Linux-Advocacy Digest #380, Volume #26 Fri, 5 May 00 17:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: X Windows must DIE!!! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (Brian Langenberger)
Re: Virus on the net? (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: Virus on the net? (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!! (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (Brian Langenberger)
Re: X Windows must DIE!!! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (JEDIDIAH)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: X Windows must DIE!!! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (JEDIDIAH)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: X Windows must DIE!!!
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 20:49:55 GMT
On Fri, 05 May 2000 16:11:06 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>--------------E9326AF2E05DF41806591DAA
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>> >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.
>
> Can you fill me in as to where I might find this happy gui?? Are you
>talking
>about Linuxconfig?
KDE and GNOME both have applets for this sort of thing. There are
also separate gui tools that address the functionality of "xset"
in a more user friendly manner.
You should trip over these if you bother to look.
>
>>
>> >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.
>>
>
> Ok.
>
>>
>> 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.
>
>Well, this is obviously something that Linux is incapable of doing. I use the virtual
What is?
If you don't like what is provided by the system in terms of canned
configurations under Windows: you're pretty much stuck. In XFree,
there are more flexible (but difficult) options you can try.
Although, even this route comes with a few gui tools of it's own.
>monitor arrangement. I like being able to pan back and forth, up and down. When
>panning,
>the image moves in increments or steps. There is a particular spot where the
>fuzziness
This is another attribute X setting that can be altered by the
user or an application.
>clears up (not completely, though). This effidently has nothing to do with refresh
>rates as
>I have tried all of them (within reason) and because 2/3 of the monitor is crystal
>clear.
This is a fairly strange sort of behaivor for video hardware in
any OS.
>
>>
>> >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.
>
>Well, my problem is just the opposite. I figure it is simply some quirky thing about
>my
>monitor that Linux is incapable of handling. Maybe it is a WinMonitor :-)
...or a boundary condition of the hardware that is not readily
apparent in another OS. OS/2 also has this problem (as do any
of the Unixen) when it comes to physical memory.
The particular card or driver could be crap. No way to tell without
any identification of the offending parts.
This is not the first combination of 486 hardware that's ever
been thrown at Linux.
>
>>
>>
>> >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).
>
>What is BULLSHIT? Everyone ... everyone I have talked to has had to do more
>repetitions, do
>more reading and having to spend more time installing and configuring Linux as
>compared to
>Windows. Everyone.
Whereas I've encountered quite a few people that didn't have to do
much of any reading. Some were actually shocked by the ease of use
of some of the distros. Hell, I was a little surprised when Bughat
5.x started autodetecting hardware.
Plus, if you don't need to interop with WinDOS there are single button
installs.
>
>I am not knocking Linux. I think it is a super system. All I am saying is that if
>the OS is
>to compete with Windows, it needs to improve its reputation (I hear RedHat 6.2 is
>much more
>installation friendly).
Reputation is subject to FUD.
How well it does on a doorstop is hardly a convincing example.
My 486 doorstop was MURDER under Win9x. That's why I defected.
Even Slackware ended up being less trouble. Although, I did
bother to avoid the known notorious bits of hardware of the day.
>
>There are many, many good and useful applications out there that are NOT written to
>run on
>Linux. This alone can turn people away. Why would anyone sacrifice a shit load of
...or Solaris, or BeOS, or MacOS, or Win98/NT if you aren't lucky.
Meanwhile there are useful applications written for all of those
operating systems. Some of those even come with emulation enviroments
to deal with foreign applications one might want to run (vmware, vpc,
sheepshaver, merge).
>functionality and capibility to save themselves from having to reboot less frequently
>which
>at this time I see as the only advantage Linux has over Windows(for the Desktop PC).
>As a
>server that's a different story. But the masses are not system admins.
>
>Another thing, what can make Linux even more confusing to the average home user?? SIX
>DIFFERENT LINUX's!!!! Whats up with all the distributions?? That to me is
>ridiculous and
Just pick one and use it.
That's what 'poor ignorant' consumers do for anything else.
>will soley keep Linux out of the running for a decent market share in the OS
>industry. Way
>too confusing!
>
>Also, I am deathly afraid of upgrading my RedHat 6.0 to 6.2 for fear of losing much
>information and for the time and effort that will have to go into it. I also
...sounds like a Win 3.1 to Win 95 install, or a Win 95 to Win98
install. This would be a compelling criticism of Linux (if true)
if you were comparing it to BeOS or MacOS.
It's a feeble remark in comparison to WinDOS.
do not know of
>a way to backup the entire system. It is no problem backing up Windows. There are
>many
>utilities writtten to do it. Are there any with Linux? Microsoft makes it as
>painless as
Yeah, right. That was another thing that annoyed me about Windows.
