Linux-Advocacy Digest #378, Volume #26 Fri, 5 May 00 16:13:09 EDT
Contents:
Re: Virus on the net? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (abraxas)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (abraxas)
Re: apache.org defaced (abraxas)
Re: X Windows must DIE!!! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (abraxas)
Re: Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: which OS is best? (Mike Marion)
Re: Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! ("Nik Simpson")
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (M. Buchenrieder)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (Mig Mig)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (Seán Ó Donnchadha)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Virus on the net?
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 18:58:53 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
> On Fri, 05 May 2000 16:51:26 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In article <mJpQ4.4498$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >> Auto-executing content is part of what makes windows user friendly,
> >> and Linux will have to do this if it ever wants to play in the same
> >> game as Windows. That's simply a fact. Users won't put up with it
> >> when they have an OS which will do that for them.
> >
> >Sun's sendmail used to be configured to automatically uudecode email
> >for its users. That's one of the reasons sendmail has such a bad
>
> It't not the binary decode that's a problem. An unexecuted
> virus or trojan is still moot. It's EXECUTING that 'virus'
> that's the problem.
>
> >security rep. A few more virus's and I suspect MS will be as
> >user-unfriendly as unix.
> [deletia]
>
Where's a sendmail book when I need one... as I recall, sendmail
automatically launched a shell and uudecode pipe to accomplish the
magic and that had unfortunate consequences. That was back in the
good ol' days before smrsh when internet players were trusted and
unix could (and still can) do all kinds of automatic things.
Unfortunately, 1988 changed all that. My point is that unix *is*
capable of most of the whiz-bang stuff that MS can do and a lot
more, it's just that most unix admins learned a long time ago that
it probably ain't such a good idea over the internet... as MS is
slowly learning.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: 5 May 2000 19:12:04 GMT
>>>
>>> You are right MLW, what you've just said is Bullshit. This virus type could
>>> be written to work just as well in UNIX if attachments can be executed from
>>> email, is that not possible with Netscape on LINUX?
>>
>>Then do it. I'll happily test it for you on:
>>
>>Mandrake linux 7.0
>>Redhat 6.2
>>SuSe 6.3
>>
>>I'll happily check my email apon notification that its been sent with:
>>
>>Netscape
>>Balsa
>>pine
>>elm
>>mutt
>>
>>You write it, ill run it. I shall give you no clues at all about how any of
>>the three systems are set up---that should be utterly irrelevant. (since
>>it is under windows apparantly).
>>
> If I send you an email with an attached "rm -rf $HOME/*" script and
> you run it, your files will be deleted.
No, they wont. Not the important ones at least.
Can you guess why?
> If I send you an email with an attached "rm -rf /*" script and you run
> it, most of your system will be deleted if you're the superuser (which
> all Win9x users effectively are).
Right, I dont run anything I dont have to as superuser on any linux or unix
system, with the exception of Openstep.
> In any case, blaming Outlook, VBScript, or WSH is idiotic. Actually,
> it's the very essence of FUD, and as such it's misleading and
> destructive.
I choose to blame microsoft for systematically dumbing down the computer
using public with their point and drool bullshit.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 05:27:36 +1000
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ev6e4$90j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > If I send you an email with an attached "rm -rf $HOME/*" script and
> > you run it, your files will be deleted.
>
> No, they wont. Not the important ones at least.
Most people I know consider their 1,000 page thesis a lot more important
than a few shared libraries, binaries and a kernel. All of the latter can
be reinstalled.
> Can you guess why?
>
> > If I send you an email with an attached "rm -rf /*" script and you run
> > it, most of your system will be deleted if you're the superuser (which
> > all Win9x users effectively are).
>
> Right, I dont run anything I dont have to as superuser on any linux or
unix
> system, with the exception of Openstep.
Pity about all the unix novices at home running as root. Don't kid yourself
there aren't a lot of them.
>
> > In any case, blaming Outlook, VBScript, or WSH is idiotic. Actually,
> > it's the very essence of FUD, and as such it's misleading and
> > destructive.
>
> I choose to blame microsoft for systematically dumbing down the computer
> using public with their point and drool bullshit.
I suppose you blame the Japanese for making cheap, efficient, reliable and
good looking cars commonplace, as well ?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: 5 May 2000 19:26:47 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8ev0b0$10dc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >You are right MLW, what you've just said is Bullshit. This virus type
> could
>> >be written to work just as well in UNIX if attachments can be executed
> from
>> >email, is that not possible with Netscape on LINUX?
>>
>> If you detach it, make it executable, and execute it, of course the
>> same thing would happen. It is the concept of automatically executing
>> something from an insecure source like email by just opening it
>> that is insane.
