Linux-Advocacy Digest #909, Volume #29 Sun, 29 Oct 00 02:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: MS Hacked? (Andy Newman)
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! (Mike Marion)
Re: Linux or Solaris (Mike Marion)
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: Run for the hills! (Mike Marion)
Re: The Power of the Future! (Mike Marion)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (gm)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Bill Vermillion)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 23:20:47 -0700
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:vXMK5.116670$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > > There has been much talk about hidden ports in
> > > > the back end of all windows products in the last
> > > > year.
> > >
> > > Anyone who runs Zonealarm -- which reports unauthorized TCP/IP traffic
IN
> > > and OUT knows you are full of sh*t.
> >
> > Hell, a simple portscan would reveal the same. You're correct about
> > charlie "Village Idiot" Ebert, that's why he's earned #3 on my
> > killfile list. (MiG and Matt are 1 and 2 respectively)
> >
> > > We Zonalarm users know who has the hidden ports -- Real Audio , Adware
etc
> > > etc.
> >
> > Does Real even try to hide it? I thought they just sent out all your
> > personal information without even trying to mask it. When called on it,
> > they "disabled" that "feature", but the next version it was back again.
> >
> > > What a bunch of morons you Linux advocates are.
> >
> > You're just now realizing this? It's been proven many a time...
> >
> > You should check out the Mac and OS/2 advocates as well...
> >
> > > If you think Microsft could sneak hidden TCP/IP traffic past all the
> > > Microsoft haters masquerading as security experts you are dummer than
a bag
> > > of hammers.
> >
> > He doesn't need to think that just to prove he's dummer than that.
> >
> > -Chad
>
> I think this is very interesting.
>
> What these two guys are implying is that Microsoft at Redmond
> didn't have "Zonalarm" installed and had NO security.
Zonealarm. With an "e".
I was responding to Chad's lunatic assertion about hidden ports.
And he is still a twit.
I agree they should have had firewalls checking for outgoing connections if
this Microsoft employee was infected INSIDE Microsoft. At least one news
report suggests this was a Microsoft employee working from home and his home
computer was compromised.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Newman)
Subject: Re: MS Hacked?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 06:26:39 GMT
Les Mikesell wrote:
>It is more a problem of thinking in terms of passing around 'objects' that
>can only be approached through methods that they provide internally.
>This leads to thinking that 'opening' an attachment means executing
>code it provides. How do you handle an object you don't trust?
You put it in an environment where it can't do any damage. Lots
of people run interpreters and limit what the interpretered program
can see. Some folks, e.g, the Java people, mess up the implementation,
others don't. A better, or more "whole system", way is what Plan 9
does with namespaces. Just construct a name space with what you want
the code to see. Throw in effective per-process resource limits and
you can very safely execute things. Another sandbox approach was
Janus, a UCB project that ran on Solaris. It ran arbitary executables
and trapped their accesses to resources - i.e, trapped those system
calls that allow programs to access things by name - file open, program
exec, socket creation, etc..., there's only a handful, most system calls
dealing with already open resources - and controlled such accesses via a
program-specific profile (i.e, text config. file). ISTR such a thing for
Linux although may be mistaken. Basically you have a per-process security
framework with fine-grained access control. All without direct support from
the kernel.
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 06:24:11 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
> So? It still can't detect it. Windows can on _ALL_ PC hardware,
> Linux, only on a fraction.
Well you're technically correct... 999/1000 is still a fraction.
> Since people like you claim that Linux would make a better home
> system for consumers, what's Joe Average (or Granny, for those that
> use that BS story about how their G'ma installed Linux) to do
> when X locks up (again for the 15th time today)? Hit the reset button.
Considering how often people have to hit reset buttons now with windows (yes,
even with NT, and 2k).. doing it with linux due to an X freeze, when no 2nd
machine is available wouldn't be much of a big deal at all. Especially if one
uses a journalling FS like ReiserFS.
> Not to mention the fact that, in most cases, the whole machine is hard-
> locked anyhow and that nothing is being processed, especially network.
Bzzzt.. thanks for playing, consolation prizes are available backstage.
I've _never_ had an app freeze X that also froze the background apps.. and
especially never had the network stack stop responding. The only times I've
seen boxes go off the net and hang completely hard were due to hardware issues
like the KVM box I tried that hung my PC and sparc, and things like a Sun
keyboard going bad and somehow getting into a weird state that sends a bunch
of breaks to the box rapidly that makes it hang.
>> and even with a hung X session, mailserver, webserver, in fact all the
>> rest of the system, functions just fine.
> In rare cases.
If 100% is what you consider rare, I'd hate to see what you consider normal.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc. - http://www.miguelito.org
..I'm sure that if I were wandering naked across the Serengeti Plain and
happened to come across a pride of lions who were feeling peckish, they'd
show me the same f'g courtesy. Come on, in less time than it takes to say
"Two all-Miller patties" I'd be chili con carnage. -- Dennis Miller on
Vegetarianism.
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux or Solaris
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 06:27:18 GMT
JoeX1029 wrote:
> Solaris is only free on systems with less than eight CPU's, Solaris dosent
> preform very well on small CPU systems and therefore is a waste of your $75.