Wanna back up everything on Unix? Just copy the damn files somewhere.
Buy a commercial utility if you can't handle tar or a cd burner.
[deletia]
Partition things right & backup /etc and you can just plain blow
the OS away and reinstall it with little if any impact.
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: 5 May 2000 15:47:22 -0500
In article <XTCQ4.375$dv6.923@client>,
Nik Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Sure, but it would only affect the users files, not the entire computer.
>
>Same goes for NT.
But, if every user opens the attachment and wipes out his own
files locally and on the servers, there still won't be much left.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: 5 May 2000 20:56:34 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Brian Langenberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: news:8evbfp$dec$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> : On 5 May 2000 19:35:55 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
:>
:> :>
:> :>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.
:> :>
:>
:> : Wow, kinda like the MS-DOS read-only attribute. What an innovation for
:> : Linux! By the way, what would prevent a script from using chattr to
:> : remove the 'i' attribute before blowing away the file?
:>
:> Only the superuser can set or remove the 'i' attribute.
:> And only a fool reads his mail as root. Thus, the script is
:> out of luck. Still, files so important should be backed up
:> on a regular basis.
: So your solution is that every user who has important files they're working
: on has them set +i and harasses root whenever they want to make some changes
: ?
That's what "sudo" is for. But how convenient the process of securing
files is was not the original issue. If you have a more convenient
method of securing files from deletion I'd love to hear it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Subject: Re: Virus on the net?
Date: 5 May 2000 15:50:59 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> The virus also overwrote .css, .html, .jpg and other files, under
>> linux, only your files would be affected, under W9X, all were
>> affected.
>
>only jpeg, jpg, mp3 and mp2 files. not html or css. typically these files
>will be writeable to the user anyways.
I wonder what these lines in the .vbs attachment do...
| elseif(ext="js") or (ext="jse") or (ext="css") or (ext="wsh") or
| (ext="sct") or (ext="hta") then
| set ap=fso.OpenTextFile(f1.path,2,true)
| ap.write vbscopy
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP 0x07606049 GPG 0xD61A655D
God is real, unless declared integer.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Subject: Re: Virus on the net?
Date: 5 May 2000 20:33:04 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >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.
>>
>> I beg to disagree. You will have to know how to read the rc files of all
>> mail clients (pine, mutt, elm, ...), both systemwide and userspecific.
>> Especially the systemwide rc file is very dependent on the compiletime
>> parameters, so it's far from standard. Then you have to extract the info
>> on the name of the aliases file and also know how to extract the
>> address. I think it would be a lot easier to grep all files in a user's
>> homedir for an email-like regexp.
>
>Really, and here i've been lead to believe by all those Unix enthusiests
>that piped command lines are easier than GUI's.
Once again you're twisting words to suit your own point. I never made a
reference to how hard or easy it is to write such a virus. I made
references to your ignorance that email clients like elm or pine have
common and well known filenames for mail aliases.
Still I'd like to make clear that your statement above is false. At
least one Unix enthousiast (/me) will not say that CLI solutions are
easier than GUI's. I will say this:
- Using a CLI is not difficult
- Using a GUI is not intuitive
- A CLI is extremely powerful for certain tasks (like process
automations) and very lousy for others (like 3D image manipulation).
- A CLI pipeline is magnitudes more /flexible/ than a GUI for about any
administrative task I can think of.
Good enough for you?
>How difficult is it to use perl or grep and awk? Not very. And just about
>as easy as the code below.
>
>I love this. Unix users crow on and on about how powerful and easy
>scripting and command lines are until a possible exploit is found and then
>suddenly it's too difficult and impossible to do something.
Powerful and easy? Hell, yes. At least I don't think it's rocket
science. Easier than a GUI? That would depend on the task at hand.
Easier than a GUI for Joe Sixpack? Hell, no.
>> In any case, it is far more difficult than the way ILOVEYOU does this:
And if you once again fail to read correctly, the phrase "more
difficult" here compares the way LOVE-LETTER-FOR-YOU.TXT.vbs retrieves
the info to the way you suggested (well known and common names etc.)
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP 0x07606049 GPG 0xD61A655D
"The POP3 server service depends on the SMTP server service, which
failed to start because of the following error:
The operation completed successfully." -- Windows NT Server v3.51
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.fan.bill-gates,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!!
Date: 5 May 2000 20:49:47 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I've see a number of people who have been warned many times about
>opening unknown e-mail attachments and still do it. Those people are
>simply stupid and deserve whatever fate IamAvirus.vbs sends their way.
>If they get burnt maybe they'll stop putting their hands in the fire.
