Linux-Advocacy Digest #9, Volume #30 Thu, 2 Nov 00 18:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft? ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Why Linux is great (Craig Kelley)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (.)
Re: Why Red Hat is as bad as Microsoft (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Once agian: Obscurity != security (Was: Tuff Competition for LINUX! ("Bruce
Schuck")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 14:55:59 -0800
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Bruce Schuck wrote:
> >
> > "Caldera OpenLinux User" <[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:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "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.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We Zonalarm users know who has the hidden ports -- Real Audio ,
> > Adware
> > > > etc
> > > > > > etc.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It ain't the Microsoft OS.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What a bunch of morons you Linux advocates are.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then why did Microsoft suffer 3+ months of unauthorized access
from
> > > > Russia?
> > > >
> > > > 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?
> >
> > Not necessarily QAZ. Linux root gets broken all the time.
>
> It takes a hell of a lot more effort to crack a password than it
> does to mail off a virus.
Tsk tsk. I know you've been asleep, but you should read up on "resource
string" exploits.
And all the other Unix/Linux exploits that let one take root.
CERT is a good place to start if you can interrupt you nap long enough.
------------------------------
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 22:54:58 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 02 Nov 2000 15:46:16 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
[snip]
>> 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.
Ouch. Yeah, that'll probably work -- erm, not work -- erm,
well, yes, that would most likely bork the machine... :-/
(I wonder if Win2k still can be crashed by some of the wacky
webpages out there using Slightly Suspect ActiveX Controls.. :-) )
[snip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- who has heard of "keys to the city" but thought they
were supposed to be *symbolic*
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft?
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 00:54:31 +0200
"Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Z5mM5.120948$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > JS/PL wrote:
> > >
> > > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > JS/PL wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Andy Newman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > In article <8tk12f$614$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Christopher Smith
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Which "fixes" are present in Win98 you can't download for free
?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Similarly with NT, perhaps you've heard of service packs ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You didn't get it did you. All versions of Win are fixes
> > > > > > to the previous one. It's only recently with Win2K that
> > > > > > they're getting the complete set of functions together in
> > > > > > a package that's half-well implemented. It's taken long
> > > > > > enough.
> > > > >
> > > > > Win2k isn't just a fix of NT4.
> > > >
> > > > True, this time they broke more than they fixed ;-)
> > >
> > > What are you talking about? What's broken? I've been using it since
the
> > > final betas and havent had a single system crash. What is broken in
> > > Windows2000?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Windows.Net (Whistler) due out in the spring isn't a fix for WinME
> or
> > > Win9x.
> > > > > So you are wrong. All versions of Windows aren't fixes to the
> previous
> > > one,
> > > >
> > > > No, but often the only fix to a Windows problem is to purchase an
> > > > upgrade to a new version.
> > >
> > > Give an example of a fix that was only available by purchasing an
> upgrade,
> > > c'mon back up you fud with a fact.
> > >
> > http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q175/6/29.ASP
> >
> > Note that the downloadable fixes are not regression tested, and are
> > dated 1998, and the fixes do not apply to Windows 95, only SR2 and
> > higher.
> >
> > The only "tested" fix is to purchase Windows 98
>
> But in this case, the situation is only a performance hit. Not a serious
> error.
>
> I don't expect Microsoft to keep writing drivers for old operating
systems.
>
> Support stops for all OS's eventually.
>
> When Linux starts supplying drivers for even 1/100th of the hardware
windows
> supports I'll be amazed.
Forget about that, how about kernel updates which breaks up compatibility
with existing hardware?
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[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 22:51:41 -0000
>Perhaps, I don't know anything about this, I do know that X +Gnome/KDE is
>slower on lower system than window (98se) is.
Linux with KDE runs more smoothly than windows on my laptop (p166 32mb ram)
and also on a Cyrix P133 with 32mb Ram we use at work for CD Burning ( and
on the P90 with 40mb ram we used previously - under windows the write buffer
regularly dropped to 5% or even lower, sometimes resulting in trashed CD's,
under linux on the same hardware the buffer never dropped below 95% full ).
Linux also has the advantage of being able to use a smaller window manager
if needed - I have successfully used Xfree with fvwm window manager on a 486
with 4mb Ram, windows 95 would barely boot on this hardware.
------------------------------
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: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 14:58:37 -0800
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[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.
You have been sleeping haven't you.
The vendors post advisories noting how easy it is to break root.
The OpenBSD people claim they are usually 6 months ahead of Linux/Unix in
fixing exploits.
Go ahead and sleep through those 6 months of "open" vulnerabilities.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 00:56:54 +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 15:46:16 -0500
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> 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.
>
> Ouch. Yeah, that'll probably work -- erm, not work -- erm,
> well, yes, that would most likely bork the machine... :-/
>
> (I wonder if Win2k still can be crashed by some of the wacky
> webpages out there using Slightly Suspect ActiveX Controls.. :-) )
Give me a URL and I'll test this for you.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why Linux is great
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 02 Nov 2000 15:58:07 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (George Richard Russell) writes:
> KDE, however nice, is limited in scope, and no Unix desktop
> will ever shed its cli roots
And what is the problem with this?
Did television replace books?
