On Sunday, October 22, 2006, at 09:14 AM, Tim Newsham wrote:
Would the system be safer if it was all on a CD and there was no hard
drive?
In a way. The system could still be attacked and used by attackers to
stage attacks against other machines, but without a way to save any
persistent
On Oct 24, 2006, at 12:16 AM, Nakashima wrote:
On Sunday, October 22, 2006, at 09:14 AM, Tim Newsham wrote:
Would the system be safer if it was all on a CD and there was no
hard drive?
In a way. The system could still be attacked and used by
attackers to
stage attacks against other
Nakashima wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2006, at 10:27 AM, HawaiiDakine.com wrote:
Nakashima wrote:
Would it be practical for the FOSS community to come up with a
stable, secure, grandpa/grandma computer system for users who just
want to do email and browse the web a bit?
--Peter
Maybe the $100 laptop from MIT?
- Original Message -
From: Nakashima [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: LUAU luau@lists.hosef.org
Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 8:28 PM
Subject: Re: [LUAU] Its time to simply ban Windoze machines from the
Internet
On Saturday, October 21, 2006, at 01:17 PM
Would the system be safer if it was all on a CD and there was no hard drive?
In a way. The system could still be attacked and used by attackers to
stage attacks against other machines, but without a way to save any
persistent state, you'd get back to a clean state by just rebooting
(barring
Just on the original subject line.
MS does a good job trying to ban all other OS's from the Internet
anyway.
For the web site:
http://video.msn.com
I get the message:
To use this product, you need to install free software
This product requires Microsoft© Internet Explorer 6, Microsoft© Media
On Sunday, October 22, 2006, at 07:30 AM, Maddog wrote:
On Saturday, October 21, 2006, at 01:17 PM, Maddog wrote:
OS's are only as secure as the users that use them. I think that's
a repeat of what Tim said. Aside from the obscure OS's Jim reffered
too (not to say they are not in use,
- Original Message -
From: Nakashima [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: LUAU luau@lists.hosef.org
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 6:39 AM
Subject: Re: [LUAU] Its time to simply ban Windoze machines from the
Internet
On Thursday, October 19, 2006, at 01:53 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
Let's just say
On Friday, October 20, 2006, at 10:27 AM, HawaiiDakine.com wrote:
Nakashima wrote:
Would it be practical for the FOSS community to come up with a
stable, secure, grandpa/grandma computer system for users who just
want to do email and browse the web a bit?
--Peter
Aloha!
A FreeBSD
On Saturday, October 21, 2006, at 01:17 PM, Maddog wrote:
OS's are only as secure as the users that use them. I think that's a
repeat of what Tim said. Aside from the obscure OS's Jim reffered too
(not to say they are not in use, just not widespread), in the real
world where billions are
On Thursday, October 19, 2006, at 01:53 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
Let's just say, it's not in the interest of anyone in the services
or even the services industry to have a really secure computing
platform.
Hi,
Non-technical poster here.
Does the FOSS community have an interest in it?
Would
Nakashima wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2006, at 01:53 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
Let's just say, it's not in the interest of anyone in the services
or even the services industry to have a really secure computing
platform.
Hi,
Non-technical poster here.
Does the FOSS community have an
On Oct 18, 2006, at 8:19 PM, Tim Newsham wrote:
Its not that simple. Windows boxes are a heckuva lot easier to
populate with the software that creates botnets. They're an open
infection vector.
I don't agree at all. There are sufficient server and client
vulnerabilities in *BSD,
It's apparent that this is quickly becoming religeous. It is not my
intention to start a religeous OS battle... Linux is great. I use it all
the time. FreeBSD is great. I use it all the time
Please. Windows is *full* of holes, and by default, it essentially runs as
root (or the
Jim Thompson wrote:
On Oct 18, 2006, at 8:19 PM, Tim Newsham wrote:
Its not that simple. Windows boxes are a heckuva lot easier to
populate with the software that creates botnets. They're an open
infection vector.
I don't agree at all. There are sufficient server and client
On Oct 19, 2006, at 6:58 AM, Tim Newsham wrote:
It's apparent that this is quickly becoming religeous. It is not
my intention to start a religeous OS battle... Linux is great. I
use it all the time. FreeBSD is great. I use it all the time
Nice one, Tim. You throw the you're
I know its bad form to respond to my own posting, but I did want to
add one thing.
Safely running Windows on the Internet is possible, but its a lot
like being locked in a souring, mildewed terror-bunker watching black
water pour in over the sill as a society poisoned by Lysenkoist (*)
Can one write malware for a non-Windows platform? Sure.
Can one run malware from a non-privileged account? Sure.
Can one get people to install malware on a non-Windows platform? Sure
Does Windows offer a more attractive target, especially because
a) its huge installed base
Yes.
b) its
On Oct 19, 2006, at 12:54 PM, Tim Newsham wrote:
Can one write malware for a non-Windows platform? Sure.
Can one run malware from a non-privileged account? Sure.
Can one get people to install malware on a non-Windows platform?
Sure
Does Windows offer a more attractive target, especially
Safely running Windows on the Internet is possible, but its a lot like being
locked in a souring, mildewed terror-bunker watching black water pour in over
the sill as a society poisoned by Lysenkoist (*) denial drowns in its own
spew.
I'm not sure what purpose this comment serves. It doesn't
If your point is that stupidity will dominate, so people will install malware
no matter what kind of OS you've provided, then there is no solution short of
welding the hood shut. NO USER-SERVICEABLE PARTS INSIDE.
Was that your point?
If so, we need a new sign: You must be at least this
On Oct 19, 2006, at 1:05 PM, Tim Newsham wrote:
Safely running Windows on the Internet is possible, but its a lot
like being locked in a souring, mildewed terror-bunker watching
black water pour in over the sill as a society poisoned by
Lysenkoist (*) denial drowns in its own spew.
I'm
Ok, this is just silly. If you ban windows machines from the internet
you'd just get a bunch of linux and osx botnets... Botnets run on windows
because they are the majority population, not because they are inherently
easier to write botnets for.
Tim Newsham
On Oct 18, 2006, at 9:33 AM, Tim Newsham wrote:
Ok, this is just silly. If you ban windows machines from the
internet you'd just get a bunch of linux and osx botnets...
Botnets run on windows because they are the majority population,
not because they are inherently easier to write
Tim Newsham wrote:
Ok, this is just silly. If you ban windows machines from the internet
you'd just get a bunch of linux and osx botnets... Botnets run on
windows because they are the majority population, not because they are
inherently easier to write botnets for.
Linux has some
Its not that simple. Windows boxes are a heckuva lot easier to populate
with the software that creates botnets. They're an open infection vector.
I don't agree at all. There are sufficient server and client
vulnerabilities in *BSD, linux, OS X and windows. Many of the attacks
don't even
Tim Newsham wrote:
Its not that simple. Windows boxes are a heckuva lot easier to
populate with the software that creates botnets. They're an open
infection vector.
I don't agree at all. There are sufficient server and client
vulnerabilities in *BSD, linux, OS X and windows. Many of
So given that argument on market share as correlating to a need
and return on investment, in a hypothetical situation where
there is a 50% Windows market share and the remaining 50% is a
mix of *nix, Linux and OS X.
Would there be an equal amount of malware/spyware/viruses/etc..
devided equally
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2029720,00.asp
Almost apropos they're re-making The Invasion of the Body Snatchers
again, according to Variety, but it probably won't be called exactly
that, the working title is now just The Invasion (was: The
Visiting) staring Nicole Kidman and
29 matches
Mail list logo
