Linux-Advocacy Digest #7, Volume #30 Thu, 2 Nov 00 16:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Simon Palko")
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linux Beats NT! (Gary Connors)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux Beats NT! ("tony roth")
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Ayende Rahien")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Simon Palko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 14:19:56 -0500
"javelina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8toeuq$9a9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Simon Palko wrote:
>
> > [snip utterly stupid argument]
>
> Which part was stupid? The part where I said that there
> should be manual backups in place for when computer
> systems fail? I'm not talking about tape backups, if
> that's where your confusion lies. I'm talking manually
> starting and controlling the engines and steering when
> the computers are down.
No no, I mean the little back-and-forth letter thing at the end. I thought
it was rather juvenile, and didn't accurately portray the situation, and was
a bit inflamatory as well.
> > "Military intelligence" is one of the most profound
> > oxymorons I know of. ;)
>
> I do see your "smile & wink", however, having spent
> 8 years during the 80's in Army Intelligence, and
> spending quite a bit of time in liaison with Air Force
> and Navy Intel, I can honestly say that there were a
> lot of sharp guys around back then.
>
> Most civilians have absolutely no concept of what the
> military is like, forming the bulk of their opinions from
> movies and television shows. In Intelligence, the
> problem is compounded when you're restricted from
> discussing all of the good things that you did and
> will never be known for decades or perhaps never, whereas
> your errors are known to the world instantly.
As is the case, sadly, with essentially the entire intelligence community.
Successes are secret, pretty much by default. Failures are what people find
out about.
--
-Simon Palko
"More fun than a barrel of monkeys... with dynamite strapped to their
backs!"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 20:16:07 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Wed, 01 Nov 2000 23:55:11 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Bruce Schuck wrote:
>>
>> "The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>> message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > wrote
>> > on Mon, 30 Oct 2000 17:43:32 -0500
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >
>> > [snip for brevity]
>> >
>> > >Microsoft admin: Better order pizza...the server's down...again...
>> > >
>> > >UNIX admin: zzzzzzzzz...oh? time to go home? Oh Good.
>> > >Glad MY SHIT **WORKS***
>> >
>> > [.sigsnip]
>> >
>> > If this is accurate (one wonders), this may explain the good press
>> > NT got until recently; after all, certain management types highly
>> > prefer hard-working employees to those that sleep on the job
>>
>> Especially when the Unix admin should be investigating whether all the
>> software is up to date.
>
>Why "investigate" .... the vendors NOTIFY YOU IN ADVANCE.
I wonder about this. Of course, Microsoft seems to hem and haw
on this issue, but in the case of Linux, it's "individual
administrater beware". This is not such a bad thing, although one
would hope that everyone's aware of this, myself included.
But I haven't checked the CERN advisries or geek-girl lately. :-)
The bigger Unix vendors, of course, can dedicate at least one person
for security advisories and probably a variable number of engineers
for code patches, depending on the severity.
>
>
>>
>> Considering how many holes there are in unix/linux packages ( can anyone say
>> "resource strings" ) if the Admin is sleeping it's because someone else has
>
>You really are delusional. At least resource strings can be tracked down
>with a whole variety of tools...as opposed to the LoseDos Registry Settings
Resource strings are buried deep in the "typical" Unix application.
Ideally, the C/C++ compiler would place them in a separate file and
the app would read them (probably during static initialization);
they could also be editable by the casual user. Of course, it's
far from clear that this is in fact the best approach anyway,
but I'll admit, it is a problem on Linux which most apps and
packages have to solve ad hoc (with the exception of perror(),
of course).
One simple method is to provide a data file that the app reads in
during initialization itself. Of course, one has to program that.
There is also the LANG= standard; I don't know what libraries
use that environment variable, though.
>
>
>> broken root and is running the box nice and smooth so it will be up and
>> running for the DDOS atack on Yahoo.
>
>As opposed to NT, where all one has to do is get on the machine,
>and there is not need to 'break root'...because you already have it!
Depends on the laxness of the sysadmin types; however, because of
various issues, I suspect many NT boxes do have admininstrator
capabilities for one user; one merely has to find that user.
(Is a graphical 'su' available for Win2k? I don't recall.)
Of course, if one has physical access to the box, one's most likely
borked anyway. :-) Stick a floppy in this machine; it's done. :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random virus here
------------------------------
From: Gary Connors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Beats NT!
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 15:13:57 -0500
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Gardiner Family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 1. READ THE FUCKING POST, I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT FUCKING WEBSERVERS YOU
> > FUCKING CUNT HEAD, I AM TALKING ABOUT BIG FUCKING SERVERS USED INSIDE BIG
> > FUCKING CORPERATE NETWORKS SERVING HUNDREDS AND THOUSANDS OF EMAILS, FILES
> > AND APPLICATIONS TO THOUSANDS OF USERS PER DAY.
