Linux-Advocacy Digest #403, Volume #26 Mon, 8 May 00 02:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Shithead Distribution? (Jim Richardson)
Justice Department in league with SPACE ALIENS!!! (Eric Bennett)
Microsoft invents XML! (Eric Bennett)
Re: Justice Department in league with SPACE ALIENS!!! (Christopher Browne)
Re: Microsoft invents XML! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Microsoft invents XML! (Eric Bennett)
Re: Browsers and e-mail (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Built in Virus Scanners! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: computer viruses on LINUX (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!! (Nico Coetzee)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (JEDIDIAH)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: Shithead Distribution?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 04:12:41 GMT
On Sun, 07 May 2000 23:33:46 -0400,
proculous, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>I am trying to run Linux on an 8088 computer with a 300 baud modem and
>5 megabyte hard disk. I have been told about a distribution of Linux
>called Shithead. I can't seeem to locate this anywhere on the net?
>Could some kind soul offer assistance?
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Rashsis "711" Desert- Dweller
"Look mommy! the monkey talks!.."
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Justice Department in league with SPACE ALIENS!!!
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 00:46:12 -0500
http://live.altavista.com/scripts/editorial.dll?efi=932&ern=y&ei=1771292
=====
The Love Bug virus invaded computers across the world last week in an
e-mail carrying the subject line, "ILOVEYOU.'' The virus, which only
affected computers running on Microsoft's Windows operating system,
attacked the company's Outlook e-mail program and Internet Explorer
browser.
The front line of defense against such sophisticated viruses is a
continually evolving computer operating system that attracts the efforts
of eager software developers, Gates said.
That relationship would suffer because the Justice Department's proposal
for breaking up the company would result in fewer innovations of Windows
programs, he said.
=====
I say:
What's next, Microsoft claiming that if the courts split the company in
half, there will be less security innovation in OSes, making use easier
prey for an alien attack? Has Gates finally lost his marbles?
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect,even when you take into
account Hofstadter's Law.
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Microsoft invents XML!
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 00:52:25 -0500
Yes, those innovative folks at Microsoft have done it again! This time,
they've invented XML. Read about it here:
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19908-2000May6.html
=====
Ballmer hopes to build Microsoft's new identity partly around a
computing language known as XML. Invented several years ago by two
Microsoft technologists, it allows easy exchange of information among
different devices, across the Internet.
=====
<rolling eyes>
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect,even when you take into
account Hofstadter's Law.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department in league with SPACE ALIENS!!!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 04:53:39 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Eric Bennett would say:
>What's next, Microsoft claiming that if the courts split the company in
>half, there will be less security innovation in OSes, making use easier
>prey for an alien attack? Has Gates finally lost his marbles?
No need to head to paranoid fantasy...
It could even be true that splitting MSFT into "MSOS" and "MSAPPS" would
"significantly injure" the US economy.
_If_ that were true, that would indicate that the economy has a truly
_dangerous_ dependancy on MSFT.
Thus implicating that it is even _more_ important to diminish that
dependancy, despite short term costs.
--
Howe's Law:
Everyone has a scheme that will not work.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft invents XML!
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 15:30:26 +1000
"Eric Bennett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Yes, those innovative folks at Microsoft have done it again! This time,
> they've invented XML. Read about it here:
>
>
>
> http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19908-2000May6.html
>
> =====
> Ballmer hopes to build Microsoft's new identity partly around a
> computing language known as XML. Invented several years ago by two
> Microsoft technologists, it allows easy exchange of information among
> different devices, across the Internet.
> =====
>
>
> <rolling eyes>
Hopefully you're rolling your eyes at David Ignatius, the writer of that
piece ?
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft invents XML!
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 01:29:39 -0500
In article <8f5ivb$24u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hopefully you're rolling your eyes at David Ignatius, the writer of that
> piece ?
I'm not sure who to roll my eyes at. Do you think Ignatius just made a
random guess at who invented XML, or do you think Microsoft gave him a
hint?
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect,even when you take into
account Hofstadter's Law.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Browsers and e-mail
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 05:30:13 GMT
On Mon, 8 May 2000 12:39:18 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8f5628$db0o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>
>> >> So, OK, what's the answer? I think we all agree that something like the
>> >> "ILOVEYOU" virus will continue to happen in increasing frequency. How
>do
>> >> you stop it? You can't keep arresting 14 year olds everytime this
>> >> happens, you have to decide that security is important.
>>
>> > 1. Get out a clue stick and *cough*re-educate*cough* people who open
>> > attachments they know nothing about.
>>
>> When did the definition of "open" suddenly switch from "read" to
>> "execute"? Suppose you recieved a letter through snailmail that read
>> "burn the house down". If you did things like Outlook did things, you'd
>> torch your house without question. However, you'd set it aside because
>> you wouldn't follow suggestions that come unknown sources.
