but
> the
> > > EXPLOIT REQUIRES SENDMAIL which IS a USERLAND UTILITY!!!! Get rid of
> > > sendmail and the kernel nolonger needs to be patched because the bug
> can
> > > not be exploited! So, you have proven NOTHING HERE! It is COMPLETELY
> > > POSSIBLE FOR THE EXPLOIT TO REQUIRE A USERLAND SOCKET FOR THE
> EXPLOIT to
> > > be successful!!!! In this case, even shutting down the socket in the
> > > services file might stop the attack.
> >
> > Strange. I just did a complete review of each kernel patch summary,
> and the
> > word "sendmail" doesn't exist in any of them. Which kernel patch are
> you
> > referring to?
>
> Keep up with the treads you post to. It's there franky or are you not
> bothering to READ the stuff in the group! The guy posted a link to some
> redhat scurity thing. It was not the official redhat site. THe guy
> demanded that I prove that all of the items could be fixed without
> rebooting. At first I claimed that there were no kernel problems but
> then I looked again and found one. BUY UNDERSTANDING HOW THE EXPLOIT
> WORKS (something you have not shown any capacity for) I was able to
> determine what was needed inorder to make a successful attack! Sendmail
> needed to be installed, the user needed to have access to an shell, and
> they needed either the ability to transfer files to the box or a
> compiler needed to be installed. All those conditions needed to be met
> before the exploit could be done. Just the kernel code vunerablility was
> NOT enough! MANY other conditions needed to be met. If you do not
> understand this, you do not understand how to secure a system.
Well, that's even worse then. A known kernel exploit exists and nothing is
done to patch it?
I searched Alan Cox's official kernel patches, and not a single mention is
made of this sendmail kernel exploit you claim. It doesn't exist in an
official patch, thus it must not be a real problem that the kernel
developers would take notice of. Since you claim the patch exists, why not
just provide a link to it. I don't believe that it is a kernel patch.
> > No, I don't ignore it. Firewalls can stop the problem. But I doubt
> many of
> > those top 50 are attached to firewalls that do.
>
> You do not know that!!!!! Pure speculation!!!
And you don't know that they do. It's pure speculation on your part as
well.
I have no trouble believing that intel uses an advanced firewall, but
www.linux.de? I doubt it. Zope.org? Probably not. www.xnol.com? Not a
chance, it's in China and there are export restrictions.
> you have claimed that
> these sites are vunerable to being hacked because they were NOT patched!
> But by your own admition here THEY DO NOT NEED TO BE PATCHED in all
> cases to be secure. Other means can secure them so you have absolutely
> no proof that any of the top 50 are vunureable to ANY known hack only
> your opinion.
And you have no proof they aren't vulnerable.
> > The only way to show that would be to attack them, and that would be
> > illegal.
>
> Nope, you can prove that a security hole exsists that can not be fixed
> without a reboot, can be exploited remotely AND can not be stoped by any
> other means.
You seem to confuse the word "can" with "is".
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
