Linux-Advocacy Digest #388, Volume #26 Sat, 6 May 00 03:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Virus on the net? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Virus on the net? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Microsoft = Popcorn Farm! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Virus on the net? (Jim Richardson)
Re: Linux whore seeks lover (david parsons)
Re: which OS is best? (Jim Richardson)
Re: Browsers and e-mail ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: which OS is best? (Jim Richardson)
Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots ("Bobby D. Bryant")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Virus on the net?
Date: 5 May 2000 23:07:31 -0500
In article <atDQ4.4601$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> 2) Linux doesn't run VBS. :)
>> >
>> >No, instead it has sh.
>>
>> So fucking what? No linux e-mail client automatically executes
>> attachments.
>
>And no windows e-mail client does either. Get it through your head. This
>virus does *NOT* auto-execute. The user chooses to open it, that's the only
>way it spreads.
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of'
a document?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Sat, 06 May 2000 04:25:20 GMT
On Fri, 05 May 2000 21:10:51 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 05 May 2000 22:54:32 GMT, Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Christopher Smith 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
>> >> ?
>> >
>> >Well, sudo comes to mind.
>> >
>> >Although it's still not an elegant solution.
>>
>> It's far more sensible to bring back the distinction between data
>> and programs and make it difficult for the end user to casually
>> shoot themselves in the foot.
>>
>> It needs to be functional.
>> It needs to be easy.
>> It needs to be safe.
>>
>> Microsoft can't quite manage #3.
>>
>> Also, a standard commandline flag for desktop applications might be
>> in order. Such apps would likely be the last big hole to plug. So,
>> it would be useful to be able to tell them in a standard fashion to
>> NOT execute parts of documents, or just have an option available
>> regardless of the syntax.
>>
>> "applix --no-script-exec iloveyou.doc"
>
>I would, and have, argue that script execution should be an active user
>interface action. What I mean is that to run anything from a document,
>the user, by default, MUST be warned. To do anything else would, and is,
>irresponsible.
Not just warned but explicitly overridden AFTER the incomplete
display of the document in question. The normal (hard to alter
default) should be documents displayed with all active content
disabled and market with some sort of 'broken script' icon.
Then, MAYBE, allow the end user to activate scripts one by one.
--
|||
/ | \
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: Sat, 06 May 2000 04:30:46 GMT
On Sat, 06 May 2000 02:21:31 GMT, Ned Nondo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jedidiah,
>
>> > I just wrote a pretty small perl script that searches through any
>> >files that the runner owns for anything that looks like an e-mail
>> >address and stores the addresses in a hash variable. It then uses
>mail
>> >or sendmail to send itself to other users. If you can get the
>receiver
>> >to run the script, will it create any less havoc then the I love you
>> >virus? It also could look for network perl modules and do the smtp
>> >transfer without sendmail. It could potentially run on any system
>that
>> >had perl installed.
>>
>> So?
>>
>> You've stil got to RUN it.
>
> Yes, obviously. Lets say 90% of the world's computer users were Linux
>users. This includes the 70-90% of the people in many organizations
>that know little about computers and use them only for email and word
>processing. They receive an attachment from someone. They know nothing
>about file types, scripts, or whatever. What will prevent them from
>trying to run the file if they want to because they think it might be a
>humourous picture,flash animation, or a greeting card that someone had
>sent to them?
Write only application configuration state.
The mere inconvenience of needing to go to the trouble of
executing active content alone will slow down the propagation
rate of any viral programs.
It won't be 'easy' or 'automatic'.
The end user will have to load the gun themselves and take
it off safety themselves as well.
>
>
>>
>> My attachment auto-decoder wont. The decoder itself has a
>command line flag specifically telling it not to.
>
> How does it decode it? Does it modify the file? Or is it still stored
>somewhere so that if one _wanted_ to try to run it, they could? If this
Binaries could be run afterwards.
They won't run automatically.
They won't be run merely by viewing them in a mail application.
More steps would have to be explicitly taken by the user to
propagate the viral program rather than the mundane action of
merely viewing their mail.
>decoder prevents attachments altogether , are you proposing to remove
>the ability of everyone on the planet to send,receive, or run
>attachments?