> I agree. But let's repeat it again. YOU DO NOT GET THIS VIRUS SIMPLY BY
> READING THE EMAIL. YOU *MUST* EXECUTE THE ATTACHMENT IN ORDER TO INFECT
> YOUR SYSTEM.
Not this particular virus.
Active
X
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: apache.org defaced
Date: 5 May 2000 19:28:37 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Drestin Black wrote:
>>
>> http://www.attrition.org/mirror/attrition/2000/05/03/www.apache.org/
>>
>> say... what's that at the bottom of the page?!
> considering that NT/IIS accounts for about 20% of web servers,
> and
> about - consistently - over 60% of the defacements, I don't think
> you are really going to get anywhere with this. Put your tail
> back between your legs and go back to c.o.m.n.a.
No kidding. This is a pissing in the wind of the giant fall that
microsoft is currently taking.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: X Windows must DIE!!!
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 19:30:27 GMT
On Fri, 05 May 2000 14:40:36 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 05 May 2000 14:29:14 GMT, bytes256 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> 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
>> >> --
>>
>> Flexibility? X has always been more flexible.
>> Features? X has always had more features.
>> 3D? Nope, X beat Windows on that as well.
>> Speed? Nope, X implementations have always been
>> able to keep up with Windows on the same
>> hardware. Today, even the FREE X implementation
>> can.
>>
>> >but let's face it's not perfect (no present OS is).
>> >Is it such a bad thing to completely overhaul a dinosaur?
>>
>
>I just recently started using Linux on my home PC after using Win98 for quite some
>time. I now use both and they each get their own hard-drive. My initial reaction
>to Linux is this:
>1) Xwindows has a different look and feel about it (but what do I expect? It is
>a different OS)
>2) The action with my mouse is slower but not that big of deal.
This is adjustable just like it is in Windows. There are even
shiny happy gui tools to do this with in Linux.
>3) Linux does not appear to like my monitor. Windows has no problems with it.
>When using Linux 1/3 of my monitor is fuzzy. I have tried everything short of
>another monitor or video component. But Linux definently losses this comparison.
That's a new complaint. I've seen various Unixen and WinDOS versions
running on a wide cross section of monitors as have my colleagues and
this is not something I've seen or heard complaints of.
This includes from low cost low scanrate 14" monitors as well as
better brand name high scanrate 19" and 21" monitors
>I should not have to change any hardware or edit mode-lines, period.
You can tweak quite a bit without even getting into mode lines.
Mode line tweaking is more appropriate for things that WinDOS is
simply incapable of doing.
>3) Linux does not play with hardware near as good as, at least, MSWindows does.
>Case in point, even though I am successfully using the same hardware with Linux,
>it was not without a fight. I had MINOR struggles with EVERYTHING. I capitalize
That's funny. One of my primariy motivations for starting to use
Linux was because Win9x didn't like my particular monitor that much
and wasn't very adept at letting me fully exploit it without knowing
what brand it is.
>those two words because one is positive and the other negative. Only MINOR
>problems, which is good, it shows Linux is improving in those areas, but
>EVERYTHING required extensive reading and trial and error. Not very good for the
>masses to flock to this OS.
That, quite simply is BULLSHIT.
Everything doesn't even require reading under a vintage copy
of Slackware (that distro which drew me away from Win95 originally).
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: 5 May 2000 19:35:55 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8ev6e4$90j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> > If I send you an email with an attached "rm -rf $HOME/*" script and
>> > you run it, your files will be deleted.
>>
>> No, they wont. Not the important ones at least.
> Most people I know consider their 1,000 page thesis a lot more important
> than a few shared libraries, binaries and a kernel. All of the latter can
> be reinstalled.
If I kept a 1000 page thesis on my linux box, it also wouldnt be able to be
deleted by am 'rm'. You see, linux is unix-like. And unix has alot of
very useful features that some people conveniently forget about. One of
these nifty features is 'file and directory attributes' which can be
altered with the 'chattr' command.
Though admittedly somewhat more effective under UFS, chattr is still very
usable under linux. a 'i' attribute on a file or directory will prevent it
from being deleted by ANY action.
>> Can you guess why?
>>
>> > If I send you an email with an attached "rm -rf /*" script and you run
>> > it, most of your system will be deleted if you're the superuser (which
>> > all Win9x users effectively are).
>>
>> Right, I dont run anything I dont have to as superuser on any linux or
> unix
>> system, with the exception of Openstep.
> Pity about all the unix novices at home running as root. Don't kid yourself
> there aren't a lot of them.
If there are unix novices at home running things as root in the face of
the half a dozen times theyve seen 'only use root when you really really need
to warnings' that you have to go through to even get a working system....
Then they deserve it. Yay darwin.