>
>"Open" in GUIs like Windows, MacOS, KDE etc is a synonym for "activate"
No, it means OPEN.
Typically this implies opening with 'something'. Those 'somethings'
are usually a limited number of known and trusted applications. THIS
is what 'open' means in GNOME-speak, Finder-Speak and GEM-speak,
not: Execute random and possibly malicious binaries.
><whateveritis>. It's one of the main functionality aspects of such GUIs -
>abstracting away the idea of an application.
Nope. The issue here is the transformation of what used to be typically
considered inert data into potentially malicious programs.
"open" only becomes a problem when "document" and "program"
become too blurred.
[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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Built in Virus Scanners!
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 05:33:09 GMT
On Sun, 07 May 2000 15:51:09 GMT, Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Boris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:iFcR4.94$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> So once again, it's NOT NT problem at all. It has to do with abundance of
>features in
>> Office and easy programmatic access to those features.
>
>Ahhh, finally the advantages of Unix are becoming clear: by making
>_everything_ painfully difficult, it prevents us from doing much of
>_anything_, including bad things.
Some things certainly SHOULD be hard.
Cutting your fingers off with a consumer food processor
should not be a trivial or common occurence.
[deletia]
Aren't you glad Tesla put more thought into safety than Bill does?
--
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] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: computer viruses on LINUX
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 05:36:18 GMT
On Sun, 7 May 2000 13:57:06 -0500, John McKown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sun, 07 May 2000 16:56:49 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
>]>If you use Linux, you'll probably NEVER suffer from a virus as that OS
>]>was designed
>]>by some fairly intelligent people.
>
>Unless, of course, you always login as root, "because it's easier".
>This is most likely going to be the attitude of clueless people coming
>from an Microsoft environment.
>]>
>]>If you use Microsoft for your operating system what happens to you is
>]>similar to using
>]>your butt for a gun holster! You end up shooting your butt off.
>
>Not really. I've been running Windows for, what, 3 or 4 years? I've
>never gotten hit by a virus. Why? I'm careful. I *never* installed
>who-knows-what software from the Internet. I did install shareware,
GNOME already barks at you for running as root.
KDE doesn't yet, but it could be modified slightly
to do the same.
[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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!!
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 05:45:57 GMT
On Sun, 07 May 2000 23:08:26 -0400, proculous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The net result of a virus infestation is a loss of productive time of
>the persons involved. What better example of Linux as an operating
>system.
>
>Talk about a waste of time! I spent 2 weeks trying to install this
>piece of shit and finally gave up. I have installed every OS under the
>sun and moon since DOS 1.0 and could not get this piece of junk, Linux
>to operate correctly.
If you genuinely have sparred with any form of DOS, then
you should certainly be able to handle a sweetheart like
Linux. Given your carrying on, I don't for a minute
believe you have ANY experience with DOS at all.
no pnp, no services, no bundled device drivers, manual
memory management: that's DOS.
>
>Is this what you call a next generation OS?
>
>What generation is that? The year 2025?
>
>Shitty looking fonts under X windows,
>Netscape?
>Netscape sucks under Windows also. NOBODY uses Netscape.
Plenty do actually. To try and claim otherwise is to point yourself
out as an MS Shill and not a very trustworthy random critic.
Besides, Opera is what is the whip & that's being ported.
>
>Security?
>Every fucking port is WIDE OPEN WITH A DEFAULT MANDRAKE INSTALL...GOOD
>SHOW!!!!!
...and a generic version of /etc/hosts.deny will close them up
again too...
[deletia]
Just 'cause you can't follow simple instructions, that doesn't
make Linux any less useful.
--
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] (JEDIDIAH)
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: Mon, 08 May 2000 05:47:53 GMT
On Sun, 07 May 2000 23:31:37 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>On 5 May 2000 07:29:52 GMT, someone claiming to be Loren Petrich
>wrote:
>
>>In article <UkqQ4.77847$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>Otto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>Why don't you teach them how to prevent viruses on their machine? Had you
>>>done it at the first time....
>
>> Why should that be necessary in the first place?????
>
>Because the popularity of the platform makes it a attractive target
>for the folks who write such?
Such things can quite simply be architected away.
It shouldn't be necessary. Such burdens on the 'poor novices'
that can't handle the like of ipchains or even simpler things
are simply intolerable.
A novice end user using a simply email program should not be
the equivalent of a moron juggling with chain saws.
--
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] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 05:50:29 GMT
On Mon, 08 May 2000 02:10:27 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>On 04 May 2000 17:27:11 GMT, someone claiming to be Damien wrote:
>
>>Another thing, the default on all these programs is to save into the
>>new incompatible file format. Is there reason for this other than to
>>turn the upgrade treadmill?
>
>Because certain of the new features (which are what new customers are
>buying the software for) require the new format.
Like what?
Besides, the notion that customers are buying for those features
rather than the fact that version foo just happens to be the only
one on sale anymore and/or the fact that they are getting pestered
by datafiles in format foo is trivially absurd.