>
>Thanks for listening,
>
>Ned
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
--
|||
/ | \
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: Sat, 06 May 2000 04:31:42 GMT
On 6 May 2000 02:51:26 GMT, John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ned Nondo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>: Jedidiah,
>
>: > You've stil got to RUN it.
>
>: Yes, obviously. Lets say 90% of the world's computer users were Linux
>: users. This includes the 70-90% of the people in many organizations
>: that know little about computers and use them only for email and word
>: processing. They receive an attachment from someone. They know nothing
>: about file types, scripts, or whatever. What will prevent them from
>: trying to run the file if they want to because they think it might be a
>: humourous picture,flash animation, or a greeting card that someone had
>: sent to them?
>
>Shouldn't these scripts (by default) be run as user "nobody"?
...now there's an idea.
Can normal users run as nobody? I thought that wasn't normally
possible. That's why you're supposed to start apache as root.
--
|||
/ | \
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: Sat, 06 May 2000 04:33:37 GMT
On Sat, 06 May 2000 03:19:58 GMT, Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sat, 06 May 2000 00:40:29 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>wrote:
>
>:On Fri, 05 May 2000 23:53:47 GMT, Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>:>On Fri, 05 May 2000 16:27:48 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>:>wrote:
[deletia]
>: This is BAD BAD BAD.
>:
>: You've essentially eliminated the utility of attachments.
>:
>: Thanks Monopoly$oft.
>
>Not really. If someone is dumb enough to run happy99.exe they'll find
>a way to do it. Determined ignorance is a pretty powerful foe.
More determination slows down the virus.
A really restrictive OS could even prevent ANY binary from
running from user disk space.
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Virus on the net?
Date: Sat, 06 May 2000 04:35:54 GMT
On 5 May 2000 23:07:31 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <atDQ4.4601$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> 2) Linux doesn't run VBS. :)
>>> >
>>> >No, instead it has sh.
>>>
>>> So fucking what? No linux e-mail client automatically executes
>>> attachments.
>>
>>And no windows e-mail client does either. Get it through your head. This
>>virus does *NOT* auto-execute. The user chooses to open it, that's the only
>>way it spreads.
>
>In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of'
>a document?
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft = Popcorn Farm!
Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 15:36:10 +1000
"Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3913845c@news...
> I think we should start a pool on Charlie's blood pressure. My guess is
> 190/100.
LOL.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 15:39:54 +1000
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Christopher Smith wrote:
> > Why is it any less likely a stupid Unix user would run a mail program as
> > root as opposed to a stupid Windows user running a mail program as
> > Administrator ?
>
> Because all the NT users I know run as, at least, power user.
Of the few people I know who run a *nix at home, about 80% of them run as
root all the time.
> You can't
> install most programs as "Administrator" and switch back to normal user
> and find it in the start menu.
Fixing that takes all of about 30 seconds.
> So, most NT users give themselves admin
> privilages.
As do most home unix users. And I'd be willing to bet the only reason most
managed unix users don't is because they can't.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 15:41:27 +1000
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8evso4$u5v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Why is it any less likely a stupid Unix user would run a mail program as
> > root as opposed to a stupid Windows user running a mail program as
> > Administrator ?
>
> Because unix users are consistently FAR less stupid than windows users.
>From what evidence do you draw this conclusion ?
Hopefully not by looking at the average post in cola.
> Oddly, the only people who do not buy this rule are windows users.
What defines a "windows user" ?
>
> QED.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 15:43:05 +1000
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8evsla$u5v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8evl5a$iu5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > 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,
> >>
> >> Yet there are almost no viruses that work on UNIX, and buttloads that
work
> >> on NT. Why is that again?
>
> > For the same reason there's bugger all viruses for the Mac, or for
BeOS -
> > no-one writes viruses for OSes less than 5% of people are ever going to
use.
>
> Spoken exactly as someone with very little experience with beos or macos.
Both systems are single-user and thus, inherently insecure wrt to a virus
deleting files.
Or is there some magical quality about those OSes that protects them ?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: Virus on the net?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 06 May 2000 06:08:01 GMT
On Fri, 5 May 2000 03:09:07 -0500,
Erik Funkenbusch, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
>> >Yes, it has you create a user and does not default to Administrator,
>> >although the user it creates does default to having admin privs.
