Linux-Advocacy Digest #737, Volume #31 Fri, 26 Jan 01 00:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Poor Linux ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Windows 2000 ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Microsoft "INNOVATES" again! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows 2000
Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others
Re: Microsoft "INNOVATES" again! (J Sloan)
Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4 (J Sloan)
Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4 (Paul Colquhoun)
Re: Does Code Decay (Craig Kelley)
Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others (.)
Re: Microsoft is fired. (Craig Kelley)
Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others (.)
Re: I am preparing to teach a Linux class and I am soliciting advice ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others (Craig Kelley)
Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others (.)
Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4 ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Comparison by windows buffoon ("Gary Hallock")
Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows ("JS/PL")
Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4 ("Les Mikesell")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:03:51 -0500
John Travis wrote:
>
> And Aaron R. Kulkis spoke unto the masses...
> :Considering that in Russia, there are no copyright laws, you can actually
> :get Microsoft products for about $5 or less (which is, ironically, exactly
> :what they are worth).....Wouldn't THAT be an interesting purchase :-)
>
> Not really. Considering that paying 5 US dollars for say, W2K in Russia, is
> probably more expensive for them than what we pay for it here.
>
Not if you're a tourist.
> jt
> --
> Debian Gnu/Linux [Sid]
> 2.4.1-pre9|XFree4.0.2|Nvidia .96 drivers
> You mean there's a stable tree?
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
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]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 21:57:19 -0500
Steve Mading wrote:
>
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : Steve Mading wrote:
> :>
> :> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :> : Said Steve Mading in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 23 Jan 2001 19:42:17 GMT;
> :> :>
> :> :>Actually, I think the reason for it is that the only reason Windows
> :> :>is popular at all is because of all the applications that are only
> :> :>released for Windows and nothing else, not because the OS itself is
> :> :>all that spectacular. Therefore, porting the OS to other platforms
> :> :>would be usless unless MS could get all the third-party application
> :> :>developers to make all of their software for non-intel platforms
> :> :>also. If ONLY Windows and maybe Office ran on platform Foo, but
> :> :>nothing else did, nobody would want it. MS discovered this, and stopped
> :> :>trying to support other platforms. Of course they falsely attributed
> :> :>this to people being uninterested in other platforms, when in fact
> :> :>they *would* be interested if the Windows world hadn't been
> :> :>monoplatform for so long that all the app developers forgot how to
> :> :>program cross-platform code. (Consider how Corel ported WP 2000
> :> :>to Linux - by using Wine instead of actually doing a real port.)
> :> :>
> :>
> :> : Coincidentally, immediately after Microsoft bought a big stake in the
> :> : company, IIRC.
> :>
> :> I got a copy of Corel WP 2000 for Linux *before* MS bought that
> :> large sum of stock in Corel.
>
> : Was it a native port, or something to run on Wine?
>
> Wine. My point is that you can't blame the MS buyout for
> the decision to use the Wine solution. The work was already
> done to make the Wine solution before that happened.
Why would they port to Wine when they already had a native Unix solution
for close to 10 years
Sounds like Microsoft got their tentacles in earlier....like "you
had better not write anything in native Linux or we cut off your
access to the Windows API."
Which would be ENTIRELY consistant with the Micro-extortion way of doing things.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Microsoft "INNOVATES" again!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 03:08:10 GMT
On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 21:33:45 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Right click on menu
>Select "add item"
>
>What was your point?
Then what?
Enlightenment?
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 03:21:48 -0000
On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 21:57:19 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Steve Mading wrote:
>>
>> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> : Steve Mading wrote:
>> :>
>> :> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> :> : Said Steve Mading in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 23 Jan 2001 19:42:17 GMT;
[deletia]
>> :> :>
>> :>
>> :> : Coincidentally, immediately after Microsoft bought a big stake in the
>> :> : company, IIRC.
>> :>
>> :> I got a copy of Corel WP 2000 for Linux *before* MS bought that
>> :> large sum of stock in Corel.
>>
>> : Was it a native port, or something to run on Wine?
