Linux-Advocacy Digest #390, Volume #26 Sat, 6 May 00 14:13:14 EDT
Contents:
Re: Virus on the net? (Perry Pip)
Re: which OS is best? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (Seán Ó Donnchadha)
Re: Linux file system vs. Win/DOS ? (Matthias Warkus)
Re: How many more viruses does Microsoft need to fix the problem? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Linux file system vs. Win/DOS ? (Bart Oldeman)
Re: Linux file system vs. Win/DOS ? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (abraxas)
Re: mime types ("Marc Schlensog")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: Virus on the net?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 06 May 2000 16:04:24 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?
>
Very good point indeed. When one is going to 'open' a file, at some lower
level a call is made to open(). When one is going to 'execute' a file, at
some lower level a call is made to execve(). They are *TOTALLY* different.
It's seems that terminology has been bastardized in order to simplify
things for the non-technical user. And ultimately, it is the non-technical
user who has suffered from this.
Perry
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[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: Sun, 7 May 2000 02:21:26 +1000
"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >: 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.
It's meant for *rudimentary* protection of user profiles. Not file
protection, not data protection. Win9x, being single user, is inherently
insecure in this regard.
What that login box *does* stop you doing is accessing any network shares
until you chuck in the correct password. If you want you can even setup the
machine so it doesn't login unless you supply a properly authenticated
domain password. Again, that won't protect data on the local machine but
that's not what it's meant for. Win9x without substantial third party help
can't really protect local files - just like similar OSes - MacOS, OS/2,
BeOS etc.
------------------------------
From: Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Sat, 06 May 2000 16:14:30 GMT
On 5 May 2000 23:28:09 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
>>
>> 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?
>
>You're going to have to make up your mind here. If microsoft rules the
>world and has the best end user operating system, then theyre the ones
>responsible for dumbing down the end user.
>
Look, I just think the whole notion of "dumbing down the end user" is
bullshit. Nobody has been "dumbed down". It's just that computers are
now being used by people who wouldn't go near them as little as 10
years ago. There's nothing dumb about these people; it's no more
reasonable to expect them to know how to configure sendmail or make
perl bring them the morning paper than it is to expect them to be able
to rebuild the engines in their cars.
So why are more people using computers today? I think there are two
reasons. By far the biggest is the Internet, and Microsoft of course
had nothing to do with its initial rise. But they do deserve a (small)
part of the credit for the other reason - computers are easier to use
today than they were back then. Their marketing and developer support
programs helped as well.
>>
>> 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.
>
>I'm sorry you have a difficult time understanding exceedingly simple
>computer concepts. Maybe youd be better at something else?
>
Heh. Look, I guarantee you that I know more about Unix than you do. I
spent many years on the job developing high-end scientific software
exclusively for Unix. It's just that I wouldn't want to force any of
that crap on my dad or other regular Joes like him. It's great for
hobbyists and servers, but when it comes to the consumer desktop, Unix
is so bush league that it isn't funny. Windows is a hell of a lot
better, and Mac is much better still. Unfortunately, the Mac has too
many architectural problems for my tastes. Here's hoping the new OS
fixes them.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Linux file system vs. Win/DOS ?
Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 14:22:36 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the 06 May 2000 10:47:14 GMT...
...and [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, mlw wrote:
> >tom wrote:
>
> >Here is a, not too, authoritative break down:
> >
> >/etc - System configuration files.
> >/bin - administration programs needed to fix a machine.
> >/sbin - system level programs needed to boot a machine
> >/usr/bin - general user programs linked to the main system libraries.
> >/usr/sbin - administration tools.
> >/usr/X11R6 - The x Window system
> >/usr/share - supposedly platform independent files .
> >/usr/local - supposedly platform dependent files.
> One you seem to have forgotten :
> /opt - optional mostly commercial software uses that like
> WordPerfect.
> I also tend to doubdt your declaration of /usr/local from what I understand
> is that /usr/local is used for non-standard programs normally not found on
> every machine on your site.
On Linux, /usr/local usually means: "Not installed via the package
management system. Not on my distribution CD. Needs backing up."
mawa
--
Sitting at the console all day, watching the news scroll away
-- James Deibele
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: How many more viruses does Microsoft need to fix the problem?