I only partially agree here. The bad thing about it is that it creates a
shitload of network bandwith which is also a burden to users that are
less stupid. I will not help them crying over all their lost MP3s,
though.
That said, I wonder what happens when you double-click on the attachment
using other MUAs (like Pegasus). I understand that it won't resend
itself, but I wonder if it will still overwrite .mp3's, .jpg's, .css's
and the registry? Is there an association between the .vbs extension and
WSH?
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP 0x07606049 GPG 0xD61A655D
To err is human, to forgive is against company policy.
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: 5 May 2000 21:00:50 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Brian Langenberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: news:8evbb5$dec$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>
:> <snip>
:>
:> :> Though admittedly somewhat more effective under UFS, chattr is still
: very
:> :> usable under linux. a 'i' attribute on a file or directory will
: prevent
:> : it
:> :> from being deleted by ANY action.
:>
:> : Presumably you can write to the file ? What's to stop something writing
: 0's
:> : all over the first 500kb ?
:>
:> : Naturally, one can do the exact same thing under NT.
:>
:> (from "man chattr")
:>
:> A file with the `i' attribute cannot be modified: it can
:> not be deleted or renamed, no link can be created to this
:> file and no data can be written to the file. Only the
:> superuser can set or clear this attribute.
:>
:> So writing to it wouldn't work either. A handy, if not entirely
:> standard, way of keeping data secure. Though 1000 page theses
:> really should be backed up to CDR on a regular basis while
:> changes are still underway.
: So how are you supposed to work on your thesis if you can't modify it ?
: Harass root whenever you want to add a reference or write a paragraph ?
: Yeah, *real* practical solution, that.
: DOS has something like this as well.
Not really. DOS' solution is more akin to chmod because the user
(the *only* user) can always change the flag back.
Whether or not its convenient is irrelevent. Until the flag is
unset, the file can't be overwritten.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: X Windows must DIE!!!
Date: 5 May 2000 15:58:28 -0500
In article <8eulr6$u97$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
bytes256 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I think i've finally realized why criticism of X really pisses you
>zealots off.
Because it is usually wrong?
>X is the one area where WinBLOZE beats Linux and UN*X in
>general.
No, X is better in general - it just lacks a few specific
things. And video card vendors have spent years optimizing
them for Windows benchmarks - a situation that could
turn around quickly.
>Granted, i absolutely adore Linux (I USE IT WHENEVER I CAN!)
>but let's face it's not perfect (no present OS is).
>Is it such a bad thing to completely overhaul a dinosaur?
>(I could be wrong about this but) Surely this wouldn't be the first
>time that an integral part of the UNIX architecture was replaced with
>something superior. Reliable signals, for instance.
X doesn't have much to do with unix.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 21:01:21 GMT
On Fri, 5 May 2000 13:29:38 -0700, Bob May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>But what do you do when somebody sends you an Excel worksheet and you
>are on an earlier version of Excel? You are flat out not able to read
>the format, much less read it with Works, another microcrud product!
You install Star Office...
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 07:09:29 +1000
"Brian Langenberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8evci2$dkj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : So your solution is that every user who has important files they're
working
> : on has them set +i and harasses root whenever they want to make some
changes
> : ?
>
> That's what "sudo" is for. But how convenient the process of securing
> files is was not the original issue. If you have a more convenient
> method of securing files from deletion I'd love to hear it.
>
>From *deletion* ? ACLs in NT will do exactly that - allow writes but not
deletion.
The whole point here is that Unix is no more inherently resistant than NT,
and people who run scripts or programs which they know nothing about are
equally vulnerable on both platforms.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 21:04:38 GMT
On Sat, 6 May 2000 06:42:26 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Mig Mig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8ev9rd$c0q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> > On Sat, 6 May 2000 05:27:36 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>
>> > >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.
>>
>> Sure they do.... they selfdestruct after 5-6 years. Compare the lifetimes
>> of a Japanese car to a Swedish or say a German car .. (Well yanks cant
>> build cars either)
>
>Japanese cars last at least as long as their Euro counterparts. At least
>they do here in .au, and we have terrible driving conditions.
Isn't Australia one big dessert?
Dessicated cars seem to last longer here in the States.
[deletia]
Although, I had an uncle that managed to get 300K miles out
of a Toyota Truck. However, that's less of a consumer
oriented vehicle...
...then again, I think he's the sort that would
certainly buy American if quality was on par.
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: X Windows must DIE!!!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 21:06:44 GMT
bytes256 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>I think i've finally realized why criticism of X really pisses you
>zealots off. X is the one area where WinBLOZE beats Linux and UN*X in
>general. Granted, i absolutely adore Linux (I USE IT WHENEVER I CAN!)
>but let's face it's not perfect (no present OS is).