>>
>> > In any case, blaming Outlook, VBScript, or WSH is idiotic. Actually,
>> > it's the very essence of FUD, and as such it's misleading and
>> > destructive.
>>
>> I choose to blame microsoft for systematically dumbing down the computer
>> using public with their point and drool bullshit.
> I suppose you blame the Japanese for making cheap, efficient, reliable and
> good looking cars commonplace, as well ?
Yes, yes I do. God knows americans were never capable of such a thing. :)
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.fan.bill-gates
Subject: Re: Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!!
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 19:33:35 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Captain Lethargy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> . . . . and the ignorance of the typical winuser
> is obvious if your dumb enough to open a suspicous email
> from someone you dont know.
Actually, in this case, many times the mail came from people
you _do_ know (even if they happen to be be as "trusted" or
at least as careful as you might have hoped). By snagging
your address book, it sends to lots of people you know well.
So the takehome lesso: Don't assume any mail is from a
person you know, and treat _all_ attachments with suspicion.
FWIW, the habit of truncating display of lang file names allows
a rather nasty ploy of using a file name such as
"howdy.jpg .exe"
to allay suspicion.
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
[snip]
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 19:44:33 GMT
On Sat, 6 May 2000 05:27:36 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8ev6e4$90j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[deletia]
>> > all Win9x users effectively are).
>>
>> Right, I dont run anything I dont have to as superuser on any linux or
>unix
>> system, with the exception of Openstep.
>
>Pity about all the unix novices at home running as root. Don't kid yourself
>there aren't a lot of them.
...can't say they weren't warned.
GNOME itself will give you grief any time you logon as root.
>
>>
>> > In any case, blaming Outlook, VBScript, or WSH is idiotic. Actually,
>> > it's the very essence of FUD, and as such it's misleading and
>> > destructive.
>>
>> I choose to blame microsoft for systematically dumbing down the computer
>> using public with their point and drool bullshit.
>
>I suppose you blame the Japanese for making cheap, efficient, reliable and
>good looking cars commonplace, as well ?
No, the Japanese actually make product that works and doesn't
self-destruct by design. Furthermore, all auto makers are
regulated with respect to safety issue.
VERY flawed comparison.
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 19:47:37 GMT
craig wrote:
> I've been through domain name changes with MSX many times - just export your
> user lists to a CSV, import into spreadsheet, add the new address via search
> and replace, and import the updates.Shouldn't take more than an hour or
> so!!!
So you need another large app installed just to make some simple changes? The
fact that you have to export and then import is pretty lame. You can get to
simple data like this on a unix box with a text editor.
Whereas on the *nix box, you can do the same thing in less time using the shell
itself (it's scripting language) and things like sed or awk... which come with
every unix nowadays.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
"I am Beavis of Borg. Resistance, like uh... sucks <heh heh-heh-heh>!"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.fan.bill-gates
Subject: Re: Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!!
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 19:38:26 GMT
In article <8ett8e$qt9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich) wrote:
> In article <9bqQ4.4508$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Trust me, if Linux had 90% of the market share, it too would have
> >viruses like this one. This particular virus does not require any
> >special priveleges and takes advantage of no security holes. It's
> >a simple trojan worm that could be written for any OS, including
> >Linux/Unix. ...
>
> ROTFL!!!
>
> This virus takes advantage of e-mailers that automatically
> execute appropriate attachments; I've never heard of any e-mailer
> for any OS other than Windows that does this.
>
> Has there ever been a Unix/Linux one that automatically
> executes attached Unix shell scripts?
The Solaris OpenWindows mailtool allows you to double-click
attachments and execute them. But it tells you that it's
an executable, and asks if you really want to do this.
> And I know of no MacOS one that automatically executes
> attached AppleScripts.
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 15:57:23 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8ev58u$gmd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <n0zQ4.3$dv6.148@client>,
> "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Yes, Unix machines can have mail programs that allow attachments
> to be opened, or executed (FWIW, my Solaris mailtool will
> open attachments using the apppropriate program if I click
> on them). However, the environment that this is done in can
> be controlled, and process permissions can be limited so that
> they are not allowed to access system files, or wreak other
> havoc such as the "ILOVEYOU" one did.
>
> Because Windoze has no concept of security, however, there
> is really no way to limit what such executables do in the
> Micro$ux environment.
>
True for Win95/98, but in case you missed it, this discussion is taking
place in
comp.os.linux.advocacy
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
So we are talking about NT which is also just as "immune" as UNIX in this
case. Either OS requires the user to execute the application through some
mechanism and then the application will ber limited to whatever permissions
that user has. I'll be the first to admit that w9x sucks from a security
perspective which is why I don't run it on anything I own and dont recommend
that anybody else does.