>>
>> Wine. My point is that you can't blame the MS buyout for
>> the decision to use the Wine solution. The work was already
>> done to make the Wine solution before that happened.
>
>Why would they port to Wine when they already had a native Unix solution
>for close to 10 years
Pushing along an emulation layer that already had a few years
under it's belt was probably less work than porting the other
parts of PerfectOffice that you are neglecting.
[deletia]
--
The LGPL does infact tend to be used instead of the GPL in instances
where merely reusing a component, while not actually altering that
component, would be unecessarily burdensome to people seeking to
build their own works.
This dramatically alters the nature and usefulness of Free Software
in practice, contrary to the 'all viral all the time' fantasy the
anti-GPL cabal here would prefer one to believe.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 03:16:26 -0000
On 25 Jan 2001 20:34:09 -0600, Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:94q9sk$fbc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> No, it was never considered 'absolutely secure' by ANYONE. It is highly
>> >> securable. Theres a difference.
>>
>> > But it can't even reach C2 level of security... NT is more "highly
>> > securable" the NSA says...
>>
>> The NSA doesnt say that. In fact, no one says that.
>
>My comment 2x2, abraxas, et. el was towards teh comment that linux is highly
>securable.
>I said linux isn't c2 level evalauted.
No, it's just being secured by the NSA itself.
>NT4 is:
>http://www.radium.ncsc.mil./tpep/epl/entries/TTAP-CSC-EPL-99-001.html
>
>
>
--
Common Standards, Common Ownership.
The alternative only leads to destructive anti-capitalist
and anti-democratic monopolies.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft "INNOVATES" again!
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 03:34:55 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 21:33:45 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Right click on menu
> >Select "add item"
> >
> >What was your point?
>
> Then what?
> Enlightenment?
I'm sorry, you lost me there - what is your question?
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 03:35:14 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:09:52 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Does that really sound too difficult for you?
> >
> >jjs
>
> You're dreaming.
Please explain -
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Colquhoun)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 04:08:24 GMT
On 25 Jan 2001 16:14:33 -0600, Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
|"Paul Colquhoun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
|news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
|> On 25 Jan 2001 13:35:25 -0600, Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|wrote:
|> |
|> |"Philip Van Hoof" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
|> |news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
|> |> Conrad Rutherford wrote:
|> |> >
|> |> > OK, lesse...
|> |> >
|> |> > W2K:
|> |<snip>
|> |
|> |Ahhh, I clipped all your crap because you simply skipped my point and the
|> |thread. You didn't address my text - instead created a strawman and some
|> |more made up scenarios of your choosing...
|> |
|> |Can't take the heat...
|>
|>
|> Sorry, *you* are accusig *him* of using "made up scenarios of your
|choosing"
|>
|> That must be the best example of the pot calling the kettle black that
|> I've seen in a long time.
|
|Gee, my scenario is how to install W2K versus how to install the 2.4
|kernel - is that a big stretch of the imagination for something someone
|might do? I didn't specify hardware or any conditions except, how to get it
|running BASICALLY.
|
|wow - this must have really hit a nerve... P)
To repost my reply to another of your posts in this thread (which I note you ignored):
Wow, when I wanted to try out the 2.4 kernel, I just went to RedHat's ftp site
( rawhide.redhat.com - where they put stuff that isn't in their supported
distribution yet ) and downloaded the RPMs.
The installed with a simple rpm command ( 'rpm -Fvh *' if you are interested )
I needed to reboot to try the kernel, of course, and another reboot to get back
to the 2.2.16 I've been running.
It appears my firewall rules need some updating before I can run 2.4 full time,
but is was a simple test and took less than 20 minutes.
See, not that hard at all.
Do you buy ready-made clothes? Or do you buy material and make your own?
Either way is a valid choice, but hardly comparable in the "Ease of Outfitting"
stakes.
--
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Universal Life Church http://andor.dropbear.id.au/~paulcol
-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-
xenaphobia: The fear of being beaten to a pulp by
a leather-clad, New Zealand woman.
