Linux-Advocacy Digest #968, Volume #27 Tue, 25 Jul 00 23:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k ("Spud")
Re: abraxas: COMNA's new abortion poster child... (abraxas)
Re: Windows98 ("Spud")
Re: Windows98 ("Spud")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Mandrake not Linux? (abraxas)
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux (matts)
Re: Another one of Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality (Clell A. Harmon)
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux (matts)
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Spud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 19:07:19 -0700
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8lje0u$21j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <mrSd5.3443$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Spud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [snips]
> >
> > "R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message
> > news:8l7ei4$vte$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> [part 2 - due to limits on DejaNews]
>
> > Yeesh... $5,000 in labour for *what*?
>
> Full backup of all user software (done by user) 10-30 hours
> (identification of private files, back-up over 100/T network
> in large corporation)
Step 1: Don't *do* this. At all.
> Removal of old hardware to desktop location 1 hour.
Removing an old box takes tops, five minutes.
> Installation of new hardware at desktop location. 1 hour
> (latency issues again).
Hardware + OS+application software, 1 hour, maybe.
> Standard software configuration - 1 hour (waiting for
> uploads from the network Installer + user).
See above.
> Custom software configuration - 1 hour (software pre-authorised for
> department).
Non-existant.
> Personalization (security settings, permissions, IP configuration,
> multiple reboots, ...) 1-3 hours.
Likewise.
> User Data recovery - 1-3 hours.
Likewise.
> User Application Configuration - 4-7 hours.
Likewise.
> User Data reconfiguration - 4-7 hours.
Likewise.
> User retraining - 1-4 hours.
For what? Oh, to go from Windows to Linux? Maybe.
> This gives you totals of 24 staff hours (best case)
I count a bit over one, personally.
> to 59 hours (Mr Murphy working overtime). A pretty reliable
> "rule of thumb" is to assume 40 hours of time lost (any combination
> of installer and user) for each installation. This doesn't factor
in
> things like "playing with the toys", "grousing about the new
system",
> discovering your payroll and review information was read by an
employee
> while on the shared drive, and discovering that the upgrade made
some
> of your files unhealthy.
Pathetic. Get a new sysadmin.
> > Setting up new systems?
> > Pathetic. If it takes you more than an hour to roll out a new
> > machine, you're doing something wrong.
>
> When you're budgeting for 1,000 or more users, assuming that the
> 1 hour taken to pop up the cover on the best machines in the house,
> add some RAM, and install an upgrade onto a minimally loaded machine
> running only the most kosher applications is a good way to give your
> CEO and CIO a very unpleasant shock. Most CIOs don't drill into the
> details of your estimates until it's too late.
And if they looked into your estimates, they *should* be shocked. Our
netadmin, who also manages machine roll-outs, has no such problems.
Need a replacement box? Let him know; if the hardware's available, it
takes about an hour. If not, it'll take however long it takes to
order the box - plus about an hour. Meanwhile, there's almost always
a couple unused boxes around; log on to one of them and get back to
work, total lost work time less than five minutes.
> Most managers are
> looking for the lowest number they can get, and most CEOs are
> measuring the impact in lost sales, missed opportunities, late
> projects, and litigation.
You can give them 24 hours. If they're willing to let a sensibly
admin manage their network and machine roll-out mechanisms, it can be
reduced by a factor of over 20. Your CEO should be examining your
approaches *very* carefully indeed.
> The *Newest* machines don't need replacement, but the owners of the
> Newest machines are the ones who need the most horsepower. You
> normally have to rotate the machine from the power-users to the
> managers, from the managers to the secretaries, and from the
> secretaries to the Mainframe Programmers :-).
Yes, we do that, too; which means when my old machine goes down the
line, it gets a system-level wipe and reinstall (about 40 minutes, can
be done in parallel with other boxes), the new user gets it, logs on
and... voila; back to work. At most, they'd have to copy their
personal data over the LAN before losing their old box... call it a
couple minutes.
> > You *are* aware of how to manage large-scale networks, right?
>
> How big do you want to talk? Yes, I'm aware of the common practice
> of sticking shared directories out there which users can use for
> storage of non-confidential, non-private, non-secured, non-strategic
> information which won't create huge liabilities if someone in the
> administrators group doesn't "accidentally" pop them open and
divulge
> the contents.
And for confidential, secure data, as well, thanks very much.
> Usually the guy you were about to fire anyway - but
> he's just collecting a little collateral, a few thousand passwords
> he can use from a dial-in port, the stuff that you really didn't
think
> he was bright enough to do.