> And, if im not mistaken, its also not a comerical license.
Say what? Are you talking about solaris on x86 or what? It performs great on
single user CPU boxes just fine... we run it on boxes ranging from Sparc 5s,
10s, 20s, to Ultra 1s, 2s, 60s, 80s and a Sun Blade 1000. Most are single CPU
(and a chunk are multi-proc). Solaris performs great on all boxes.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc. - http://www.miguelito.org
..I'm sure that if I were wandering naked across the Serengeti Plain and
happened to come across a pride of lions who were feeling peckish, they'd
show me the same f'g courtesy. Come on, in less time than it takes to say
"Two all-Miller patties" I'd be chili con carnage. -- Dennis Miller on
Vegetarianism.
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 23:33:09 -0700
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:nsOK5.12176$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:dkNK5.116675$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > Imagine being able to do PC anywhere, WITHOUT PC Anywhere.
> >
> > If you own Windows 2000 Server you get Windows Terminal Server which
does
> > just that.
>
> And the client licenses?
You get 2 for free to administer the box. I think it costs 0$ for TS CAL if
you already have Win2k or NT on the desktop you do the administration from.
>
> > And Netmeeting 3.01 does it for free on Win 98 / NT / Win2000.
> >
>
> VNC also is free, and works cross-platform.
Ok.
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Run for the hills!
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 06:32:26 GMT
Tim Palmer wrote:
> >Just to annoy TP even further (wecome back): it is reputed that Tivo runs
> >a Linux OS underneath.
>
> I no that alredy. That's why you half to b a sisadmin just to use it.
HA HA HA... man, I sure missed you Timmy.
Let's see... my grandparents and my mother use Tivos (they make great gifts :)
).. and they're about as far from a Sysadmin as you can get. The great
benefit of Linux under the hood of Tivo, is the fact that it makes it
hackable... I hacked mine and added a 60Gig Hard drive. :)
http://miguelito.org/tivo has pics if you don't believe me.
> >and has some other nice options, but requires a phone line to get
> >the show descriptions or something.
>
> It requiers that you diddal with config fials and LILO and kernals just like anny
>other Linux.
Actually, yes it uses scripts (mostly based on tcl). Of course, it's all
setup so that you _never_ see this unless you hack the box. And it works
flawlessly. The only glitches I've ever had on mine were when the guide was
wrong, which is always due to a last minute change that couldn't get into the
guide (even TV guide is wrong in these cases).
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc. - http://www.miguelito.org
..I'm sure that if I were wandering naked across the Serengeti Plain and
happened to come across a pride of lions who were feeling peckish, they'd
show me the same f'g courtesy. Come on, in less time than it takes to say
"Two all-Miller patties" I'd be chili con carnage. -- Dennis Miller on
Vegetarianism.
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 06:40:35 GMT
Tim Palmer wrote:
> The kee word is BOLSALLETE.
Damn you are one illiterate fool.
> NO THEY DID NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! MICROSFOT RITES ALL THEAR OWN
>
>SOFTWAIR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
Stac. 'nuff said.
Oh, ok, you twisted my arm, I'll throw another out: Citrix
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc. - http://www.miguelito.org
..I'm sure that if I were wandering naked across the Serengeti Plain and
happened to come across a pride of lions who were feeling peckish, they'd
show me the same f'g courtesy. Come on, in less time than it takes to say
"Two all-Miller patties" I'd be chili con carnage. -- Dennis Miller on
Vegetarianism.
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 23:45:13 -0700
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Bruce Schuck wrote:
> >
> > "Matt Kennel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > :Look at Oracle. You pay for the software by the mhz of the chip you
run
> > it
> > > :on .... as if that was any of their f**king business.
> > > :
> > > :Upgrade the processor and pay more money!
> > > :
> > > :Talk about extortion.
> > >
> > > Why? I see no relation.
> >
> > I guess you are blind.
> >
> > > The problem with Microsoft's business practices is that they were
> > intentionally
> > > designed to thwart agreements between the Microsoft client and some
other
> > > third software maker by means other than offering a superior product.
> >
> > They were designed to strongly encourage companies that sold hardware to
> > sell only Microsoft software in the same way GM, Ford, and Chrysler
strongly
> > encouraged franchisees to only sell cars made by the company that sold
them
> ^^^^^^^^^^
> > the franchise.
>
>
> Note the PAST TENSE, as this is *ILLEGAL*.
>
> A sizeable portion of auto-dealers, IN AND AROUND DETROIT--RIGHT UNDER
> THE AUTO-EXEC's NOSES sell cars and trucks from multiple manufacturers...
A sizeable portion? Are you trying to tell me dealers sell both Ford and GM
and Chrysler cars?
Never seen it.
Or are you talking Ford/VW and GM/Volvo.
That I've seen. And I've seen Auto Malls where multiple separate dealers
sell cars.
> And GM, Ford, and Chrysler keep supplying them with automobiles...
Sure.
>
> Yet Microsoft says that it's legal to bully computer dealers into
> not selling non-Microsoft OS's. Why is that?
