Linux-Advocacy Digest #408, Volume #26 Mon, 8 May 00 12:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!! ("Robert L.")
Re: Let's POLL! (David Goldstein)
Re: Browsers and e-mail (JEDIDIAH)
Re: computer viruses on LINUX (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Malicious scripts on Unix (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("boat_goat")
Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: computer viruses on LINUX (david parsons)
Re: Microsoft invents XML! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: computer viruses on LINUX (JEDIDIAH)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Robert L." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!!
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 15:10:00 GMT
proculous a écrit dans le message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>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.
I have just install win98 before any linux version, i buy my computer 1 year
and half ago. I have install Linux ( RedHat 5.2 ) on it in almost 30
minutes.
I get another computer working under a Slackware 4. takes about 1 hours and
half. ( i install it from floppy ).
My main computer is dual boot win98/Linux, nothing have been delete while
partitioning hard disk.
My PPPoE connection work like a charm ( ~800 K/s for Linux, ~700 K/s for
Win98 ).
>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.
I use netscape when ie4 crash. I use it when ie4 think i'm not connect to
internet ( BTW, i have a permanent internet connection )
>
>Security?
>Every fucking port is WIDE OPEN WITH A DEFAULT MANDRAKE INSTALL...GOOD
>SHOW!!!!!
Under win98, how do we set up a firewall? By downloading a shareware. You
don't even know if there's a backdoor ( or even a front door ) in the
shareware.
Here a very small part of a standard firewall
# Deny TCP and UDP packets to privileged ports
ipchains -A input -l -i $EXTIF -d $ANY 0:1023 -p udp -j DENY
ipchains -A input -l -i $EXTIF -d $ANY 0:1023 -p tcp -j DENY
This is only if you don't want to run any server.
>
>
>
>Just setting up a simple network with a secure firewall has led me
>down a garden path of no less than 10 poorly written How-to's and a
>trek to numerous websites for information much of which is either
>outdated or in conflict with the last website I visited.
>
>Example, try the FAQ link on the samba website. It is a dead
>link...Great show guys..
>
>Apache seems to have been hacked, as I doubt they run Microsoft Back
>Office.
>
>Tasks that are soooooo easy under Windows are a nightmare under Linux.
>Networking for example....
>
>A couple of clicks and it works under Windows. How is this even
>remotely possible under Linux?
>
>Quite frankly I really don't give a flying fuck because Linux has
>pissed me of so much with it's archaic style of doing things that I
>intend to let every single person I know the truth about Linux and
>spread the word that LINUX SUX to all that will listen.
>
>It really does suck the big Onion.....
>
>PROCULOUS
------------------------------
From: David Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Let's POLL!
Date: Sun, 07 May 2000 20:40:23 +0200
Charlie Ebert wrote:
> =
> Let me just say that,
> =
> Just because some 12 year old kid launches a VB script virus,
> and YOUR company ingests this virus, should the employee's
> who have double clicked our the attachment using YOUR companies
> OUTLOOK EXPRESS be disciplined?
If company policy expressly forbid this action, and it was made clear
to every employee, then the company has the right to discipline the
employee. If this has actually occurred, it was probably by some exec
that was glad that he did not open the attachment in question and felt
the need to show that he is better. Where I work, the boss stated, "How
can anyone be so stupid that they would open an attachment that was part
of an email sent by someone they did not know?" Well, regardless of the
MS position on the simplicity of using a computer with
Win(take-your-pick) as the OS, most people are not aware of the dangers
that lurk. A lack of proper training on the company's part--simply
assuming that everyone knows how to use a computer does not cut
it--should automatically disqualify the company from taking internal
actions.
> Why do you figure that corporations establish policies
> such as these? Don't they realize that someday, someone,
> will indeed take this to court and challenge this.
> Do corporate institutions think they can WIN in a situation
> where THEY gave the employee in question the power to
> EXECUTE a virus from the software the corporation provided to
> ALL their employee's, trained or NOT.,
Trained employees should know better. see above
> Is it intelligent for a company to have a policy, where by,
> it is forbidden to click on any E-mail attachments?
Yep.
> Is it intelligent for a company to DRILL your systems administrator
> for allowing the virus to come into your company, even though there is
> NOTHING he can really do about it!
No.
> Does it make any sense to continue to blame the 12 year old
> who wrote the script and sent it out via an E-mail to drop
> =BD the Microsoft equipped corporations around the world?
> Shouldn't we make it a policy within the United States to
> EXPECT terrorist actions from within and abroad based on
> past actions, example, OKC? Does it make sense to you
> that corporations such as defense contractors will put
> up huge concrete barricades, and hire guards equipped with
> bomb sniffing dogs yet continue to allow Microsoft in their
> offices as the mainstay of their E-mail handling clients?
Nope, makes no sense at all. Blame the 12 year old? Hell, yes. I am
tired of kids today getting away with major crimes simply because they
are young. A 12 year old that can write such programs performed this
act with intent and malice.
> Have you heard someone within your organization BLAME the
> problem we've just experienced with the ILOVEYOU virus on
> the fact that the operating system was connected to the
> internet in the first place? Does this kind of explanation
> logic seem flawed to you in any way?