He's doing no such thing, because unless he's the netadmin, he has no
access to it... and even if he is the netadmin, he still may not;
depends on your security policies and mechanisms.
> > Hint: it's a lot cheaper and easier to drop a high-speed LAN
> > in with a redundant server automatially backing up every night,
> > than to fart around with per-PC data storage.
>
> Hint: user data, corporate data, and software are so interwoven on
most
> Windows installations that it's nearly impossible to sort out which
> items need to be saved and what's going to get clobbered by
reinstall.
Not in the least. What is user data? In a corporate environment,
it's not even supposed to exist. That means it becomes the user's
problem to deal with. In our office, the word goes out to a user
(I've had it done to me): "New machine coming in 15 minutes. Back up
your personal data now." You have exactly 15 minutes, then your
machine is *gone*. Did you lose your personal address book? Okay, so
what? The corporate one is still there.
> Most people have been burned badly enough, enough times, to
carefully
> sort through nearly every directory for personalized information tha
t
> has been stuffed into obscure directories all over the hard drive.
Most folks don't do things that way, especially not under Windows.
> > If your users are storing things
> > locally to their PCs, make it company policy that it is only
*their*
> > data, their personal data; company data gets stored on the
network,
> > where it's safe from drive crashes, gets backed up, and doesn't
*need*
> > to be restored on a per-PC basis.
>
> UNIX and Linux has a pretty simple solution. They give each user
> their own private directory, and everything goes somewhere on that
> directory tree.
Welcome to "My Documents".
> Furthermore, the configuration files for each
> application are stored in text files that can be backed up and
> recovered if they are erased by a subsequent installation or
upgrade.
Windows does it differently... but that can all be managed from the
server, so that upgrading the machine isn't even an issue.
> Windows gives you the monolithic registry, which is nearly
impossible to
> manually edit, even harder to back up sequentially, and makes almost
no
> provision for manually selectable revision control.
All of which is totally unncessary.
> When you have 10 gig of applications, private data, user
preferences,
> and registry setting all woven together like a persian rug, back-up
> and recovery get "interesting". As in "may you have an interesting
> life" (ancient chinese curse).
Back-up and restore in a properly managed Win2K network don't even
_happen_; at most your server gets backed up regularly. Take a look
at roaming user support; how can a user move to another machine, log
on, and get back to work, with their own software configuration,
desktop preferences, etc? Simple; because someone's actually managing
the network properly... and the same mechanism means you can replace
their box instead of logging them on to a different box.
None of this is even an issue under a Win2K managed network.
> Which one. McGraw-Hill, Merril Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Dow Jones,
> Microsoft, US-West, Citigroup, et al. By the way, this number also
> happened to be the consensus given by Garner group for doing the
> Windows NT upgrade (from Windows 95). Their estimate, based on
> surveys of 300 of the Fortune 500 was $10,000.
I read several such estimates. They included two things you seem to
be overlooking: the up-front cost of setting up the network properly,
which, once done, drops your runtime maintenance costs to almost zero,
and _new hardware_ for Win2K... which we've already seen is silly,
other than maybe some extra RAM.
> > > You create a proprietary protocol, like DVD-CSS,
> >
> > Ah, so you create Windows protocols, not hardware. Okay... then
the
> > vendors have the choice of adopting that protocol or rejecting it.
>
> No they don't. If they want to adopt it,
Rght; they're given the choice to accept it or not.
> > It's been done before - look at IBM and MCA, when the rest of the
> > world told them to take a flying leap. (Okay, MCA isn't a
protocol,
> > but the principle applies.)
>
> Yes it does. And when IBM tried to tie OS/2 and MCA together,
> rather than fully supporting a public standard, and refused to
> publish documentation for future pin-out definitions, the industry
> balked completely.
They chose _not_ to accept IBM's way. Right. See? It's all choice.
> > > then you make everyone
> > > sign an agreement
> >
> > At gunpoint?
>
> At threat of bankruptcy.
Twaddle. Develop your own protocol. Use a non-proprietary one. Join
with others and do something common. As we've seen, it's been done
before. You could also decide not to be in the hardware market at
all, if paying requisite licensing fees is imposing such a substantial
burden on you that you can't afford it. Or you can decide you *are*
in business, and guess what? Sometimes you have to pay for things,
even if you don't like it.
> > No, you don't _make_ anyone do _anything_.
>
> You give them a choice, one with minimal negative consequences and
> marginal benifits, and the other with horrible consequences, huge
> risk, and no possible benefits.
Linux has no possible benefits? Or wasn't that one of the options?