Date: Sat, 06 May 2000 16:36:22 GMT
On Sat, 6 May 2000 08:18:05 -0500, John McKown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 04 May 2000 20:04:14 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>OK, MS has more than ample warning, more than ample time to make sure
>>that this sort of thing does not keep happening. What the F&^k guys? Is
>>Microsoft so inept that they can't protect their own e-mail programs? I
>>just don't understand why people are not going after MS in court. After
>>all, if someone dies in a minor car accident, the car maker is usually
>>held responsible. Why shouldn't a software maker be held responsible if
>>they do not practice reasonable competence in security.
>>
>OK, I'll be flamebait <grin>.
>This is not entirely Microsoft's fault. Microsoft created the concept
>of being able to have a universal scripting language in all of their
>products (come to think of it, so does Applixware). This is a good concept.
No they didn't. They just adopted the idea for their own products.
>It allows a programmer to learn a language which can then be used to
>customize almost all of their products. Unfortunately, Microsoft made the
>language TOO POWERFUL. I cannot think of any reason why an applications
>programmer, in a script, would need to create/delete/modify registry keys.
If I were running WinDOS I'd love a version of bash or perl that
could modify registry keys. The whole point of having automation
is that you can automate any arbitrary task having much of the
power of conventional programming languages without the extra
overhead.
One can have perl's and bash's and even java's without leaving
the system wide open to abuse.
>Most of the time that should only be done during a program installation,
>at least in my opinion.
>
>The main place where I see Microsoft being responsible is that Windows
>just has crummy (or non-existant) security. Now, with Win2K, they have
Agreed.
[deletia]
>However, the main cause of this particular virus/worm exploding all over the
>place is the fact that some people are using computers who are just plain
>stupid. I received the ILOVEYOU virus at work. From somebody I don't even know.
That's not an excuse. Apple and Microsoft specifically go after the
'stupid users'. They should engineer accordingly.
>Am I stupid enough to double-click on it? No way! What did people think?
Why should a mere 'double-click' be a problem?
"open file" should not necessarily mean "run this malicious code".
>Or are they that curious (I'm not!)? To me, double clicking on an email
>attachment is like drinking some liquid that a stranger leaves on my door stop.
[deletia]
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Bart Oldeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux file system vs. Win/DOS ?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 16:15:33 GMT
On Sat, 6 May 2000, mlw wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, mlw wrote:
> > >tom wrote:
> >
> > >Here is a, not too, authoritative break down:
> > >
> > >/etc - System configuration files.
> > >/bin - administration programs needed to fix a machine.
> > >/sbin - system level programs needed to boot a machine
> > >/usr/bin - general user programs linked to the main system libraries.
> > >/usr/sbin - administration tools.
> > >/usr/X11R6 - The x Window system
> > >/usr/share - supposedly platform independent files .
> > >/usr/local - supposedly platform dependent files.
> > One you seem to have forgotten :
> > /opt - optional mostly commercial software uses that like
> > WordPerfect.
> > I also tend to doubdt your declaration of /usr/local from what I understand
> > is that /usr/local is used for non-standard programs normally not found on
> > every machine on your site.
>
> Like I said, not too authoratative. I do use an /opt directory, but it
> has seemed to fall out of favor as of late, I'm not sure why. Besides my
> systems, I only see opt directories on sun boxes.
>
> As for /usr/local vs /usr/share, I have yet to see any real consistency
> in their use.
In the FHS (File Hierarchy Standard) you're confusing /usr/local with
/usr/lib. /usr/lib is for supposedly platform dependent files and
libraries of course. /usr/local is a directory for general usage where
the system administrator and privileged users have almost free reign,
whereas all the other /usr directories should only be changed by the
distribution package manager (dpkg, rpm, whatever). If /usr/local is on a
different partition than /usr you can "enforce" this policy by mounting
/usr read-only.
But we can have:
/usr/local/share - supposedly local platform independent files .
/usr/local/lib - supposedly local platform dependent files.
The distinction between /opt and /usr/local is not very clear in practical
use, but the FHS clearly makes a difference between them. /opt looks a lot
like "C:\Program Files" in Windows in the sense that there is a tree under
/opt for each application. Additionally there are symbolic links to
the binaries and libraries in those in /opt/bin, /opt/lib, etc.
Bart
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Linux file system vs. Win/DOS ?
Date: Sat, 06 May 2000 16:38:37 GMT
On Sat, 06 May 2000 08:51:33 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, mlw wrote:
>> >tom wrote:
>>
>> >Here is a, not too, authoritative break down:
>> >
>> >/etc - System configuration files.
