I remember the days when IBM was the big evil empire, they owe a lot to microsoft!! ;-)
> From: Adrian Stacey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2002/03/15 Fri PM 01:19:24 GMT+12:00
> To: Canterbury Linux LUG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Why Linux won't suffer from
Kerry Baker wrote:
>
> Unfortunately I have to admit that when it comes to file permissions
> Microsoft has the better solution.
You do of course mean IBM... (Well they thought of it).
On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Kerry Baker wrote:
[...]
> However, what this means for your initial question is that it looks like
> you're buggered.
No, I'm not. It wasn't a question. I was trying to point out that the
"standard" Unix access permissions are not enough in the modern
enterprise environmen
I don't know if the answer is here, as i don't have time to read and
digest it this mornning, but I remmebered that the fm had something
about thr redhat user/grup scheme, so perhaps someone should r it!
http://planetmirror.com/pub/redhat/redhat-7.2-en/doc/RH-DOCS/rhl-rg-en-7.2/s1-users-groups-pr
> I can chgrp only to groups I am member of. Bob-user can't add me to the
> Bob-group (without some unusual permissions). So either your solution
> doesn't work or I am missing something. Which one ?
>
Bugger, you're right.
I was under the impression that the owner of a file could reassign
ow
On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Kerry Baker wrote:
> >
> > > Its easy to permit access to a single user using chgrp and chmod if you
> > > are the file owner.
> >
> > I don't think I understand what you mean here.
> >
>
> E.g. You want user Bob to have read access to your file. There also
> exists a
On Thu, 2002-03-14 at 16:03, Ryurick M. Hristev wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Kerry Baker wrote:
>
> > With Red Hat linux (and derivatives) useradd automatically creates a
> > group of the same name as the user.
>
> I really don't know why they did this, maybe is slightly more
> "secure" for ver
On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Kerry Baker wrote:
> With Red Hat linux (and derivatives) useradd automatically creates a
> group of the same name as the user.
I really don't know why they did this, maybe is slightly more
"secure" for very small "shops" and for users who don't know what
user/group access r
With Red Hat linux (and derivatives) useradd automatically creates a
group of the same name as the user.
Its easy to permit access to a single user using chgrp and chmod if you
are the file owner.
If you don't use Red Hat then perhaps you can convince your sysadmin to
create a group for each user
On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Jeremy Bertenshaw wrote:
> the only workaround I've had the pleasure of doing, there is a linux acl
> project:
Couldn't agree more. ACL's are a very good idea which is very poorly
implemented:
- they are not standard across various Unixes (AFAIK)
- even for Linux only: the
emyb.
> From: "Ryurick M. Hristev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2002/03/14 Thu PM 01:32:40 GMT+12:00
> To: Canterbury Linux LUG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: Why Linux won't suffer from viruses like Windows/Outlook
>
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Ryurick M. H
On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Ryurick M. Hristev wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Rex Johnston wrote:
>
> >
> > On Wed, 2002-03-13 at 10:07, Steve Brorens wrote:
> >
> > > BTW I'd go so far as to say that the Windows (NT/W2K/XP/.NET) NTFS permission
> > > structure is overall far superior to Linux , BUT t
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Rex Johnston wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2002-03-13 at 10:07, Steve Brorens wrote:
>
> > BTW I'd go so far as to say that the Windows (NT/W2K/XP/.NET) NTFS permission
> > structure is overall far superior to Linux , BUT the
>
> How exactly ?
Assume that one non-root user wants to
Jeremy Bertenshaw wrote:
> Unfortunately the world is probably about 95% idiots by your
> definition :-).
No comment ;)
> Why do you need to go through the kernel to write to a device?
If you're not root it might be your only option. As far as I know,
to gain access to an I/O port a progra
Rex Johnston wrote:
> I *am* the sysadmin for a number of servers. I very rarely need to be
> logged in *at all*.
>
> ~ % uptime
> 11:05am up 404 days, 18:52, 1 user, load average: 0.08, 0.02, 0.01
Well you needed to log in to do that, didn't you ;)
Cheers,
- Dave
http://www.digistar.
On Wed, 2002-03-13 at 14:25, David Milligan wrote:
> I challenge your belief that quite good discussions can come from
> challenging beliefs.