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does Code Decay
Date: 25 Jan 2001 21:16:56 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine) writes:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Thu, 25 Jan 2001 00:34:00 -0500
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Peter K�hlmann wrote:
> >>
> >> Bennetts family wrote:
> >> > Unix could stay pretty stagnant for a very long time, with only bugfixes
> >> > and driver updates/additions) and kick the crap out of Windows for a very
> >> > long time. Windows is a lousy design, that needs to keep in touch with 20
> >> > year old bodge fixes (FAT, etc). Unix did things a much better way right
> >> > from the start. I predict that in 20 years time, Windows will still be on
> >> > a FAT derived FS, and suffering miserably from it.
> >> >
> >> I think in 20 years Wintendo(tm) will be recognized as the single one
> >> biggest errors in computing history.
> >
> >Kind of like the nuclear-fission handgrenade, but without the benefits.
>
> Pedant point: I was given to understand that the critical mass of
> plutonium is a few pounds, and needed to be physically separate
> from itself (i.e., in several pieces which will ultimately be jammed
> together by a special high explosive). This does not appear to be
> a form factor consistent with a hand-held, egg-shaped device with
> a pullable pin. Maybe a backpack, or a small trailer.
>
> I could be wrong, of course; the only grenades I've seen have been
> dummies of the sort that one might see on complaint department
> desks (the ones conspicuously labled "Take a Number"; a '1' tag
> is attached to the pull-pin).
Reminds me of a Paranoia adventure I once ran
(http://www.dlcwest.com/~pne/fgg_wesp.htm). One of the R&D devices
was the "TacNuk(tm) Grenade" and on the side was printed "Throw Very
Hard".
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others
Date: 26 Jan 2001 04:19:54 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Shane Phelps" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>>
>> Conrad Rutherford wrote:
>> >
>> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:94q17o$13p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> > > > http://betanews.efront.com/article.php3?sid=980449212
>> > >
>> > > > Kaspersky Lab's is now reporting that the Linux-based virus 'Ramen'
> is
>> > now
>> > > > "in the wild." The firm sent word around the net today that several
> Web
>> > > > sites have now been defaced by the malicious code, enough to up its
>> > status
>> > > > to "in the wild". Places affected by the bug include NASA, Texas
> A&M,
>> > and
>> > > > Supermicro. As of right now, the worm only seems to be affecting
> Redhat
>> > 6.2
>> > > > and 7.0 versions of Linux.
>> > > > Using three known breachable security exploits in the operating
> system,
>> > > > Ramen can penetrate the system and take over root access to execute
> its
>> > > > payload.
>> > >
>> > > > One executive at Russia-based Kaspersky Labs told reporters "The
>> > discovery
>> > > > of the Ramen worm 'in-the-wild' is a very significant moment in
> computer
>> > > > history. Previously considered as an absolutely secured operating
>> > system,
>> > > > Linux now has become yet another victim to computer malware."
>> > >
>> > > No, it was never considered 'absolutely secure' by ANYONE. It is
> highly
>> > > securable. Theres a difference.
>> >
>> > But it can't even reach C2 level of security... NT is more "highly
>> > securable" the NSA says...
>>
>>
>> NT 3.51 on a Compaq box with no network connection or floppy drive was C2.
>> I don't believe NT 4 or 5 were ever C2 certified in *any* configuration
>> but I may be wrong.
> You are wrong. NT4 was C2 certified with both a floppy and network
> connection.
No, it was NOT C2 certified with a network connection. You are absolutely
incorrect.
=====.
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft is fired.
Date: 25 Jan 2001 21:20:45 -0700
"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > Hmm.. according to the press release, it was a configuration error.
>
> Hmmm... They're having trouble again today. It sure takes MS a long time to
> fix configuration errors.
Yeah, the authoritative servers weren't available for almost a full 24
hours from here. I wonder what kind of routers they use that make it
so difficult to setup?
(or could it be a sync delay between DNS servers?)
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others
Date: 26 Jan 2001 04:21:13 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:94q9sk$fbc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> No, it was never considered 'absolutely secure' by ANYONE. It is highly
>> >> securable. Theres a difference.
>>
>> > But it can't even reach C2 level of security... NT is more "highly
>> > securable" the NSA says...