No, I have not heard this. All MS users are aware that these things
can happen.
> Wouldn't it be MORE intelligent to run an OS such as LINUX
> ,where by, employee's could click on A script or .exe and
> have nothing happen as it WON'T run it! They can look at it
> but it won't trash out their corporate world then E-mail
> the rest of the world with a copy of itself?
Yep, and I put this forth as a solution at my company. For some
reason, people think that point-n-click only works on Win(xx) products. =
Nearly everything that this company does can be done on computers
running Linux. Their website is running on Linux/Apache boxen.
> How many people have you met who still don't seem to understand that
> Microsoft operating systems are based on a
> nearly 20 year old tradition of a stand alone P.C. Concept?
> That security was never an issue for Microsoft? Do you now
> understand why Microsoft says security isn't an issue with
> Windows?
I have never really dicussed the issue with other's in this light. I
simply let it be known that I run Linux and do not have to worry about
worms damaging all of the work that I have done. As a demo, I wanted to
open the "I Love You" attachment on my Linux box and show people the
result--or lack thereof; somehow, though, I did not get mailed this
virus.
> I'm going to be very curious to read the answers if anybody
> responds on this newsgroup. I would love to read the answers. What
> are YOUR answers to these questions.
Well, I responded. I think that I hate crossposting more than I hate
viren, so I deleted the MS group.
Have a nice day!
> Charlie
David Goldstein
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Browsers and e-mail
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 15:14:44 GMT
On Mon, 8 May 2000 03:14:39 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> 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.
>
>No, it means execute the registered file type for a given document and pass
>the document to that application.
Which, until M$ blurred the line between mere inert document and
executable, did infact NOT mean 'execute random, possibly malicious
executable'.
THIS is Micro$oft's perversion, not Apple's.
This also shows the inherent flaw with 'open' in general. Do you want
to run it? Do you want to edit it? Do you want to decode it? For any
given file, 'open' can mean several things.
>
>> 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.
>
>And in this case, the something is Windows Scripting Host.
>
>Sorry to tell you this, but the virus is not binary. It's simple text that
>is executed by the script interpreter (the application that the document is
>opened "with" in your scenario).
While it didn't necessarily ever need to be binary before, that was
typically the case. Still, even in Windows there is typically this
distinction between mere documents and completely separate "bits of
code" that are dedicated to performing some useful function (rather
than being fluff in a document).
>
>> ><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.
>
>Data can be anything. The registered application can do anything it likes
>with that data, including doing things like deleting files.
That's an incredibly stupid way to structure an operating enviroment
meant for mental midgets. One could go so far to call it a criminally
negligent way in which to treat end users that you presume are stupid.
>
>> "open" only becomes a problem when "document" and "program"
>> become too blurred.
>
>The script is a document.
...which has human readable content. Thus, 'open' can just as
easily mean 'open and decode for viewing and modification'
rather than 'blindly apply this set of doomsday instructions to
your data'.
The fact remains that the code in question is untrusted and the
applications spawning the decoder know that.
--
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 15:18:15 GMT
On Mon, 8 May 2000 13:54:28 +0200, Rene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Okay, here's some information for you.
>
>If you use Linux, you'll probably NEVER suffer from a virus as that OS
>was designed
>by some fairly intelligent people.
>
>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.
>
>------------
>
>OK, some real information:
>
>On Linux, the virus problem is less prominent, because:
>
>- Most programs come with source code and author information.
>- Distributions are hesitant to add new packages.
>- Magazine editors are extremely careful.
>- An innocent user cannot destroy the system.
>- There are different Unix machines, so executables are rarely exchanged by
>mail.
>- There is no such mechanism as ActiveX.
>- There is no such mechanism as Word-Macros.
Actually there are. They just aren't set up by default to be
highly dangerous to the novice end user. You can write entire
end user applications in some of these (like emacs lisp).
>
>The last two things are not exactely true, but almost. Point 4 is not really
>the main point IMHO, because destroying user data, or abusing an account is
>bad enough.
>
>To add one thing: It would be desirable to have an even tighter sandbox
>model than Linux has.
Script language interpreters should all be modified to run in an
'untrusted script' state to minimize the potential for systems
damage. You could even go a step farther and make this the default
operating type.
--
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] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,local.unix.general
Subject: Re: Malicious scripts on Unix
Date: 8 May 2000 10:13:25 -0500
In article <lwuR4.73$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> You've ignored a rather significant difference between Windows
>> >> and Unix (or NT W2k) systems: no security. Even if a malicious script
>> >> is executed on a properly configured Unix box it will only affect the
>> >files
>> >> accessible to the luser, *not* crucial system files.
>> >
>> >Irrelevant. The biggest problem with the love bug virus is that it sends
>> >copies of itself to other users on their mailing lists. This has been
>> >clogging email systems and bringing them to a crawl. This is doable with
>or
>> >without security.
>>
>> That may be the biggest problem for most people, but it also deletes
>> graphic files. If you happen to be a graphic artist and it deletes
>> all your archived work I don't think you would be real happy.