QED :)
Rex
--
) / outside the rain fell dark and slow
o_\// whiLe I poNdered on this dangeroUs
\/O and irresistible pastime
~~//
/
On Wed, 2002-03-13 at 14:24, Paul Vaughan wrote:
> You guys are like children throwing sand at the beach. Perhaps if you go
> and cry somewhere else we'll all feel a bit better.
>
> It's waste of bandwidth threads like this that make me seriously consider
> unsubscribing from this list ...
I gu
Why Linux won't suffer from viruses like
> Windows/Outlook
>
>
>
> The worse thing about arguing with Christians is that they're
> always s right (oh the irony), but don't spend much if any
> time actually questioning their beliefs, one of the downsides of
>
rtenshaw [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2002 11:56 am
> To: Drew Whittle; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: RE: Why Linux won't suffer from viruses like
> Windows/Outlook
>
>
> Oh dear, the thing I find most concerning about the linux
>
.
jeremyb
> From: Theuns Verwoerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2002/03/13 Wed PM 01:10:04 GMT+12:00
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: RE: Why Linux won't suffer from viruses like Windows/Outlook
>
> Greetings
> > However so as not to digress any further... my
Greetings
> However so as not to digress any further... my point has always been that
> linux is in no way safe from the virus threat which seems to have been
> sculpted by the anti-microsoft crowd into a linux is better neener neener
> account, surely theres nothing wrong with me invoking my sp
On Wed, 2002-03-13 at 13:55, Jeremy Bertenshaw wrote:
> Oh dear, the thing I find most concerning about the linux community is it's
>closed-mindedness to other technologies, I don't believe microsoft is better, I don't
>believe linux is better, all are good tools for different tasks, don't knock
gt; To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: RE: Why Linux won't suffer from viruses like Windows/Outlook
>
> On Wed, 2002-03-13 at 13:31, Jeremy Bertenshaw wrote:
> > Theres no need to get personal Drew, usually thats left for situations when you
>don't have anything as a use
Well I guess I'm missing the whole point of the discussion too.
It seems to me it is hard to counter someone's argument with a logical
answer when the responses tend to be fairly content-free and diverted
away from the topic at hand.
Jeremy Bertenshaw wrote:
> Theres no need to get personal D
On Wed, 2002-03-13 at 13:31, Jeremy Bertenshaw wrote:
> Theres no need to get personal Drew, usually thats left for situations when you
>don't have anything as a useful counter to someones aregument...
I have little tolerance for people I consider to be fools and if I wish
to call someone a moro
d PM 12:16:55 GMT+12:00
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: RE: Why Linux won't suffer from viruses like Windows/Outlook
>
> On Wed, 2002-03-13 at 13:03, Jeremy Bertenshaw wrote:
> > Cool can apt-get compile php/sybase support into apache rather than as a module?
>I
On Wed, 2002-03-13 at 13:03, Jeremy Bertenshaw wrote:
> Cool can apt-get compile php/sybase support into apache rather than as a module? I
>could think up a million other reasons, but you get the idea.
Are you just naturally a moron or what?
Sure there are issues with Linux and the general pop
Re: RE: Why Linux won't suffer from viruses like >windows/Outlook
>
> > now imagine that you had a large evolving userbase with a large number
>
> webmin/apt-get
>
> Rex
>
>
>
On Wed, 2002-03-13 at 11:17, Jeremy Bertenshaw wrote:
> So you're an admin for a system which isn't evolving or going thru change,
no, i'm an overworked software engineer.
> now imagine that you had a large evolving userbase with a large number
webmin/apt-get
Rex
Subject: RE: Why Linux won't suffer from viruses like Windows/Outlook
>
> Far more granular for one, but the most obvious from an admin perspective is that it
>easily allows me to setup this sort of thing:
>
> d:\data\payroll
> Group/Managers has ReadOn
> >BTW I'd go so far as to say that the Windows (NT/W2K/XP/.NET) NTFS permission
> > structure is overall far superior to Linux , BUT the
>
> How exactly ?
