Linux-Advocacy Digest #365, Volume #26 Thu, 4 May 00 17:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Virus on the net? (Bastian)
Re: Are we equal? ("LGFR")
Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots (David Goldstein)
Re: Linux NFS is buggy (david parsons)
Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation' (petilon)
Re: Virus on the net? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Virus on the net? (Bart Oldeman)
Re: Virus on the net? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: X Windows must DIE!!! (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation' ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Virus on the net? (Mig Mig)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bastian)
Subject: Re: Virus on the net?
Date: 4 May 2000 20:12:31 GMT
On Thu, 4 May 2000 13:44:14 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>This particular script couldn't affect a Linux machine. Semantically, this
>is no different than sending someone a shell script. The user has to
>execute the attachment in order for it to function (it doesn't happen by
>just reading the email). If I sent you a shell script which you executed
>without looking at it, the same thing could be done in Linux by reading your
>mail aliases list.
What alias list do you mean?
Many Windoze users couldn't read (understand) a VB script, whereas a
shell script is different. Most Linux users came accross them once or
twice a day, so they at least have an idea of what it does before they
execute it.
And many Linux users are more concerned about security than Windoze
users are, because most of them (of the Linux users) know how computers
work. Windoze just hides everything -- from difficult things to important
security things.
Bastian
------------------------------
From: "LGFR" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,talk.politics
Subject: Re: Are we equal?
Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 16:46:53 +0100
[..lots of snipping gunboat/no gunboat shit...]
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> It's a US Coast Gaurd Cutter, a rather durable large
> rescue boat that just happens to have a peashooter at
> the end of it.
[...]
> Calling it a gunboat while perhaps pedantically corrrect
> is still rather disingenuous. There are crew served small
> arms with more potency then what that Cutter carries.
Heh, sure looks like a fewkin gunboat to me, unless this
is more USA gun-lovin' fun e.g.
Magnum .44 = not a gun, personal protection apparel
BTW Jed, check out the fire rate for that "peashooter"...
LGFR
------------------------------
From: David Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 14:17:44 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Not trying to assume anything, but if YOU go to any computer club,
> strike up a chat at Compusa, strike up at chat at any trade show,
> Computer show, ham fest etc, it will be YOU that is in the minority
> and YOU that will spend countless time explaining Linux and what it is
> about.
This is not true anymore. A majority of computer users know what
Linux is. Here in Germany, people actaully use Linux. I purchased a
copy of SuSE 6.2 and it is now installed on seven different computers.
Most of these are home computers. The fact is, if you spend a little
time with the OS it is not difficult to use, at all.
> It will be YOUR kids that will have to go in circles trying to find
> software that conforms to their college standards. It will be YOUR
> kids that will have to explain Linux to all of the other kids as well
> as teachers in their school that will most likely be running Windows.
Again, not entirely true. More young people are becoming involved
with Linux because of the ability to learn all aspects of computer
science at an extremely reasonable price. The cost of a proxy server
for win platforms alone merits giving Linux a try for home networks.
At the college that I attended, AS400 was the computer being used.
Anyone that is limiting themselves to learning, or teaching, propietary
standards is simply not doing himself justice. Learning a computer
language should be platform independent and adhere to standards.
Programming in MS Vis(anything) is just one aspect of programming. How
do you want to get a job programming on UNIX machines that way? Before
you doubt the number of Unix (and derivatives) jobs that are currently
open, check some classified ads.
> So if YOU wish to run Linux, that is great but understand that YOU are
> in a small, very small in fact, minority that are excersising their
> choice in operating systems. If YOU are willing to assume all of the
> ablve, both plus and minus, that's great.
I have chosen to run Linux at home for many reasons. One of the
biggest reasons is security when I am doing the 'net thing. Another
reason is the simplicity of setting up a home network. Believe it or
not, but my wife and kids enjoy using Linux, too. I go to Win when I
need to do something for work, or to play a game that does not exist for
Linux--although my gaming time is not what it used to be. I have
actually lost interest in them.
> I prefer to ignore the os and get some work done that conforms to
> accepted standards, meaning what everyone else is using.
Accepted standards? Majority of users of an OS, or software product
does not imply standards. I suggest that you visit comp.language.c++
and see what they have to say about standards to those posting questions
concerning perceived standards. If you cannot get work done with Linux,
then you have no idea how to use a computer. If you do not get upset
that MS keeps changing the so-called "standards", in order to ensure a
perpetual customer base of people that have locked themselves in to the
MS _solution_ then, please, stick to MS. Bill needs your money more
today than ever before.
By the way, I gave my father-in-law a computer two weeks ago. He
needs to learn MS Office and MS Excel. The day after I gave him the
computer, he called to ask me how to close a window, how to see what
files are on the floppy, how to copy the files from the floppy to the
hard drive, and numerous other questions that Winlusers keep insisting
are easy tasks to perform under Win98. The time that I need to spend
with hime teaching him Win98, I could just as easily spend with him
learning Linux.