>> >
>> >But, unlike Unix, having admin privs doesn't mean you automatically have
>> >global write access to every file on the system.
>>
>> does the admin privs in the default you mention have global write?
>
>Only to Admin files. Not other user files.
so the admin (like unix's root) would take down the system.
>
>> >> (what % of the windows folks are using W2k?)
>> >
>> >What does that matter?
>>
>> Because the problem was (widespread) with W9X, W2K is a small fraction of
>> users, so saying that W2K has similar security as Linux doesn't help the
>vast
>> majority of users with W9X whose systems are in (symbolically at least)
>flames.
>
>Consumer level OS's don't have security systems by default. Look at BeOS,
>MacOS, OS/2... none of them have permissions and have global file write.
it's not that they're consumer level, (whatever that's supposed to mean) but
that they are single user with no real concept of security, like W9X
>> >> Obviously windows has a problem, it may be that W2K specifically has
>less
>> >> of a problem, but there's a lot more windows than W2K out there.
>> >
>> >User rights are not incredibly relevant to the problem here. The problem
>is
>> >that the virus replicates itself to users in your email lists. The same
>> >thing could be done regardless of user rights (unless they had no rights
>to
>> >use mail).
>>
>> 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 have seen reports of it rewriting the .html and .css files, renaming them
file.html.vbs etc, and waiting for someone to click on them.
>
>
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (david parsons)
Subject: Re: Linux whore seeks lover
Date: 5 May 2000 22:27:50 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I am a 23 yo female [blah blah blah]
What, no webpage or offshore pay-by-the-minute phone line? No
embedded html with a 64x64 gif of you either talking on the
telephone, fellating some actor, or having a drink of water? No
sloppily done return address that's guaranteed to bounce?
If you can't do that, why even bother going on with your little
fishing expedition?
____
david parsons \bi/ Perhaps you'll do better next time.
\/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 06 May 2000 06:34:17 GMT
On Fri, 05 May 2000 18:12:32 -0500,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>On Fri, 05 May 2000 05:17:37 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 04 May 2000 16:18:36 -0500,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED], in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> brought forth the following words...:
>>
>>>On Thu, 04 May 2000 03:21:16 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 03 May 2000 22:03:24 -0500,
>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED], in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>> brought forth the following words...:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>More details, please.
>>>>
>>>>Until somewhere in the 2.3.x kernels, pcmcia is not in the kernel, it is
>>>>available only as a seperate module. After compilation and installation of the
>>>>pcmcia-cs pacakge, the modules for it will reside in
>>>>/lib/modules/$KERNEL_VERSION/pcmcia
>>>
>>>This is what I don't understand. I'm taking the kernel source that
>>>was already there, and re-building the kernel. I shouldn't need to do
>>>anything to get PCMCIA support working, right?
>>
>>you said in the first post that you had moved the old modules to some
>>other directory. That would include the pcmcia modules. The pcmica modules
>>would _not_ be recompiled with a new kernel IIRC, since they are (up till
>>somewhere in the 2.3 tree) a seperate package.
>
>Even when I move /lib/mod2 back to /lib/modules I still get errors.
what errors? it's sorta hard to troubleshoot without data. :)
>
>This is a modules problem; I rebuilt a test computer today - installed
>RH6.2, rebuilt the kernel with a "make mrproper;make xconfig;make
>dep;make bzImage;make modules;make modules_install", copied the
>arch/i386/boot/bzImage file to /boot, added it to /etc/lilo.conf, ran
>lilo, and when booting the new kernel I get lots of module errors
>still - without changing anything else.
what are the errors?
>This is incredibly annoying. Does anyone have a *comprehensive*
>kernel upgrade/recompile guide? The little readmes on the www and the
>kernel howto just doesn't cut it - I'm already *doing* what they list!
>Aggh!!! The Linux for Admins book I have from Shah lists this stuff
>too - I can only assume those examples work because people are
>de-linking /usr/src/linux from /usr/src/linux/oldlinuxversion and
>linking it to /usr/src/newlinuxversionsourcetarfiles-uncompressed, but
>I really don't see why that would change anything; that's the only
>thing I see that I'm doing that's remotely different....