>
> Ok... Windows is taking over this space day by day. If you look at IDC
> and Gartner studies on Windows penetration in the Fortune 500 space, you'll
> see it's rapid.
>
Interesting, since when did Fortune 500 companies run big servers?
Think about that for a second. You can not compare a Novell/NT network
(which is where any large amount of server work will be done) doing
application and file managment to some group in a building to the huge
server farm over at Google. Google can search it's database in under a
second and still be relevent. Google isn't running NT.
That being said, I do find it perculiar that NT has actually gained
acceptance in the Web Server space. Regardless of the merits of NT (or
lack thereof), it's pricy. Real pricy.
> > 3. RESEARCHED A NUMBER OF SITES (YAHOO.COM, GOOGLE.COM, REAL.COM,
> > WHITEHOUSE.GOV, BE.COM, IBM.COM, APPLE.COM, ZDNET.COM, WINZIP.COM) ALL USE A
> > UNIX VARIANT INSTEAD OF WINDOWS, GET THE FUCKING HINT, NOBODY WANTS TO USE
> > WINDOWS AS A WEBSERVER EXCEPT FOR THOSE TO GUTLESS TO STAND UP AGAINST THE
> > WINTEL MONOPOLY.
>
> Um... who cares about all those sites? The only one that has half-way
> respectable numbers is Yahoo, and up until their recent deal with Google.com,
> they were NT on the front end.
>
Interesting. From a list of sites ranked by most unique vistors:
yahoo 1
real.com 10
google.com 11
zdnet.com 27
IBM.com 65
apple.com 79
> How about sites with real numbers? Dell.com and Gigabuys.com, the two
> largest e-Commerce sites on the 'net. Powered by....? Windows 2000 and
> SQL Server 2000.
>
Dell is not in the top 100.
Gigabuys is not in the top 100.
> Barnes and noble? Win2K
>
Barnes and Noble is not in the top 100
> Lycos? Win2K
>
Is Number 4.
> Hotmail? Win2K
>
Hotmail is not in the top 100.
> Anyone of those sites has more hits than all the sites you listed
> (except for yahoo) combined.
>
That is incorrect. Would you like to explain how your list of sites can
carry more traffic than top 100 sites, when your sites get less hits?
> Pull your head from the sand and open your eyes.
>
> -Chad
Interesting. You failed to do your research this time. I suppose
that's normal. I expect you to retort this with little more than a
"well, oh yeah" response. Win2K certainly is NOT a failure (outside of
the fact that it's expensive and has extreme hardware requirements), but
then again neither is Unix. Face it, as of Nov 2, 2000, Microsoft
Windows has a minority market in the web server area. A clear majority
of all web pages are served with a Unix of some form, running Apache.
Will it be different two years from now? I don't know, maybe Win2k2 will
never crash and never get broken into. I don't think that's likely, but
possible.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 22:39:46 +0200
"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 2 Nov 2000 14:52:37 +0200,
> Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:bxbM5.268$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
> >> > I don't think so. X + Gnome/KDE are much more resource hungry in my
> >> > experiance than windows.
> >>
> >> That could be because you are trusting the numbers you see in Windows.
> >> Windows lies to you about your resources. Microsoft changed the way it
> >> counts "free memory" beginning with Win95, because Win95 itself
consumed
> >> such a shocking amount. Each successive version of Windows gets worse.
> >> When you see:
> >
> >Perhaps, I don't know anything about this, I do know that X +Gnome/KDE is
> >slower on lower system than window (98se) is.
> >
>
> How do you "know"?? Have you persoanlly examined every machine on the
> planet?? Did you even bother to enable DMA on your Linux machine??
How do I know?
I tested it on several machines, that is how I know.
------------------------------
From: "tony roth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Beats NT!
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 12:44:54 -0800
you know what I'd like to see is a statistic based on dollars earned per
web transaction!
"Gary Connors" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 15:46:16 -0500
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Wed, 01 Nov 2000 23:55:11 -0500
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Bruce Schuck wrote:
> >>
> >> "The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> >> message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
> >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> > wrote
> >> > on Mon, 30 Oct 2000 17:43:32 -0500
> >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> >
> >> > [snip for brevity]
> >> >
> >> > >Microsoft admin: Better order pizza...the server's down...again...
> >> > >
> >> > >UNIX admin: zzzzzzzzz...oh? time to go home? Oh Good.
> >> > >Glad MY SHIT **WORKS***
> >> >
> >> > [.sigsnip]
> >> >
> >> > If this is accurate (one wonders), this may explain the good press
> >> > NT got until recently; after all, certain management types highly
> >> > prefer hard-working employees to those that sleep on the job
> >>
> >> Especially when the Unix admin should be investigating whether all the
> >> software is up to date.
> >
> >Why "investigate" .... the vendors NOTIFY YOU IN ADVANCE.