>
>Yes, it does. But that's not what makes this virus so bad. Under NT, the
>virus can only delete files it has access to as well.
If you are the person who normally maintains those files,
you are going to have access to them, NT or not. And let's face
it - if you have a message from someone with a subject saying
I love you and a warning from the sysadmin in your mailbox,
which one will you open first?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "boat_goat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 10:33:13 -0400
"Bob Germer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3916b920$4$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> If you REALLY believe that, I have some shares in a bridge between two of
> New York City's boroughs which I will sell you cheap.
>
Do you have some evidence to offer or just an attitude?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!!
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 15:21:46 GMT
On Mon, 08 May 2000 14:01:26 GMT, The Cat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 08 May 2000 05:45:57 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>wrote:
>
>
>> 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.
>
>For once I agree with you jedi. I made a lot of money juggling Hi
>memory and excluding mapped sections using QEMM so that users had
>enough memory below 640k to run their applications.
>
>Virtually any operating system is a pussycat to install compared to
>those days, where you really had to know something.
>
>I think my record was 623k or something like that free.
What really irked me is that every app (game) had it's own
ideas about which of the three types of memory it wanted to
use. So, you couldn't merely be content to tune your memory
once and be done with it.
QEMM was nice of course but had it's own problems, just as
would nearly any alternate shell that you might try.
[deletia]
The Atari ST's had the same basic design flaw. However, flat
memory and relocatable code made the net result considerably
less annoying.
--
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
Subject: Re: Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!!
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 15:23:51 GMT
On Mon, 8 May 2000 12:20:53 +0100, Geoff Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <8evf8k$s78$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> Well, it's all part of this integration of things, web stuff,
>> interactive apps, e-mail, to try make it all look the same.
>> Needless to say, that makes it easy for beginners to use,
>> but makes it easy to hack as well.
>
>The technology to make it perfectly safe is available now - and it's all
>open software. MS appears to have made a decision that security is
...it doesn't even require open software. It just requires sane
system design. Microsoft could either decide not to just run any
random bit of code some random poorly coded app (their own) might
tell it to or to put some sort of default sandbox enviroment into
their script decoders.
>something that is best not talked about. Just like car makers in the 1950's
>and '60s (until they ended up in the courts.)
[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] (david parsons)
Subject: Re: computer viruses on LINUX
Date: 8 May 2000 07:59:01 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> GNOME already barks at you for running as root.
Oh, so Gnome is nannyware? Good, that's another reason to keep it
off my systems.
____
david parsons \bi/ It's like hp/ux, which screams bitterly if the
\/ root shell is anything more useful than /bin/sh
------------------------------
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: Tue, 9 May 2000 01:33:39 +1000
"Eric Bennett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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?
Given the ignorance exhibited by the average journo, I'd have my money on
the former.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 15:27:11 GMT
On Mon, 8 May 2000 03:09:07 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> 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.
>
>Thank you for finally recognizing that this is not a problem with the OS,
>but rather the mail client.
I never claimed otherwise actually.
You are confused.
>
>> 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.
>
>The app in question is NOT perfectly aware of the questionable origin of the
>code. How does the app know the origin is questionable? Even more so, how
Yes it is. Or rather, it is not completely sure of any random
file's origin. It can chose to be pessimistic (the Unix tendency)
or to depend on the kindness of strangers (the Windows tendency).
>does the app know that a given text file happens to be a harmful script? As
>far as the app knows, it's just text.
Then how does it manage to 'execute' this inert text?
--
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 15:29:05 GMT
On Mon, 08 May 2000 07:25:37 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[deletia]
>Not necessarily true. If the dll for the script is an in-proc server
>then it executes in the context of the application, if it is registered
>as a separate app, then it creates a new process.
>
>Regardless of implementation, if Microsoft can't modify the rights a
>script has, varying based on origin, then they should disallow scripts
>and executables as received through e-mail or a we browser.
>
>One has to think of e-mail or the web as "The front door to your house
>or office." One should not ever leave the front door open, where anyone
>could come in and do any thing they wish.
Alternately, one cannot simply weld the front door closed either.
>
>Fact: E-mail is a bad way to distribute applications.
[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 15:32:59 GMT
On Mon, 8 May 2000 08:56:38 -0400, Nik Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8evl5a$iu5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > "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,
>>
>> Yet there are almost no viruses that work on UNIX, and buttloads that work
>> on NT. Why is that again?
>
>
>Because people target viruses (or in the current case Worms) at widely used
>platforms to ensure the maximum "fun." Right now, assuming somebody chose to
Bullshit.
There have been less widely used platforms that have had a plethora
of viruses. Computing history simply contradicts this assertion.
>write a PERL attachment to attack UNIX systems in the same way that this VBS
>worm worked its effect would be much more limited:
...starting with the fact that it would far less likely be executed.
[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: computer viruses on LINUX
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 15:36:07 GMT
On 8 May 2000 07:59:01 -0700, david parsons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> GNOME already barks at you for running as root.
>
> Oh, so Gnome is nannyware? Good, that's another reason to keep it
> off my systems.
...only barks if you're DUMB enough to run a desktop as root.
--
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
******************************