--
Nik Simpson
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 06:04:49 +1000
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ev7qr$90j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8ev6e4$90j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> > If I send you an email with an attached "rm -rf $HOME/*" script and
> >> > you run it, your files will be deleted.
> >>
> >> No, they wont. Not the important ones at least.
>
> > Most people I know consider their 1,000 page thesis a lot more important
> > than a few shared libraries, binaries and a kernel. All of the latter
can
> > be reinstalled.
>
> If I kept a 1000 page thesis on my linux box, it also wouldnt be able to
be
> deleted by am 'rm'. You see, linux is unix-like. And unix has alot of
> very useful features that some people conveniently forget about. One of
> these nifty features is 'file and directory attributes' which can be
> altered with the 'chattr' command.
>
> Though admittedly somewhat more effective under UFS, chattr is still very
> usable under linux. a 'i' attribute on a file or directory will prevent
it
> from being deleted by ANY action.
Presumably you can write to the file ? What's to stop something writing 0's
all over the first 500kb ?
Naturally, one can do the exact same thing under NT.
> >> Can you guess why?
> >>
> >> > If I send you an email with an attached "rm -rf /*" script and you
run
> >> > it, most of your system will be deleted if you're the superuser
(which
> >> > all Win9x users effectively are).
> >>
> >> Right, I dont run anything I dont have to as superuser on any linux or
> > unix
> >> system, with the exception of Openstep.
>
> > Pity about all the unix novices at home running as root. Don't kid
yourself
> > there aren't a lot of them.
>
> If there are unix novices at home running things as root in the face of
> the half a dozen times theyve seen 'only use root when you really really
need
> to warnings' that you have to go through to even get a working system....
>
> Then they deserve it. Yay darwin.
Ditto for people who run attachments they don't know about in face of the
dozens of times they're told not to.
So, what's your point ?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (M. Buchenrieder)
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 13:21:40 GMT
"Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
>You are right MLW, what you've just said is Bullshit.
Well, this is an .advocacy thread, so what do you expect ?? :)
>This virus type could
>be written to work just as well in UNIX if attachments can be executed from
>email, is that not possible with Netscape on LINUX?
Possible, yes. Probable, no.
a) There aren't that many possible attachments that could do such
damage, due to the UN*X way of handling things one-at-a-time.
For example, most UN*X newsreaders or email clients are just
that - clients for reading email or news, and not OE-similar
bloated programs that think to be knowing better than the actual
user of what's needed next. Yes, there is Netscape, which sucks.
Real newsreaders or email programs, however, don't need the
useless overhead of these binaries, and will therefor just do
what the user tells them to do - and nothing more.
b) Even if a user was foolish enough to execute a binary from outta
there, it would just hurt the user, not the whole system;
c) UN*X attachments are rather rare :)
So, while it is certainly possible to shoot yourself in the foot
using either UN*X or MS products, MS makes this the default solution...
Michael
--
Michael Buchenrieder * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.muc.de/~mibu
Lumber Cartel Unit #456 (TINLC) & Official Netscum
Note: If you want me to send you email, don't munge your address.
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 22:08:13 +0200
> So we are talking about NT which is also just as "immune" as UNIX in this
> case. Either OS requires the user to execute the application through some
> mechanism and then the application will ber limited to whatever permissions
> that user has. I'll be the first to admit that w9x sucks from a security
> perspective which is why I don't run it on anything I own and dont recommend
> that anybody else does.
Bahhh.. the guy that started the "infection" at my workplace used NT and
there where no mechanisms that prevented it spreading.
------------------------------
From: Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 16:07:22 -0400
On 5 May 2000 19:12:04 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
>>
>> If I send you an email with an attached "rm -rf $HOME/*" script and
>> you run it, your files will be deleted.
>
>No, they wont. Not the important ones at least.
>
>Can you guess why?
>
Why, because you run your mailer in a special user account? Well gee,
I can do that in Win2K as well. But that's irrelevant. Admin guru
tricks are meaningless in the real world.
>>
>> If I send you an email with an attached "rm -rf /*" script and you run
>> it, most of your system will be deleted if you're the superuser (which
>> all Win9x users effectively are).
>
>Right, I dont run anything I dont have to as superuser on any linux or unix
>system, with the exception of Openstep.
>
And I don't launch unknown email attachments. What's your point?
>>
>> In any case, blaming Outlook, VBScript, or WSH is idiotic. Actually,
>> it's the very essence of FUD, and as such it's misleading and
>> destructive.
>
>I choose to blame microsoft for systematically dumbing down the computer
>using public with their point and drool bullshit.
>
Uh, wasn't it Apple and/or Xerox who did that? Or do they deserve the
credit only when we're discussing the good things about GUIs?
By the way, I choose to blame Linus for repopularizing Unix and
forcing the computer using public to deal with its grep and fsck
bullshit.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