>
> I wonder about this. Of course, Microsoft seems to hem and haw
> on this issue, but in the case of Linux, it's "individual
> administrater beware". This is not such a bad thing, although one
> would hope that everyone's aware of this, myself included.
> But I haven't checked the CERN advisries or geek-girl lately. :-)
>
> The bigger Unix vendors, of course, can dedicate at least one person
> for security advisories and probably a variable number of engineers
> for code patches, depending on the severity.
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Considering how many holes there are in unix/linux packages ( can anyone say
> >> "resource strings" ) if the Admin is sleeping it's because someone else has
> >
> >You really are delusional. At least resource strings can be tracked down
> >with a whole variety of tools...as opposed to the LoseDos Registry Settings
>
> Resource strings are buried deep in the "typical" Unix application.
>
> Ideally, the C/C++ compiler would place them in a separate file and
> the app would read them (probably during static initialization);
> they could also be editable by the casual user. Of course, it's
> far from clear that this is in fact the best approach anyway,
> but I'll admit, it is a problem on Linux which most apps and
> packages have to solve ad hoc (with the exception of perror(),
> of course).
>
> One simple method is to provide a data file that the app reads in
> during initialization itself. Of course, one has to program that.
> There is also the LANG= standard; I don't know what libraries
> use that environment variable, though.
>
> >
> >
> >> broken root and is running the box nice and smooth so it will be up and
> >> running for the DDOS atack on Yahoo.
> >
> >As opposed to NT, where all one has to do is get on the machine,
> >and there is not need to 'break root'...because you already have it!
>
> Depends on the laxness of the sysadmin types; however, because of
> various issues, I suspect many NT boxes do have admininstrator
> capabilities for one user; one merely has to find that user.
> (Is a graphical 'su' available for Win2k? I don't recall.)
>
> Of course, if one has physical access to the box, one's most likely
> borked anyway. :-) Stick a floppy in this machine; it's done. :-)
No need....just send it a gaggle of ill-behaved ActiveX controls.
>
> [.sigsnip]
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random virus here
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
http://directedfire.com/greatgungiveaway/directedfire.referrer.fcgi?2632
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 15:50:42 -0500
Relax wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Relax wrote:
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Bruce Schuck wrote:
> > > > > So, it might cost you 10,000,000 retail for Oracle software and
> hardware
> > > and
> > > > ^^^^^
> > > >
> > > > $10,000,000 ??? Oh, really.
> > >
> > > They say you _have_ to buy all they recommend _and_ pay their
> consultants
> > > for tuning your system up to the point your web site is three times
> faster.
> > > They say is they can't do it, they give you a million [back].
> >
> >
> > If it's too outrageously expensive, then the whole exercise is pointless,
> > even from a promotional point of view.
> >
> > And you know that, don't you.
>
> What I know it that there is no claim too outrageous for Larry :)
I'd believe Larry long before I'd believe Bill.
Why? Because LARRY's shit works...RELIABLY.
Bill's shit is just that.....shit.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
http://directedfire.com/greatgungiveaway/directedfire.referrer.fcgi?2632
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.linux.sucks
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 23:00:42 +0200
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > No, please read what I said.
> > I didn't say that windows doesn't has
> > problems/crash/incompatibilities/lockups and so on, what I said is that
> > windows 2000 has by far less problems than NT.
>
> Unfortunately, it still has many of the same problems.
> Also, although it works better, it is an incredible
> resource pig. You cannot run it satisfactorily on, say,
> 4-year-old equipment.
4 years old, that would be 1996. You can do this, it's near minimum
requirements, but it's doable to run it satisfactorily on a 4 year old
machine.
> > FTP & Telnet are hard to find on a non 2000 windows machine, very easy
if
> > you've them.
>
> Wrong. They are standard tools on any machine that's meant to be
> networked. Also, the NT 4 versions of telnet and ftp are pretty
> bad, in the sense that they don't match the UNIX standard, and are
> slow. Don't know about 2000 -- have only used the ftp built into
> Internet Excruciator.
Assuming that you mean IE, there is no FTP built into it.
There is FTP browsing, is that what you mean? It's by no means FTP client.
Have you check ftp & telnet in windows? the commands?
They are cli commands, very fast ones, IMO.
> > Scripting support? Vbscript, JScript, WSH, batch files (why doesn't they
> > count?)
>
> The first two are for browsers (although, HA HA, they do give you
> and all your friends and enemies access to the operating system itself).
> I haven't seen wsh, but I'd guess up front that it's a half-assed
> implementation, unless a third-party wrote it. Batch files...
> useful, but very very week.
You just revealed your complete lack of knowledge in windows, you are aware
of it?
VBscript & Jscript are much more than browser-only scripting. And there is
*very* little they can do from the browser to your system unless you
autorize them to do it.