Far more granular for one, but the most obvious from an admin perspective is that it
easily allows me to setup this sort of thing:
While I remember, I was at a McAfee Security seminar the other day and they mentioned
the Winux virus, basically a proof of concept that infects both Linux & Windows,
teehee, if the virus writers don't try linux directly they can always get at it thanks
to Microsoft and Wine :-)
http://vil.nai
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: RE: Why Linux won't suffer from viruses like Windows/Outlook
>
>
> On Wed, 2002-03-13 at 10:56, Jeremy Bertenshaw wrote:
>
> > Try being a sysadmin for any number of linux servers, you
> > very rarely are anything but ro
e: Why Linux won't suffer from viruses like Windows/Outlook
>
>
> On Wed, 2002-03-13 at 10:43, Jeremy Bertenshaw wrote:
>
> > You're thinking far too conventionally, there are ways other than writing to
>/dev/blarg
> > to access a device.
>
> You sti
On Wed, 2002-03-13 at 10:56, Jeremy Bertenshaw wrote:
> Try being a sysadmin for any number of linux servers, you
> very rarely are anything but root, likewise in a windows environment
> you are usually always administrator.
I *am* the sysadmin for a number of servers. I very rarely need to b
> From: David Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2002/03/13 Wed AM 09:04:44 GMT+12:00
> To: clug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Why Linux won't suffer from viruses like Windows/Outlook
>
> Hi Jeremy,
>
> I should clarify: I don't run Windows for
On Wed, 2002-03-13 at 10:43, Jeremy Bertenshaw wrote:
> You're thinking far too conventionally, there are ways other than writing to
>/dev/blarg
> to access a device.
You still have to go through the kernel.
> Hmmm, aiming higher than the standard for desktop OS, so it needs to do all the
>
> From: Rex Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2002/03/13 Wed AM 09:37:58 GMT+12:00
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Why Linux won't suffer from viruses like Windows/Outlook
>
>
> On Wed, 2002-03-13 at 10:07, Steve Brorens wrote:
>
> > BTW I&#
revalance is a big thing.
jeremyb
http://www.jeremyb.net
> From: Rex Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2002/03/13 Wed AM 09:37:23 GMT+12:00
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Why Linux won't suffer from viruses like Windows/Outlook
>
>
> On Wed, 2002-03-13 at 09:03
On Wed, 2002-03-13 at 10:07, Steve Brorens wrote:
> BTW I'd go so far as to say that the Windows (NT/W2K/XP/.NET) NTFS permission
> structure is overall far superior to Linux , BUT the
How exactly ?
> problem is not generally the architecture; instead it's the attidude
> of *both* the vendor a
On Wed, 2002-03-13 at 09:03, Jeremy Bertenshaw wrote:
> you've made some valid points, however they're not all entirely correct
> (It's not entirely prudent to comment on something you're not using
Yes, i deleted my rant as i'm not familiar with NT/XP.
> and up with the state of play on.), win
Because it won't take off on the desktop - if it does it will (sfvlw)
BTW I'd go so far as to say that the Windows (NT/W2K/XP/.NET) NTFS permission
structure is overall far superior to Linux , BUT the problem is not
generally the architecture; instead it's the attidude of *both* the vendor and
Hi Jeremy,
I should clarify: I don't run Windows for my own use, but I do, though
my IT solutions company Egressive, provide daily support and services
(and some compatibility testing related to Samba installation) for my
clients who most certainly do run Windows. I deal primarily with
Win95/98,
tunately ms set the standard for what people expect on the desktop,
I think the whole linux on desktop movement is negative for the future of linux (but
thats a rant for another time :-).
jeremyb
http://www.jeremyb.net
> From: David Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2002/03/12 Tue
I couldn't have said it better myself =)
David Lane wrote:
>Sorry, all, my initial empassioned entry into the Linux vs. Windows email
>debate had a few typos... Here's an edited version.
>
>Hi Jeremy,
>
>I don't normally get involved in discussions like this, but I must say
>that Linux isn't l
Sorry, all, my initial empassioned entry into the Linux vs. Windows email
debate had a few typos... Here's an edited version.
Hi Jeremy,
I don't normally get involved in discussions like this, but I must say
that Linux isn't like Windows for a number of very important reasons.
Very few of the
Hi Jeremy,
I don't normally get involved in discussions like this, but I must say
that Linux isn't like Windows for a number of very important reasons.
Very few of the reasons are technical - nearly all are philosophical,
and they're are the same reasons that I don't use Windows, and haven't
sin
47 matches
Mail list logo