Lemme see if I have this right; the complaint is that MS makes you
license required technologies so you can make Windows-compliant
hardware. Fine, don't do it; make Linux hardware instead. You do
have a choice - but you've just got through telling "the other choice
has horrible consequences, huge risk, and no possible benefits." Sort
of an odd argument, I don't think other Linux folks would agree.
And that's not the only choice... you can make BeOS-compliant hardware
or NextStep-compliant hardware or MacOS-compliant hardware. I suspect
the reason you want to make Windows compliant hardware is that in one
fell swoop, you've targetted a market of over 100,000,000 machines.
Oh, but you have to pay a license fee. Whoopee.
> I have to respect Lou Gerstner and Michael Dell. Both of them
> are taking a pretty big risk to make such a huge commitment to
> Linux and UNIX. Carly Fiorina has been a bit more covert, as
> has Michael Capellas. All have publicly supported Linux, which
> is a direct challenge to Microsoft's draconian tactics.
Gerstner, of IBM... where I can buy Windows-loaded boxes.
Michael Dell, of Dell... where I can buy Windows-loaded boxes.
Carly Fiorina of HP... where I can buy Windows-loaded boxes.
Michael Capellas of Compaq... where I can buy Windows-loaded boxes.
Apparently, none of them has decided Linux is the be-all and end-all
of anything. Apparently, they've seen some popularity to it and
decided that hey, maybe we can make a few bucks from those guys, too.
That's called "good business sense" as long as you're not in a
competing arena. I'm not sure what this is supposed to prove, other
than that some companies are in business to make a buck... oh, but you
don't like that, remember? You keep railing about Microsoft charging
for things.
> > You offer them the rights to use a protocol,
> While mentioning that since Microsoft is making this a keystone
> feature of Windows 98 and Windows 2000, being EXCLUDED from that
> protocol would mean that you would have to compete against a number
> of Microsoft-backed competitors just to retain your market share.
So make a decision; either get out of that market, or do what you have
to to stay in it. It's *your* choice.
> And since Microsoft is putting so much of it's manpower into USB,
> they really won't have the time to support any changes to your
> current drivers.
Why should MS write or maintain *your* drivers? You're the one trying
to make the money here by selling your product.
This is what's so laughable about the whole mentality you seem to
espouse. "I wanna make money... so they hafta gimme protocols for
free and even have to do my work for me, too!"
> > as long as they're willing not to
> > disclose its operations, perhaps, but that's another matter.
>
> The nondisclosure also spells out that if you DON'T sign the
> contract/NDA, you will be excluded from the market.
Boo hoo. If I don't sign an NDA for many software jobs, I don't get
the job, don't get paid. That's the way the world works now. Don't
like it? Fine; find another field, but for God's sake, stop WHINING
about how the world won't hand you everything on a silver plate. It's
pathetic.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: abraxas: COMNA's new abortion poster child...
Date: 26 Jul 2000 02:07:57 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> : In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : >
> : > I NEVER claimed to be a "Soooooper" or super programmer. I claim and am a
> : > programmer. I think a good one but not a "great" one.
>
> : You're kidding yourself. You're a horrible web designer to boot, and ANYBODY
> : can do THAT shit.
>
> Gawd! He's leet!
>
> http://www.mutilation.net/yttrx/index.html
>
> Nice pages, pervert.
I didnt design them, butthead. :)
But I must give kudos to the way cool chick who did; simple, fast to load,
easy to navigate.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: "Spud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 19:14:39 -0700
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8lj5fk$k86$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Spud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:q87f5.6575$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > [snips]
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8lhvfr$lpt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > There are other reasons for using partition images besides
"Large
> > scale
> > > rollouts".
> >
> > Perhaps; I've yet to encounter them. Well, other than the "golly,
> > gee, my OS can do this..." benefits. :)
>
> Then why did you introduce the subject in relations to Windows now
> supporting that feature.
I didn't; someone else brought them up, asking how Windows did them.
> > If nothing else, it's
> > horribly wasteful. Let's see; I have a 27Gb drive, and about 8Gb
of
> > files on it. I can choose to back up all the files (about 8 Gb),
the
> > files changed since the last backup (about 800Mb worth, more or
less)
> > or I can do an image backup - 27Gb. Guess which way I'm going to
go?
> > :)
>
> Or you could apply compression to the backup copy of the image. A
properly
> created partition image file of a 27 Gig partition that contains
only 8 Gigs
> of data would normally compress down to less than 8 Gigs.
Unlikely at best... especially so if the disk has been used at all.