>
>>>>check there for them, if they are there, then try verifying that
>>>>pcmcia-core is loaded (lsmod will list the loaded modules)
>>>
>>>If it isn't there, then what?
>>
>>well, verify that pcmcia_core.o exists in /lib/modules/$KERNEL_VER/pcmcia
>>and if so, insmod pcmcia-core should load it. (But it probably isn't there,
>>because if it was, it would have autoloaded when needed. )
>
>I'll check it out. Strange, tho - going back to the original kernel
>(read: reinstalling the kernel rpms and header rpms, doing a make
>oldconfig (and ONLY this) and installing that) works OK - I get a few
>module errors, but PCMCIA and the NE2000 NIC work.
The errors here maybe from the modules.conf of the make modules you did earlier
showing some modules that weren't in the stock kernel.
>This is -so- annoying though - I want to re-do the kernel, and no
>matter whether I do it on the laptop or a desktop, I get a bunch of
>errors and have many problems. It's really a nightmare.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Browsers and e-mail
Date: Sat, 06 May 2000 00:21:26 -0500
mlw wrote:
> Given the nature of both systems, i.e. the normalcy of receiving data
> from unknown origins, shouldn't e-mail have the same restrictions and
> safety precautions that browsers have?
No. It should have *more* precautions. With the exception of pop-up ads,
browsers only handle sites you elect to visit. With e-mail, you're open
to a flood from total strangers.
That's why spam is a problem with e-mail and not with browsers.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots
Date: Sat, 06 May 2000 00:29:21 -0500
david parsons wrote:
> Windows is very very VERY picky about the hardware it runs on (the
> anti-Linux propaganda here by people who say that Windows supports
> Soooo Much Mooore Hardware runs contrary to my experience) but once
> I've got it set up >on hardware it likes< it tends to run reliably
> for a long long time.
Well, if that's the case I can vouch that it doesn't like the systems Dell was
shipping with Windows pre-installed a few years back. Dell is commonly
perceived as being "Most In Bed With Microsoft", but even on a fairly expensive
Dell system, Windows and the Windows utilities were a constant pain for me.
I've heard so many people say what you are saying that I am inclined to believe
it, but the problem is that there doesn't seem to be any way to know in advance
whether the system you're buying actually will be something Windows likes. Is
it just the luck of the draw? Do you have to buy a system and then change out
one part at a time until you weed out everything Windows doesn't like?
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 06 May 2000 06:48:19 GMT
On Sun, 30 Apr 2000 17:29:46 GMT,
Karl Knechtel, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Jim Richardson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
><snip cause of rant of the day>
>: <rant of the day>
>
>: So can someone explain why it is I have to open a pdf file in windows in
>: order to print it? I mean, under linux, dragging the file to the printer
>: icon, or typing lpr file.pdf prints it just fine. Why does windows feel
>: it is neccessary to open it up with adobe acrobat first? It takes a long
>: time compared to simply dragging it to the printer icon in KDE. I mean,
>
>Perhaps the Windows printer driver doesn't process pdf directly?
>
>: if I drag it to the printer icon in windows, windows asks me for a file
>: association, I don't want to open it, just print it.
>: Another thing, why is it that windows can't seem to deal with
>: postscript files, under linux, there's ghost script and the like, all
>: set up and easy as click to use, from the command line or gui. Sure, I
>: can go to the effort of grabbing GS and GV for windows, but why doesn't
>: it come with something similar?
>
>Linux is built under the philosophy of having everyone share their code,
>open-source and all that. It therefore comes with everything that will fit
>on the CD.
>Windows and MacOS are built under the philosophy that anyone who programs
>software for those platforms is liable to want money for their software.
>They therefore come only with the OS maker's own software plus that of
>companies that have made special arrangements.
>
>: Ymmv, but for me, linux is easier to use, and with the exception of
>: games, has better and more apps.