>> >/bin - administration programs needed to fix a machine.
>> >/sbin - system level programs needed to boot a machine
>> >/usr/bin - general user programs linked to the main system libraries.
>> >/usr/sbin - administration tools.
>> >/usr/X11R6 - The x Window system
>> >/usr/share - supposedly platform independent files .
>> >/usr/local - supposedly platform dependent files.
>> One you seem to have forgotten :
>> /opt - optional mostly commercial software uses that like
>> WordPerfect.
>> I also tend to doubdt your declaration of /usr/local from what I understand
>> is that /usr/local is used for non-standard programs normally not found on
>> every machine on your site.
>
>Like I said, not too authoratative. I do use an /opt directory, but it
>has seemed to fall out of favor as of late, I'm not sure why. Besides my
>systems, I only see opt directories on sun boxes.
I personally like the idea of an /opt where all of an app's
files are restricted to a central directory: nice clean and
easy to get rid of.
>
>As for /usr/local vs /usr/share, I have yet to see any real consistency
>in their use.
Many packages you install from source will install to /usr/local
rather than just /usr. I find this quite useful for reinstalls.
I wish more 3rd party rpms would follow the practice of using
/usr/local.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
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: 6 May 2000 17:01:17 GMT
> On 5 May 2000 23:28:09 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
>>>
>>> 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?
>>
>>You're going to have to make up your mind here. If microsoft rules the
>>world and has the best end user operating system, then theyre the ones
>>responsible for dumbing down the end user.
>>
> Look, I just think the whole notion of "dumbing down the end user" is
> bullshit. Nobody has been "dumbed down". It's just that computers are
> now being used by people who wouldn't go near them as little as 10
> years ago. There's nothing dumb about these people; it's no more
> reasonable to expect them to know how to configure sendmail or make
> perl bring them the morning paper than it is to expect them to be able
> to rebuild the engines in their cars.
A nonsensical argument. People are being hurt as a direct result of
their ignorance about computers every single day. Microsoft chooses to
hide more and more of the details of their operating systems from the
end user as a result, because they think that this strategy will lead to
less breakage.
But as we've seen, it only leads to more.
On the other hand, Unix distributors handle this problem by giving
their users MORE POWER TO DEFEND THEMSELVES.
And guess what! They do.
> So why are more people using computers today? I think there are two
> reasons.
I know exactly why. Its the hype, people are cows, and they like porn,
warez and bright shiney objects waved in their faces.
> By far the biggest is the Internet, and Microsoft of course
> had nothing to do with its initial rise. But they do deserve a (small)
> part of the credit for the other reason - computers are easier to use
> today than they were back then. Their marketing and developer support
> programs helped as well.
I think you should be thanking apple most of all, because it is from
them that microsoft gets most of their 'innovations'.
> Heh. Look, I guarantee you that I know more about Unix than you do.
Two things happen when a person comes to a certian point in the knowledge
of a particular subject; they stop posturing, and they stop supposing
that they know more than anyone else. I see that you have not reached
this point yet.
> I
> spent many years on the job developing high-end scientific software
> exclusively for Unix.
Kewel, what is it?
> It's just that I wouldn't want to force any of
> that crap on my dad or other regular Joes like him. It's great for
> hobbyists and servers, but when it comes to the consumer desktop, Unix
> is so bush league that it isn't funny.
I dont seem to have a problem with it.
> Windows is a hell of a lot
> better, and Mac is much better still. Unfortunately, the Mac has too
> many architectural problems for my tastes. Here's hoping the new OS
> fixes them.
Architectural problems? Like what?
BTW, by far the most useful mac in my posession is a G3 running linuxPPC.
Its even more useful than when it ran MacX.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: "Marc Schlensog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: mime types
Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 19:18:30 +0200
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Mime types are starting to bug me. Why does every application have a
> separate and distinct method for dealing with them?
=====8<=========[snipsnap]==============>8==============
> What do you think? Would you Linux users want this, or find it one more
> trouble than it would be worth.
It´s not only the different handling of mime-types, but also the different
interpretation of
what a linux directory tree should look like and where certain files are
stored.
About every distro is using its own way to configure the system and uses
different
locations for just the same binaries. I think, that´s quite a drawback on
the way
to world-domination ;-P.
No, seriously, I think, that they should try to agree on the same inner
tickings.
>
> --
> Mohawk Software
> Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
> Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
> "We've got a blind date with destiny, and it looks like she ordered the
> lobster"
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