I agree with you on one point --- X isn't perfect. However, we seem to reach
this conclusion from vastly different directions.
You say "X is more complicated than necessary, and what MS-Windows provides
is closer to what one needs".
I see X's failings in exactly the opposite --- it isn't quite "complicated"
enough. It is missing features I'd love from my windowing system:
* Resolution abstraction --- I'd much rather have my apps deal with vectors
and relative coordinates than with pixels. I'd love to be able to zoom
into and out of my screen, without the apps even noticing, or at least
without them having to do anything special. Display Postscript and systems
building on it (like News and NeXT) provide that.
* Bit depth abstraction --- why should an app have to care about the actual
bit depth and/or organisation of the gfx memory? Apple's QuickDraw does
a nice job at this. Of course, the information should be *available*, but
dealing with it shouldn't be *necessary*.
* Seamless multi-monitor support, much like Apple provides it --- but of
course not limiting the monitors to those physically attached to one
machine, but rather network transparent. QNX's Photon system is supposed
to provide this; Haven't seen it myself yet.
* Integrated sound support --- the X server is supposed to handle the I/O
for its clients. These days, sound is an essential form of output.
Of course, this would require a bit of decent planning and some options
as to the client/server load distribution (probably don't want to send
raw audio over the network, but then again, should an X server contain
an MP3 decoder..... that sort of thing).
Note that the last three points could probably be handled by a well-written
proxy server; Display Ghostscript is central to GnuStep; I haven't seen
any apps using it yet, but there is hope for the first point, too. And it
all would be based on X ;-)
Bernie
--
I never vote. It only encourages them
Elderly American lady quoted by comedian Jack Parr
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 21:06:45 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) writes:
>On Thu, 04 May 2000 13:40:58 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>I also didn't get a "network neighbourhood", or anything else related to
>>sharing resources. I'd love to know why (and would love even more to know
>>how to overcome the problem), but quite frankly, I am stumped.
> 98 really seems to flake out at times. If it were only the Linux
> clients that dissappear I might be inclined to think that we are
> seeing samba bugs here. However, '95 and '98 can manage to stop
> seeing themselves as well...
I wouldn't say it "flaked out". It simply neglected to install a number
of components.
When I say "I don't have a network neighbourhood", I mean that there isn't
even an icon to click on to make it look for other computers.
>>Oh, the problem isn't on the Samba side. I have set up several machines
>>to share my resources. But this machine doesn't have anything on it that
>>would allow me to even start. No idea *why*, though.
> Mebbe some of these Windows show-offs can shed some light on these
> Win9x <-> Win9x type smb connectivity issues...
Uhm, no, not Win9x <-> Win9x problems. It's an installation problem.
I am confident that it *would* actually discover my Samba machines, if
I could only make it look. But I can't make it look in the first place.
The PS/2 Model85 on the same network can see them, after all, and does
quite nicely (albeit a bit slowly --- it is, after all, a 486DX2/66).
Bernie
--
Everyone is quick to blame the alien
Aeschylus
Greek tragedian, 525-456BC
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 21:06:24 GMT
On Sat, 6 May 2000 06:54:19 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Brian Langenberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8evbb5$dec$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> :> Though admittedly somewhat more effective under UFS, chattr is still
>very
>> :> usable under linux. a 'i' attribute on a file or directory will
>prevent
>> : it
>> :> from being deleted by ANY action.
>>
>> : Presumably you can write to the file ? What's to stop something writing
>0's
>> : all over the first 500kb ?
>>
>> : Naturally, one can do the exact same thing under NT.
>>
>> (from "man chattr")
>>
>> A file with the `i' attribute cannot be modified: it can
>> not be deleted or renamed, no link can be created to this
>> file and no data can be written to the file. Only the
>> superuser can set or clear this attribute.
>>
>> So writing to it wouldn't work either. A handy, if not entirely
>> standard, way of keeping data secure. Though 1000 page theses
>> really should be backed up to CDR on a regular basis while
>> changes are still underway.
>
>So how are you supposed to work on your thesis if you can't modify it ?
>Harass root whenever you want to add a reference or write a paragraph ?
>
>Yeah, *real* practical solution, that.
That's likely why his posted ended with the suggestion of
repeatedly backing up to some read only medium...
>
>DOS has something like this as well.
Probably took it from Unix.
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 21:07:50 GMT
On 5 May 2000 15:47:22 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <XTCQ4.375$dv6.923@client>,
>Nik Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> Sure, but it would only affect the users files, not the entire computer.
>>
>>Same goes for NT.
>
>But, if every user opens the attachment and wipes out his own
>files locally and on the servers, there still won't be much left.
Better sandboxes need to be built if random executables are
to be allowed in any way shape or form...
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