>
>I'll give you better, over Windows anyway. (probably over Mac too, in many
>cases it's Apples and oranges, tho I have noticed that many of the Mac apps
>I like most emulate unix-like functionality eg the command line in MPW or
>grepping in BBEdit.) Definitely not "more", over Windows - not yet. As much
>software as you may get with the initial install, and as much freedom as the
>open-source philosophy gives you, you've got to realize there are really not
>that many people out there who are willing and able to do their own coding,
>without financial compensation, and thus contribute to the Linux software
>community - I'm certain the businesses are still cranking out far more total
>apps.
with all due respect, it matters little to me how many programs windows has
that I am not interested in. For me (the operative condition) linux has more
apps, with the exception of games.
>
>: Normally I don't use windows except for the occaisional game, but the
>
>Do they have good native Solitaire apps for Linux yet, or do you have to
>use WINE? ;)
PySol, a python tkinter solitaire game with hundreds of games and cardsets
available. It may even run under windows and mac if python and tkinter are
installed.
>: reports. At least Vim is available for windows, I had to install a
>: decent editor, word/wordpad et al were not acceptable. I haven't been
>
>Word is supposed to be a word processor, not an "editor". Wordpad is
>supposed to be (as I understand it) a stripped-down version of Word, but in
>reality it just - stinks, as you put it. I saw it crash once when the user
>banged the keyboard in frustration because some clumsy typos had
>un-undoably replaced his text with the number "12" in 132-point font. ;)
yes, I have used word for things in the past, it's an experience I don't
like to recall. Part of the problem is the whole "word processor" thing, just
like the click-n-point webmakers, they result most often in people agonizing
over format, rather than content, pet gripe :)
>: using NT, just Win9X and frankly, they stink. I can't install gvim in an
>: equivilent of $HOME. It has to be in the system dirs. Weird, haven't the
>: people who wrote windows heard of multi-user? I mean, I use win9X for
>
>No, that was the POINT. WinNT is a server OS. It is designed to be used by
>many people. Win9X is a home computer OS. It is designed to be used by one
>person (at a time anyway). It does not believe that there is anything to be
>gained by permitting the user to exhibit some sort of multiple personality
>syndrome.
>Note that I wouldn't be defending Windows like this except for the fact that
>MacOS is the same in this regard.
I used to use the Amiga, which was also single user. Now, with linux, I have
several accts, which are used for different purposes. I do embedded dev work on
one that has a whole different environment than my general/personal acct. Also,
when I contract, I set up a new acct on the laptop I use, it makes job tracking
a piece of cake. I admit that these are not issues that "Joe Sixpack" cares
about, but I am not he.
>: games at home sometimes, I could care less where stuff gets installed
>: there, since it's basically a playstation replacement for me. But in a
>: work environment, with shared access machines, win9X's "multi-user"
>: features are basically worthless.
>
>Which features are these?
I use the term "features" in it's broadest possible sense. When firing up
windows it presents you with a login form, it looks real official, it appears
to be somewhat secure, if you give it the wrong password, it will error out and
make you try again, but if you simple hit "Esc" or click cancel, it bypasses
the login and you get to the desktop anyway. It's called a login, but it isn't,
at best, it's a way to set preferences for several accts, but no files are
protected, no real security is there, it's just pretend.
>: To top it all off, the W95 machine I was using briefly today froze, I had
>: tried running telnet from the "Run" menu item, (have done so before with
>: no prob) and the system froze, a few minutes later, it was rebooting, except
>: it had somehow trashed the C: drive, which it no longer recognized as a
>: bootable disk.
>
>You were trying to run <ahem> Windows Telnet? I truly pity you. Can't believe
>none of your co-workers (who presumably know something about windows) tried
>to warn you. ;)
Man, that is one brain dead client. (telnet, not the guys I am contracting for,
they're pretty sharp in their field. )
>: Linux, it's not just for servers anymore.
>
>Was it originally?
Not really. But the little penguin is all grown up now :)
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Lintel, support for weak windows.
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots
Date: Sat, 06 May 2000 00:34:00 -0500
David Goldstein wrote:
> 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.
Yeah, "intuitive" is a myth. I scratched my Windows partition almost a
year ago, and thus almost never use W anymore. But I had to use it for
several hours one night earlier this week, and I hated every minute of it.
You get away from it for a while and you forget all the "intuitive" stuff
you had once learned, and suddenly there's nothing obvious about it at all.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