I've yet to encounter a file system that actually writes 0 bytes to
files which are deleted (or the sectors they came from, if they're
moved), rather than simply updating link tables; as such, your 27Gb
image only has 8Gb of useful data... but 27Gb of stuff that doesn't
generally compress very well. Typical compression on apps and data
averages about 2:1... so that's a 13.5Gb backup to save 8Gb of data;
this requires larger storage capacity than is actually needed, plus
running slower, typically, due to the need to compress. All in all,
not a good approach other than for very specific needs; if you have
those needs, fine, it may be a perfectly viable mechanism for you.
> > machines, networked, and an 8-port hub? I'll count the number
I've
> > ever heard of: zero.
> > Now, since you were _supposedly_ examining the situation of a
typical
> > household, yet have set up a household configuration I've _never_
> > heard of, let alone encountered, how do you figure this applies in
any
> > way to anything remotely "typical"?
> >
> > Never mind, you've gone off the deep end.
>
> I find it interesting that first you were boasting a new feature of
Windows
> 2000 or Windows 98 with the 2000 client utilities package as an
example of a
> great feature of Windows.
Right; something having nothing whatsoever to do with the outright
falsehood of a 6-kid family with 8 networked machines as being
anything even remotely resembling "typical".
Tell you what... when you decide to discuss things in terms of what
applies here on planet Earth, rather than wherever you're from, let me
know, and we'll continue this.
------------------------------
From: "Spud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 19:26:03 -0700
[snips]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ljhmi$vdt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Sorry, but you're wrong here. If the partition contains only 8 Gb
data
> > the rest consists of randombits and not for example "null'
characters.
> > Normally only the reference to the file is deleted from the FS so
the
> > actual data is still around and so it wouldn't compress that much.
> Sorry, But I was not wrong, I just did not go into enough detail.
>
> When I mentioned "A properly created partition image file" I was
referring
> to: Defragment the partition and packing all the data near the
beginning of
> the partition, since we were considering
> a Windows disk partition. Then filling the entire freespace of the
> partition with a single byte value.
Pathetic. Use a *real* backup system, and you don't have to do that
sort of pointlessly painful process. Better yet, if you're a
netadmin, get on board with Win2K and for the price of a net-booting
NIC, you can avoid it entirely, by first, being able to install the OS
itself over a network, and second, by managing user configs properly
so that they don't _need_ to be backed up and restored this way.
Of course, all of this only makes sense in an office environment
anyways; if a home user needs backups, well, a tape drive or CD burner
is a handy and inexpensive way to go. Oh, and depending on whether
they're willing to spend a couple bucks on a decent backup package, or
prefer the less expensive but in the long run more labour intensive
method of reinstalling registry settings and the like, they may well
be able to reduce their restore operations to little more than "Pop
this CD in to install Windows, then pop that CD [or tape] in to
restore apps and data."
> Before compression the file consumed 81,920,000 bytes while after
> compression the file consumed 79,535 with "compress" the compressed
files
> was only 20579. Since the 8 Gig of data files that was being
discussed
> would also be compressed somewhat so that is why I stated that the
27 Gig
> partition with 8 Gigs consumed would normally compress to less than
8 Gigs.
So, let's see...
1) I Defrag the drive - a process which could well take all night or
even longer, depending on drive size, what's on it, how much it's been
used.
2) Having waited a good 8 hours or more to do this, I fill the drive
with a 0-byte file, a process which takes an unknown time, but
presumably would be less than instantaneous, especially with the new
40Gb and larger drives coming out.
3) Having done that, I do a compressing backup, losing time due to
compression overhead.
And I'm doing all this, presumably, to avoid having to do a sensible
backup whose total runtime would be considerably less... in fact, less
than just the third step, never mind the others.
If you have a _need_ to do this, fine... but it still seems a
spectacularly silly way to approach the problem in the first place.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 22:24:30 -0400
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 07/25/00
at 08:31 PM, Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> I already know you are an asswhole, so why is it you're here?
> BTW: Your brain didn't know if it wanted to say "asshole" or
> "asswipe" and got both wrong :-)
No it was asshole. The error was caused by carpal injuries. Now, I'm not
interested in playing with a troll -- and that is what you are -- but I do
admit that I'd like to know if you're the way you are because you're psychotic
or paid by M$.
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Mandrake not Linux?
Date: 26 Jul 2000 02:31:47 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Mikey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thus Sprake abraxas:
>
>> > Do you mean by adding unofficial changes to the kernel for more specific
>> > machines?
>> >
>>
>> Sort of, more specifically, cleaning up the classically munged kernel headers
>> for all platforms they offer. The kernel is no longer linux, this change was
>> not AFAIK approved by torvalds nor implemented by cox.