WSH is very powerful, as is VBA.
Badmouthing things you admit knowing nothing about isn't very... reasonable,
is it?
> > Automation? Scheduled tasks, you can get that in 95 if you install IE 4.
> > In win2000 you get this as weel as AT, which is a cli tool that gives
you
> > even more power.
>
> Again, nothing like cron.
What are cron's capabilities?
> > The lack of command line tools is not because most people like GUI much
> > better.
>
> Most people only know about the GUI. They never experience the command
line.
> But the command line is indispensable if you need to go deeper than the
> typical user.
Trust me, most people don't *want* to memorize 50 character string just to
check their mail. Or learn how to use vi in order to write their term
papers.
> > Talk about bloatware.
>
> I agree, a lot of this GUI stuff is bloatware, Gnome/KDE included.
> However, in Linux you have a wide variety of window managers, including
> some with fairly low overhead. With Windoze, you're stuck with one
> window manager. Even in Win 3.1 you could at least find other choices
> (from Norton, for example).
You can do the *same* for win9x/nt, but you didn't really look, did you?
> > If it's customization that you want, you can make windows look like
anything
> > that you want with a little work.
>
> That's true if you load Active Desktop (more bloatware by far) or if
> you use Win 2000. However, it seems like this customization is limited
> to the client area of the windows, the colors of the non-client area, and
> the fonts. Also, this customization is done via HTML with script embedded
> in it, so it is powerful, but potentially dangerous.
That wasn't what I was talking about.
> Wrongo jocko. You're making up some principles here. In any case, there
> is such a thing as a foolish consistency. Consistency can cost speed,
> and I think consistency is overrated, because the human is intelligent,
> and quickly gets used to any inconsistency. What the human finds
difficult
> to get used to is slowness. To look at a file in Windoze (or in the Gnome
> file manager), you have to click once for each subdirectory, and usually
wait
> at least 1/2 second for each one to pop up and position itself.
> If you're a fast typist, and know where you are, you can type the
> command "vi /dir1/dir2/dir3.../myfile.cpp" about as fast. And,
> if you want to do that command again, with a GUI you have to go through
> the same steps, if you haven't left the window open. With the command
line,
> you just hit an arrow a few times and press Enter. In any case, you
> can optimize both methods by using OS tools such as shortcuts, scripts,
etc.
You *obviously* don't know windows.
Windows key + R (or Ctrl+Esc, R)
type something like: c:\my documents\1999\class
projects\programming\cpp\myfile.cpp (just to emulate the long directories.)
and it launch the default program that open this file.
I don't want it to go to the defualt program, not problem.
<application name> <file path>
You don't have to go through all the parent directories unless you want to.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 23:06:14 +0200
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Christopher Smith wrote:
> >
> > "Caldera OpenLinux User" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Bruce Schuck wrote:
> > >
> > > > It was week. And the QAZ trojan infected an employees home machine.
And
> > it
> > > > had access to the LAN, probably via a VPN.
> > > >
> > > > Any corporation allowing internal access via VPN's are vulnerable
using
> > the
> > > > exact same scenario.
> > >
> > > I don;t think saysin this attack can affect anyone is smart to say. I
> > mean it
> > > really is unacceptable so the implications are huge.
> > > If you don;t get me then asnwer this.
> > > How does QAZ infect OS/2 or LINUX or FreeBSD?
> >
> > It doesn't. He said same scenario, not same events. THe scenario is a
> > trojan, and any OS is vulnerable to them.
>
> Really now.
>
> So, like, why don't we see Unix e-mail viruses?
Not enough people interested in making them?
Shorten your sig.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 23:08:11 +0200
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Thu, 02 Nov 2000 09:54:52 -0500
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Christopher Smith wrote:
> >>
>
> [snip]
>
> >> It doesn't. He said same scenario, not same events. THe scenario is a
> >> trojan, and any OS is vulnerable to them.
> >
> >Really now.
> >
> >So, like, why don't we see Unix e-mail viruses?
>
> Who says we don't? Kevin Mitnick's "worm" was highly prolific,
> somewhat destructive (because of bandwidth), and resulted in his
> being forbidden to touch a computer ever again and serving time, AFAIK.
>
> Of course, it wasn't nearly as dangerous as QAZ, and any Unix
> and Linux trojan will be limited in its scope unless run as root.
> This is also true for NT, but many administrators give the
> primary user Administrative privileges on their NT box out of
> convenience (because an equivalent to Unix's 'su' is either not
> available, not installed, or not thought of; I think Win2k has
> this command or a variant thereof, however -- and it just might
> do the right thing by bringing up the GUI... :-) ).
It has runas command, and also run as a different user in shortcuts (and
other places) I use it when I need temporary admin privilege to the system
using gui. (you make a shortcut to explorer.exe, and check "run as another
user" enter username & password, and the system is fully yours.)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
