Linux-Advocacy Digest #543, Volume #26 Tue, 16 May 00 18:13:09 EDT
Contents:
Re: Yet another backdoor in MS software (Mig Mig)
Re: What is a good Setup Maker for Linux? (Mig Mig)
Re: Yet another backdoor in MS software (Mr Rupert)
Re: Desktop use, office apps (R. Christopher Harshman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yet another backdoor in MS software
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 23:42:13 +0200
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Unekis) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >The safest solution would, of course, be to permanently replace your
> >windows software with Linux, which has not been
> > succeptible to these viruses and hacks.
>
> If you think UNIX is safe from viruses and hacks, think again. Or has the
> sendmail virus been forgotten already?
First it was not a virus but a worm just like the ILOVEYOU thing!
Second.. cant you find anything thats not from 1988???
Third.. What dows that worm have to do with Linux?
> >Second safest would be to replace IE with Netscape.
>
> Netscape with Cookie Pal. I get to vet every cookie requested on my system.
> Some I pass, some I reject. Cookie pal then silently works in the
> background remembering the ones I accept/reject.
Great!
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What is a good Setup Maker for Linux?
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 23:44:16 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I can't find any good one so far. Can anyone recommend a good one. It
> doesn't have to be fancy like InstallShield, as long as it can ask the
> user for options and copy the files to their appropriate locations.
There is RPM for RedHat/Mandrake/SUSE and others.
Debial and one named "apt" i think.
Much better than install shield since there is a database that knows what
files where installed and where.
------------------------------
From: Mr Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yet another backdoor in MS software
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 16:42:54 -0500
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Unekis) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >The safest solution would, of course, be to permanently replace your
> >windows software with Linux, which has not been
> > succeptible to these viruses and hacks.
>
> If you think UNIX is safe from viruses and hacks, think again. Or has the
> sendmail virus been forgotten already?
>
In the context of the continual proliferation of Microsoft based viruses
and backdoors, yes, the Sendmail backdoor has been forgotten. Microsoft
the Virus Champ wiped it off the radar screen.
--
Mr Rupert
------------------------------
From: R. Christopher Harshman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Desktop use, office apps
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 21:42:10 GMT
In article <8fs8go$2nbf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) wrote:
> I think we have to get down to raw performance here and just look
> at the megs you have to haul in off the disk. Microsoft has
> most of the GUI preloaded in the kernel or extra stuff that
> loads at bootup. To match that, we need to at least run
I've stripped the boot-up stuff out of my Startup folder and the
registry (I even have to manually start the Palm Hotsync Manager; I hate
having a cluttered system), but the kernel part makes sense.
> the same shared library X widget set for the window manager,
> browser, or just spend the money we save on software on
> more RAM and faster drives (which pays off anyway because these
> speed up other things as well). What kind of throughput are you
Spending more money also defeats one of the primary reasons we're using
Linux - cost. If I can wring suitable performance out of these
workstations, we'll deploy Linux across more than a hundred computers;
upgrading them all with RAM and faster drives will be excessive. (Isn't
this one of the key complaints against Windows 2000, and Microsoft
bloatware in general?)
> getting with those IDE drives? On a PII450 with LVD SCSI the
> main staroffice screen comes up in about 5 seconds and it is
> about two seconds to open a new text document from there (but
> this isn't the first time it has been loaded).
About 4.5MB/sec sustained, according to benchmarks. If we had enough
RAM to cache these huge apps I could probably just load (and quit) them
as a part of the boot sequence, but most of our workstations have 32MB,
so we're back to the cost issue.
> In areas where it is possible to do at least part of your
> work with text mode commands and combinations of small traditional
> unix programs you will come out ahead naturally, but for GUI
> work you need enough power to accomodate the duplicate library
> code.
This is the first I've heard of duplicate library code, but it does
indeed make sense now that I think about it. Thank you for providing an
explanation, at least, if not a solution.
Chris
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