David
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (david parsons)
Subject: Re: Linux NFS is buggy
Date: 4 May 2000 12:55:09 -0700
In article <8eplar$23s4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Seriously man, if you have very important network type stuff to do and you
>dont want to pay for an operating system, do yourself a favor and use one
>of the many BSDs.
The free BSD's are too slow when serving NFSv2.
____
david parsons \bi/ 650k/sec is bad when you're talking to a streaming tape.
\/
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation'
From: petilon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 13:26:29 -0700
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Now MS seems to have announced it's intention to include
>> biometrics into the Windows API and all sorts of journalists
>> get excited about it.
>
> Which OS has biometrics built in?
>
"Biometrics", my ass. Why don't Microsoft instead work on a
simple operating system that is as easy as a remote control?
Today Windows is extremely hard to use for naive users. For
evidence look in your system tools folder. You will find things
like "DLL Conflict Manager", "Disk defragmenter", etc etc which
even naive users are expected to use to keep their system in
good working order. Other companies such as Tivo have made
file systems that are more suitable for consumer devices, that
never need defragmenting. Why won't Microsoft make real
improvements such as this to the base operating system so that
naive users can use it without even knowing that there is
something called an operating system inside their computer?
The answer is simple: Making real improvements to the operating
system is a risky and costly process. Microsoft doesn't have to
do that anymore because they don't have any competition.
>From Microsoft's perspective Biometrics is a good move because
it is the kind of thing that will generate a *lot* of press,
and will give people the false impression that Microsoft is
making great innovations. And this comes at a time when
Microsoft badly needs to convince US citizens and lawmakers
that they are making innovations that are important to the
future of computing. In reality Microsoft took no risks to
bring you this feature. All the risks were taken by another
company, "I/O Software", and once they succeeded, all Microsoft
had to do is to license it and add it to the OS.
And by the way, based on Microsoft's past behavior, it is easy
to guess that in order to get a highly favorable deal, Microsoft
threatened I/O Software that they will make a competing product
and bundle it with Windows if I/O Software doesn't give them an
attractive deal. Expect I/O Software to go out of business, or
dwindle into non-existence, just like all other companies that
made deals with Microsoft, such as Spyglass, Sybase, SGI, etc.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Virus on the net?
Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 15:48:13 -0500
Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8esgeo$46$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> <snip!>
>
> :> 1) Most Linux e-mail clients aren't dumb enough to run code sent in
> :> e-mail, and there's no "give me all your friend's e-mail addresss"
> :> API either.
>
> : No, but there's a mail aliases list in the users home directory that
could
> : easily be read.
>
> There is? Where? Surely you don't mean .aliases
Oh, of course, you keep all your email aliases in your head.
> :> 2) Linux doesn't run VBS. :)
>
> : No, instead it has sh.
>
> Not having VBS protects Linux against these sorts of email viruses
> that Outlook runs automatically. I know of no email programs that
> execute shell scripts short of actually saving them to disk and
> explicitly running them. It's not VB in particular, but the
> auto-executing of content that's such a killer in this case.
Sorry, but this virus is *NOT* run automatically. It's only run by
executing the script attachment. The user must physicall execute the file.
------------------------------
From: Bart Oldeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Virus on the net?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 20:22:08 GMT
On Thu, 4 May 2000, Martijn Bruns wrote:
> Has anyone heard of a new virus on the net?
>
> It's called 'I Love U'. (or something that sounds like that) and
> it seems to be infecting a LOT of companies around the globe
> right now!
> Also, it seems to infect Windows PC's running Outlook (Express?).
>
> It was on the radio surrounded by a mild case of panic :-)
>
> Does someone know more about it? Could something like this affect
> Linux-machines also?
Of course one could go on and on ranting about Microsoft's lousy default
Outlook (Express) security settings, but I leave that to others and we've
seen it before ;-)
Linux-machines can be affected, but only indirectly, for instance by
- exporting writable samba shares to Windows-machines. ILOVEYOU can
destroy files on those shares
- using wine to execute Outlook (if it works) and set it up in a way that
damage can be done (but I can't imagine anyone being this silly).
Bart
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Virus on the net?
Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 16:01:56 -0500
Bastian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 4 May 2000 13:44:14 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >This particular script couldn't affect a Linux machine. Semantically,
this
> >is no different than sending someone a shell script. The user has to
> >execute the attachment in order for it to function (it doesn't happen by
> >just reading the email). If I sent you a shell script which you executed
> >without looking at it, the same thing could be done in Linux by reading
your
> >mail aliases list.
>
> What alias list do you mean?
depends on what mail program they're using. But common mail programs such
as Elm or Pine have well known and common names for their mail aliases.