>>
>> The NSA doesnt say that. In fact, no one says that.
> My comment 2x2, abraxas, et. el was towards teh comment that linux is highly
> securable.
> I said linux isn't c2 level evalauted.
Heres exactly what you said:
"NT is more "highly
securable" the NSA says"
No, they didnt say that. They never said that.
> NT4 is:
> http://www.radium.ncsc.mil./tpep/epl/entries/TTAP-CSC-EPL-99-001.html
You're an idiot.
=====.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.questions,comp.os.linux.admin,comp.os.linux.help,linux.redhat
Subject: Re: I am preparing to teach a Linux class and I am soliciting advice
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 04:23:35 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > What do beginning users need to know?
> >
> > Enough to get to the point where they can find their own answers.
>
> i.e. teach them HOW TO READ a 'man' page....that is, how to extract
> relevant information out of it.
And on a second thought, teach them enough about what the shell does
to the command line before starting programs that they will understand
why man pages don't discuss wildcard filenames, i/o redirection,
or pipes. Go through the shell man page first (perhaps several times)
so they will know how to read all the others.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 04:23:49 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Shane Phelps wrote:
>
>
>Conrad Rutherford wrote:
>>
>> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:94q17o$13p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > http://betanews.efront.com/article.php3?sid=980449212
>> >
>> > > Kaspersky Lab's is now reporting that the Linux-based virus 'Ramen' is
>> now
>> > > "in the wild." The firm sent word around the net today that several Web
>> > > sites have now been defaced by the malicious code, enough to up its
>> status
>> > > to "in the wild". Places affected by the bug include NASA, Texas A&M,
>> and
>> > > Supermicro. As of right now, the worm only seems to be affecting Redhat
>> 6.2
>> > > and 7.0 versions of Linux.
>> > > Using three known breachable security exploits in the operating system,
>> > > Ramen can penetrate the system and take over root access to execute its
>> > > payload.
>> >
>> > > One executive at Russia-based Kaspersky Labs told reporters "The
>> discovery
>> > > of the Ramen worm 'in-the-wild' is a very significant moment in computer
>> > > history. Previously considered as an absolutely secured operating
>> system,
>> > > Linux now has become yet another victim to computer malware."
>> >
>> > No, it was never considered 'absolutely secure' by ANYONE. It is highly
>> > securable. Theres a difference.
>>
>> But it can't even reach C2 level of security... NT is more "highly
>> securable" the NSA says...
>
>
>NT 3.51 on a Compaq box with no network connection or floppy drive was C2.
>I don't believe NT 4 or 5 were ever C2 certified in *any* configuration
>but I may be wrong.
>
>http://www.swynk.com/friends/sasha/tocs.asp
>has information on how to configure NT 4 to C2 level, but I don't believe
>MS has aver had a system certified to Orange Book C2, let alone Red Book.
>
>NT's use of ACLs and fascist logging (when enabled) make it potentially
>quite secure. Please don't muddy the waters by claiming *all* NT is C2.
>NT 4 and 5 are claimed to be substantially different from NT 3.51.
>
>Unless the situation has changed substantially, C2 certification is issued
>to a system configuration (hardware + software), not an OS. Even installing
>a SCSI hard disk in addition to the IDE disk a system is certified with
>will invalidate the original certification.
>
>Over to you...
Thank you.
And due to this, it's very likely that a Linux based net
appliance could receive a certification.
Or a IP bound data storage system based on Linux.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others
Date: 25 Jan 2001 21:24:47 -0700
"Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Perhaps the most unsettling piece of this puzzle is that Redhat has known
> about the problem for more than six months.
... and has had security bugfixes for them since June. This is the
wu-ftpd hole; nothing more. Anyone who doesn't update their box
deserves it, whether they run Windows, Linux, BSD, MacOS or whatever.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others
Date: 26 Jan 2001 04:28:01 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:94qa01$fbc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> > Besides, if you like Linux and need to run C2 or BETTER you
>> > could always get Trusted Solaris or Trusted Irix. You would
>> > get "better than Microsoft" security and a nice migration
>> > path.