>>
>> And it breaks a hell of alot of stuff too.
>
> Hmmm... I have Mandrake 7.1 on my CTX laptop. What sort of stuff does
> it break? Where do I find out more about this?
>
Mostly "linuxy" source on compile. Which is why there are mandrake specific
RPMs lying around everywhere; especially of software which depends on
classically mutilated kernel headers.
The reason that no one ever cleaned them up is that legacy apps (and apps
developed on legacies) depend on them to function. Mandrake has done an
excellent job of cleaning up alot of popular software (and creating mdk-
rpms), but IMHO, this action does not make mandrake linux, but a linux-like
OS.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: matts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 02:32:44 GMT
>
> Your webserver doesn't have to listen on port 80. Have you
> heard of a "proxy server"? Squid comes to mind for Unix, it's
> free and quite versatile. It can also act as an http
> accelerator. What has windows got, MS proxy server
> 2.0<snicker>? ipchains can be effectively used to lock down the
> ident service on port 113.
>
Squid is a shitty proxy server. It's fat, slow and takes way too much
ram to do the most simple routing. I prefer MS Proxy server a hell of
lot better than Squid. I only need 64 meg of ram max us NT and MS
Proxy, and 10 people on a cable modem don't notice the difference
between direct connect and proxy connect.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Clell A. Harmon)
Subject: Re: Another one of Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 02:33:16 GMT
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 21:11:35 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Loren Petrich wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >Let's see...ALL financial bills MUST originate in the House of
>> >Representatives. Said "Corporate Welfare" then, is the result
>> >of the party which held the majority in the HoR. With the
>> >exception of 2 years during the Kennedy administration, the
>> >blame CLEARLY falls on the Democrats from the 1930's up to 1994.
>>
>> Which is hardly some unified, disciplined front; there are plenty
>> of Democrats who tend to vote with Republicans. Birch trees seem to be
>> interfering with Mr. Kulkis's vision...
>
>Denial ain't just a river in Egypt....
I suppose you wrote this joke too Aaron?
------------------------------
From: matts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 02:36:46 GMT
Courageous wrote:
> > Tell that to the poor fool who installs Linux out
> > of the box and selects medium security and ends up
> > with a wide open system.
>
> Out of the box, even on low security, having those
> ports accessible is not a security problem. Out
> of curiousity, does your windblows box run with
> a well-known IP? Care to post it?
>
> *smile*
>
24.121.14.222... system is windows 2k server, running proxy server,
http port 80. no rpc, netbios or other shit running...i would love to
see you get in....haha
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 02:38:47 GMT
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 01:43:47 GMT, Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 21:58:45 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>On 25 Jul 2000 13:19:51 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>Install RedHat 6.2, Suse 6.4, Slackware 7, Mandrake 7.1, or any number
>>>of others, running the default FTP server and your box will be rooted
>>>as soon as a kiddie sees it. (ie, read up on wu-ftpd "Providing Root
>
>> If I've been rooted due to my ftpd configuration, then the script
>> kiddies in question have been rather discrete.
>
>There have been numerous wu-ftpd exploits over the years, the most
>recent one(s) just within the last couple of weeks. The fact that you
>have not been rooted this way is due several possibilities including
>nobody noticed you, you use some other ftpd, you keep up with updates,
Nope, it's not for going unnoticed.
I don't use an ftp daemon other than the standard one either.
>or you've just been lucky.
...or the situation isn't quite as dire, or as simple
as you make it out to be.
>
>
>> Telnet, OTOH is a cracker magnet.
>
>Whatever. There haven't been any telnet exploits in a while afaik. It
>is mainly a problem for sending passwords in the clear, which is bad if
>some other box on your network is rooted (speaking with the voice of
It's also a a big fat advertisement that the cracker will actually
have a point of entry...
[deletia]
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 02:42:35 GMT
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 11:40:03 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Christopher Smith wrote:
>> >
>> > The computer science definition of an "operating system" is moot in the
>> > consumer world.
>>
>> That's absolutely, totally wrong. . . like saying the chemical
>> properties of iron are moot in the consumer world, such a statement
>> defies reality. Reality includes things like paint, undercoating and
>> specialized additives to motor oil.
>
>No, it's like saying the chemical *composition* of paint is irrelvant in the
>consumer world. Which it is.
Try running this absurdity by some random home improvement
shoppers the next time you manage to get out of the house...
[deletia]
I also know some modellers that are pedantic about such things.
It's really pesky when your paint doesn't stick to the target
object or somesuch...
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