> Many Windoze users couldn't read (understand) a VB script, whereas a
> shell script is different. Most Linux users came accross them once or
> twice a day, so they at least have an idea of what it does before they
> execute it.
That's simply a user proficiency question. As Linux becomes more and more
commonplace, this will cease to be the case. Windows only fault in this
case is being common enough for the average user to use.
> And many Linux users are more concerned about security than Windoze
> users are, because most of them (of the Linux users) know how computers
> work. Windoze just hides everything -- from difficult things to important
> security things.
If you know what you are doing, Windows won't hide anything from you. If
you don't know what you're doing in Linux, it seems as if everything is
hidden because you don't know what you're doing.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: X Windows must DIE!!!
Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 16:16:25 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Thu, 04 May 2000 13:17:03 GMT...
...and bytes256 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My point is quite simply put: XWindows does not best meet the needs of
> the average Linux user. It is far more complicated than necessary.
> And then it leaves out important functionality that people want.
> (Standardized controls, High performance, easy installation, etc.)
Please
a) explain why these issues should be addressed by a goddamn windowing
system of all things
b) prove to me that this is not only what people want, but also that
they are willing to accept negative effects of realising it.
mawa
--
Who'd A Thought It, Alabama | Toad Suck, Arkansas | Two Egg,
Eek, Alaska | Turkey Scratch, Arkansas | Florida
Greasy Corner, Arkansas | Zyzx Springs, California |
-- U.S. placenames
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation'
Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 16:08:51 -0500
petilon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Now MS seems to have announced it's intention to include
> >> biometrics into the Windows API and all sorts of journalists
> >> get excited about it.
> >
> > Which OS has biometrics built in?
> >
>
> "Biometrics", my ass. Why don't Microsoft instead work on a
> simple operating system that is as easy as a remote control?
And you don't think they're working on such? Only so many people can work
on any given problem before they start getting in each others way. This was
documented in "The mythical man month"
> Today Windows is extremely hard to use for naive users. For
> evidence look in your system tools folder. You will find things
> like "DLL Conflict Manager", "Disk defragmenter", etc etc which
> even naive users are expected to use to keep their system in
> good working order. Other companies such as Tivo have made
> file systems that are more suitable for consumer devices, that
> never need defragmenting. Why won't Microsoft make real
> improvements such as this to the base operating system so that
> naive users can use it without even knowing that there is
> something called an operating system inside their computer?
Tivo is an application, not a file system.
> The answer is simple: Making real improvements to the operating
> system is a risky and costly process. Microsoft doesn't have to
> do that anymore because they don't have any competition.
Well, it's nice that you have your finger on the industry so well.
Microsoft should hire you, that will solve all their problems.
> From Microsoft's perspective Biometrics is a good move because
> it is the kind of thing that will generate a *lot* of press,
> and will give people the false impression that Microsoft is
> making great innovations. And this comes at a time when
> Microsoft badly needs to convince US citizens and lawmakers
> that they are making innovations that are important to the
> future of computing. In reality Microsoft took no risks to
> bring you this feature. All the risks were taken by another
> company, "I/O Software", and once they succeeded, all Microsoft
> had to do is to license it and add it to the OS.
You make it sound like a simple process. Let's see you do it to Linux.
> And by the way, based on Microsoft's past behavior, it is easy
> to guess that in order to get a highly favorable deal, Microsoft
> threatened I/O Software that they will make a competing product
> and bundle it with Windows if I/O Software doesn't give them an
> attractive deal. Expect I/O Software to go out of business, or
> dwindle into non-existence, just like all other companies that
> made deals with Microsoft, such as Spyglass, Sybase, SGI, etc.
And your proof that Microsoft did this to Spyglass, Sybase, and SGI are
what?
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Virus on the net?
Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 23:08:37 +0200
Bastian wrote:
> On Thu, 4 May 2000 13:44:14 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >This particular script couldn't affect a Linux machine. Semantically, this
> >is no different than sending someone a shell script. The user has to
> >execute the attachment in order for it to function (it doesn't happen by
> >just reading the email). If I sent you a shell script which you executed
> >without looking at it, the same thing could be done in Linux by reading your
> >mail aliases list.
>
> What alias list do you mean?
> Many Windoze users couldn't read (understand) a VB script, whereas a
> shell script is different. Most Linux users came accross them once or
> twice a day, so they at least have an idea of what it does before they
> execute it.
Hmm.. i was hit by it but didnt execute the script. I had a look at the
script and even not being to strong on Visual Basic it is easy to
understand that this was a "bad program"
> And many Linux users are more concerned about security than Windoze
> users are, because most of them (of the Linux users) know how computers
> work. Windoze just hides everything -- from difficult things to important
> security things.
Correct
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