Bully as in giving them an excellent price on the OS vs. making them pay
retail.
No one could stop an OEM from selling a retail copy of Windows Me. But it
would be a lot more expensive.
OEM's wanted to sell their computers as cheap as they could and Microsft
made them a deal that was hard to refuse ... but they could have at any time
and paid retail for the OS.
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 23:49:40 -0700
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Bruce Schuck wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Bruce Schuck wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > > Frankly, Microsoft products do quite poorly when there is *ANY*
> > > > > competition in the marketplace. There were several popular
> > > > > office suites before Microsoft started forcing contracts on the
> > > > > OEMS that essentially said, "You WILL pre-load MS-Office to the
> > > > > exclusion of ALL OTHER office suites--or we will DOUBLE *YOUR*
> > > > > licensing fees". That's not business...that's blackmail.
> > > >
> > > > An alternative viewpoint is: "Load Office and we will give it to you
at
> > > > half-price. "
> > > >
> > > > What a deal the OEM's got. And many, many users who never had to pay
> > retail
> > > > for it.
> > >
> > > Regardless. Tell me the last time a user had any choice as to which
> > > office suite they wanted to buy?
> >
> > I've NEVER bought a computer with DOS/Windows/WinNT/Win2k or Office on
it.
> > For many years I worked at a University and I could purchase most of the
> > software I needed at a substantial educational discount. I fondly
remember
> > when Microsft was selling VB with a copy of NT in the box. Great deal
for
> > $Can 118 -- about $US 75.
> >
> > I've always bought computers from smaller companies and then loaded up
the
> > software myself.
> >
> > It's very easy to do.
>
> Yes, if you have the proper knowledge. The typical first-time computer
user
> has no experience loading operating systems.
That wasn't the point. You said "Tell me the last time a user had any choice
as to which
office suite they wanted to buy?"
Me. Any user who shops around. Easy to do. Anytime.
> >
> > Can you do that with a Unix box?
>
> Depends on which Unix.
>
> If you want BSD, Solaris, or Linux, then you can buy any Intel box,
> and load it up.
A Unix box. Not an intel box running Unix. Thats easy to do. Anyone can buy
an intel box with an OS if they want to.
Can anyone buy a Sun without an OS?
>
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > If you want Corel, you don't get a refund on the unused MS-Office.
> >
> > If I wanted Corel I could have bought it instead of Office. Anytime I
wanted
> > to.
>
> Maybe Microsoft isn't getting away with as much shit as here in the US.
Maybe you are ignorant.
>
> Down here, Dell, Gateway, Packard Bell, etc. are basically FORBIDDEN
> by Microsoft's contracts from selling anything other than MS Office.
False. Even Dell let's you choose Microsft Works.
>
> If they do engage in such behavior, MS will double or triple the
> prices for the offending manufacture....forcing them to raise prices
> in a highly competitive market, and thus, effectively forcing them
> out of business for even DARING to offer a competing product.
Ahhh. They make them pay list instead of massively discounting the product.
Thats not blackmail. Thats DISCOUNTS! Perfectly legal.
>
>
> >
> > Choice is always available in the PC world. No such choices exist in
> > Unixland.
------------------------------
From: gm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 06:50:25 GMT
On Sun, 29 Oct 2000 04:42:22 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
<snip>
>http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-3310071.html?tag=st.ne.ron.lthd.ni
>
>3 FULL MONTHS they were stealing code and Microsoft
>has now admitted they got everything including Whistler!
Do you even bother to read the very sources that you refer to?
What MS admitted was they saw code for programs that are in
development, but they did not see the code for existing products.
If you believe what MS says on the matter, it should be clear that
they had logging turned on, which implies firewall software.
>Further, nobody at Microsoft corporate system administration
>does security audits to detect these kinds of events.
That's a failure of the admin personnel, not a failure of the
software. It could easily have happened at any other company running
something other than Windows if the security administrator(s) aren't
keeping their eyes open.
>> If you think Microsoft could sneak hidden TCP/IP traffic past all the
>> Microsoft haters masquerading as security experts you are dummer than a bag
>> of hammers.
>EVERYBODY AT MICROSOFT IN REDMOND IS
>DUMMER THAN A BAG OF HAMMERS AS THEY
>LET CHINEESE COMMUNISTS HACK INTO THEIR
>SYSTEM AND STEAL ALL THEIR SHIT FOR 3 MONTHS!
You completely missed his point. The issue wasn't whether someone
could pass network traffic past Microsoft -- it was whether MS could
sneak in backdoors to their products while there are so many MS haters
out there looking for that type of activity. He then when on to say
all you'd need to do is run a port traffic program to catch such
activity.
This harkens back to my very first question... do you even bother to
read what you're responding to?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Vermillion)
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 06:07:32 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>To consider HOW Microsoft was attacked
>indicates a very well coordinated/organized
>foreign attack.
Well any site which relies soley on user ID's and passwords, so
that a stolen password and account name will let someone into the
system, isn't taking security seriously. Even with stolen
passwords, secondary authorization, one-time-keys, etc., should be
used as a minimum approach, so that the stolen password only gets
you to the real authorization area..
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . 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
******************************