>>
>> It never fails to amaze me that people at large see "C2" as some kind
>> of goal to be reached. C2 certification guarantees a nearly useless,
>> horribly configured machine.
> Lie.
> Read this:
> http://www.radium.ncsc.mil./tpep/epl/entries/TTAP-CSC-EPL-99-001.html
Looks like unix still beats NT:
http://www.radium.ncsc.mil/tpep/epl/entries/CSC-EPL-93-008-A.html
=====.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 04:31:36 GMT
"Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3a70a4a9$0$45781$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >
> > That must be the best example of the pot calling the kettle black that
> > I've seen in a long time.
>
> Gee, my scenario is how to install W2K versus how to install the 2.4
> kernel - is that a big stretch of the imagination for something someone
> might do? I didn't specify hardware or any conditions except, how to get
it
> running BASICALLY.
>
> wow - this must have really hit a nerve... P)
Your scenario showed how to get a new Linux kernel running from free
source before the distributor packages it for distribution, and it
took about 10 easy steps. You did not show any such thing for
W2K. Just how much would it cost to get an advance copy of
an update in source, and how much trouble would it be to compile
and install?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Comparison by windows buffoon
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 23:31:38 +0500
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
In article <3a7081bc$0$1136$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Conrad Rutherford"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, where is the CD for linux 2.4 that can just boot up and install? I
> was talking about linux 2.4 - not RH anything.
>
>> When the 2.4 kernel appears in a distro, you pop in the CD, power up
>> the machine and select "upgrade" - now, was that hard?
>
> Ahhh, "when... "
ftp://rawhide.redhat.com/pub/rawhide/i386/RedHat/RPMS/kernel-2.4.0-0.99.5.i686.rpm
Gary
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 23:35:17 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 00:38:27 -0500, JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Russ Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >> >
> >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > > On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 05:03:10 +0200, Ayende Rahien
<Please@don't.spam>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >"Russ Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 19:14:00 +0500, "Gary Hallock"
> >> > > >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > > [deletia]
> >> > > >More difficult? Hah!
> >> > > >Exactly *how*?
> >> > > >
> >> > > >What do you mean by ftp? client? server?
> >> > > >PWS is a free http & ftp server for windows 9x, it is somewhere in
> >the
> >> > CD.
> >> > > >IIS is for NT.
> >> > > >Both OS has a builtin text-based ftp client, as well as IE capable
of
> >> > > >functioning as FTP client.
> >> > >
> >> > > Then please outline the procedure for initiating an
> >> > > upload with IE5...
> >> >
> >> > Sure, open one window of explorer and navigate to the files that you
> >want to
> >> > copy, choose then and press CTRL+C
> >> > Then either type F6 & the ftp adress or open a new windows and enter
the
> >ftp
> >> > adress in it.
> >> > Wait for it to login, press CTRL+V
> >>
> >> Linux :
> >> ftp [site name]
> >> [login as prompted]
> >> cd [destination directory]
> >> put [filename]
> >> bye
> >>
> >> as I said elsewhere, the put feature doesn't work from NT at work.
> >
> >Internet Explorer:
> >ftp://ftp.whatever.com
> >If no anonymous access then - File | Login As
> >drag files to and fro.
>
> We've already been through this.
>
> Exploder doesn't support DnD ftp uploads.
Someone better tell my IE browser because it just did it.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 04:39:50 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:nUVb6.23233$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >
> > > W2K:
> > > Insert CD into a CD ROM and turn on computer. It boots and begins to
> > > install. Enter your CD key, name and answer a few default prompts and
> > > shortly thereafter you have the a very massively feature packed OS
with a
> > > familiar GUI up and running with all your hardware ready to rock.
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Only if you are used to Windows.
>
> Sit a brand new user down at Windows, and one at Linux.
>
> The Windows user will be productive in a matter of minutes, the Linux
> one? Well, try back in a few days.
>
And check back in a couple of months and the windows user will still be
working just as hard while the Linux user will have as much as possible
completely automated. How much of your computing life do you expect
to be inexperienced?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