>
>>Is there any way to change the system to
>>make it save into the older formats by default?
>
>Yep.
>
>>And why aren't these
>>file formats backwards compatible?
>
>They are -- Office 2000 can read the older formats.
That does not constitute backwards compatibility of the file format.
>
>Or are you seriously suggesting that the older software be capable of
>reading a format which did not even exist when it was released?
YES.
The format should be readable even if the special new features
aren't available.
>
>>Any decent file format would have
>>an extensible design making new versions automatically compatible with
>>older versions.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 07:49:32 +0200
From: Nico Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!!
proculous wrote:
> The net result of a virus infestation is a loss of productive time of
> the persons involved. What better example of Linux as an operating
> system.
>
> --- snip ---
We are so sorry. but Linux is still not completely ready for the mentally
challenged !
--
==============
The following signature was created automatically under Linux:
.
What happens when you cut back the jungle? It recedes.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 05:57:17 GMT
On Sun, 7 May 2000 20:20:45 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Bart Oldeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Please detail to us how you're going to detect the difference between
>> > "dangerous" and "safe" attachments.
>>
>> Every binary and vb-script is potentially dangerous. A jpeg, text file,
>> java file executed in a sandbox is not. It's easy enough.
>
>vbscript executed in a sandbox is equally as safe. The problem is that this
>is executed outside the sandbox because it's an attachment. The same would
Then clearly the calling application, the email client is at fault.
If there is a facility through which it could limit the potential
effects of malicious code when the app in question is perfectly
aware of the questionable origin of that code: then that app & it's
originator are grossly negligent.
>be true of a java program sent to a user as an attachment, it would be run
>outside of the sandbox.
--
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] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 05:58:56 GMT
On Mon, 8 May 2000 02:14:51 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Marc Schlensog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8f3vqf$e6v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in:
>> 8f39fj$3r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >
>> > "Bart Oldeman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > On Sat, 6 May 2000, Rich C wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > "Bart Oldeman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > > > On Sat, 6 May 2000, Rich C wrote:
>> > > > >
>>
>> -----8<-----------[snip]------------->8-----
>>
>> > Please detail to us how you're going to detect the difference between
>> > "dangerous" and "safe" attachments.
>>
>> Dangerous in a sense, that the attachment has access to the entire system,
>> safe in a sense, that the attachment contains a picture, a textfile, a
>> soundfile,
>> or even a JAVA-script
>
>So what about legitimate scripts ? After all, some people do roll their
>own.
Those will just have to be supressed at the email client level.
While it will be certainly a 'disapointment' it would be a far
lesser one than making attachments in general useless or making
their usage a fear obsessed affair.
[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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 06:02:23 GMT
On Sun, 7 May 2000 20:26:55 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Rich C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:3915a528@news...
>> > No, it probably doesn't. Even in this particular case, all the OS is
>> doing
>> > is fetching and executing another application - the scripting host - to
>> > execute a script. The script *is* a document.
>>
>> Right. And as I've said in other parts of this thread, and "document" file
>> should be passed to the registered application, and it should be up to the
>> application to provide security. Which simply proves how irresponsible the
>> VB scripting host is. Java doesn't do this type of thing.
>
>Wrong. Java is just as dangerous when executed outside the sandbox (which
Whether or not a bit of java will be executed in or out of the
sandbox is entirely up to the application that opened the
datafile.
>is what happens when you open an attachment. Go ahead, send yourself a Java
>program as an attachment and then open the attachment and see what happens).
>
>Unix doesn't check the source of the shell script either.
--
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] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 06:08:04 GMT
On Sun, 07 May 2000 15:20:44 -0400, Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 6 May 2000 17:01:17 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
[deletia]
>>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.
>>
>
>Give me a break. With each passing year, Unix resembles Windows more
>and more. Unix's latest developments - things like Konqueror - are
>direct ripoffs of Windows technologies (and those of other consumer
>systems). Traditional Unix mail readers may lack the ability to launch
>attachments, but lacking functionality is a far cry from giving users
Unix mail readers have had the ability to launch attachments
since before Windows had any mail readers. They just tend to
not to do really stupid things with incoming mail.
Fortunately, Unix programmers change their ways once they've
been bitten by a particular problem.
>"the power to defend themselves". After all, Windows can run a crappy
>command line mailreader with next to zero functionality as well as
>Unix can. Sorry, but that's not any kind of power.
As a Unix user I don't need to do that. It's just some demented
personal agenda of your own that compels you to repeat that lie.
The problem isn't with decoding attachments but with running them.
As it turns out, running random bits of code ends up being more
trouble than it's worth. 'depriving' end users of this feature is
not the tragedy you make it out to be.
"launching attachments" is of dubious utility and can be potentially
quite damaging.
The cost/benefit analysis just doesn't work out in your favor.
[deletia]
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
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
******************************