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 11:59:29 +1300
> >Wholly shit! A mecha-troll sighted! Even retarded children know that
> >Linux has GUIs in abundance.
>
> This depends on your definition of GUI. If you say that the program which
> runs graphical applications is the GUI then there is only one GUI - Xfree,
> on the other hand if you say that the program which controls where each
> window appears on the desktop then there are probably at least 15 of them.
>
> Personally I think of Xfree as the GUI and the window manager as just a
> theme running on the GUI but everyone is entitled to their own opinion of
> what part is the actual GUI so your view is equally valid.
There are alternatives to Xfree as well. Commercial X servers as well as
completely different windowing systems. X is, of course, the most
popular and supported.
However, GUI is a Graphical User Interface, and if you change window
managers, I consider the interface changed (especially since a different
window manager can change the way you work with your appplications... not
how the apps themselves function, but how you arrange them and perform
administrative functions).
If an interface is how I communicate with the computer, then the window
manager makes for a hefty part of that.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Red Hat is as bad as Microsoft
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 22:53:59 GMT
In article <8tsomc$419$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
> Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > El mi=E9, 01 nov 2000, . escribi=F3:
> >>Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>> Since I had not mentioned headers, and I was replying to something
tha=
> t
> > didn't >> say headers, how the fuck is one supposed to guess you
actuall=
> y mean
> > HEADERS, >> when saying KERNEL? If you are too stupid to write
coherentl=
> y,
> > spare the world >> your idiocy.
> >>
> >>Because I said "headers" in my first post in this thread on the
subject.=
> I=20
> >>suspected that context would last, but I guess I underestimated you.
>
> > Perhaps you should recheck the thread. The first mention to
"mandrake is=
> not
> > linux" came from you and contained zero instances of the word
"headers".
>
> > Read it, see what a stupid fuck you are, then come back.
>
> Alright, read it you stupid shit; and heres what I said:
>
> "Mandrake is not linux; they completely redid the kernel headers and
> broke massive amounts of legacy software as a result. Thats why
> there are "rpm-mdk"s, brainiac."
>
> No wonder you cant understand anything. You cant READ.
Actually, jackass, you seem to be even more stupid than I thought.
That is not "your first post on this thread on the subject".
The first post you made on this thread on the subject of why Mandrake is
not Linux was this:
http://x66.deja.com/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=687198524.1
Where you did not say "headers" at all.
Your second post was this:
http://x66.deja.com/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=687609167.1
THAT is the one where you mentioned headers, but please notice that was
before I was involved. I must say I missed it when I replied (maybe
because it was far from my insertion point), at
http://x66.deja.com/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=687718339.1
However, you are still a dickhead.
BTW: even deleting the headers and replacing them with something else
(which they didn't do) doesn't make it not linux, so the point still
stands: saying Mandrake is not Linux is stupidity.
--
Roberto Alsina
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[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, 2 Nov 2000 15:05:00 -0800
"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.
It's a publicity stunt. You knew that didn't you?
Read about it here:
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2637094,00.html
Quote:
Rules of any kind seem to be a concept Ellison just doesn't grok. Take his
latest $1 million challenge, outlined in a full-page ad in Tuesday's Wall
Street Journal. Rip out your IBM or Microsoft database and replace with
Oracle's two products (the 8i database and 9i application server), and if
your Web app doesn't run at least three times faster, you collect a cool
million.
Better read that fine print before you try to outsmart Ellison. Even if you
win, you still owe Oracle for the products and consulting dollars you spend
to convert your site. And then, there's that nasty little gag order,
specifying contestants need to get Oracle's permission before they discuss
their experiences.
Sure, Ellison's $1 million challenge is basically a publicity stunt.
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[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, 2 Nov 2000 15:06:24 -0800
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
EBay disagrees. And Oracle is real expensive. Of course its cheaper than it
was because SQL Server is even cheaper and kicks Oracles ass.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[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 20:14:03 -0300
El jue, 02 nov 2000, Nigel Feltham escribió:
>>Wholly shit! A mecha-troll sighted! Even retarded children know that
>>Linux has GUIs in abundance.
>
>This depends on your definition of GUI. If you say that the program which
>runs graphical applications is the GUI then there is only one GUI - Xfree,
>on the other hand if you say that the program which controls where each
>window appears on the desktop then there are probably at least 15 of them.
>Personally I think of Xfree as the GUI and the window manager as just a
>theme running on the GUI but everyone is entitled to their own opinion of
>what part is the actual GUI so your view is equally valid.
If you use your version, then these exist:
W (used in Yopy)
MicroWindows
Qt/Embedded
AcceleratedX (or however it's called these days)
Metro-X
MGR
Not 15, but between 6 and 8 GUIs ;-)
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Once agian: Obscurity != security (Was: Tuff Competition for LINUX!
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 15:09:35 -0800
"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9m0M5.2726$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:GoXL5.119890$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > On Wed, 01 Nov 2000 02:47:44 GMT,
> > > Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >news:9HJL5.1627$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > ><SNIP>
> > > >
> > > >> The reality is open source software is more likely to be secure
than
> > binary
> > > >> only software.
> > > >
> > > >LIE
> > >
> > > Nearly every security expert on the planet disagrees with you.
> > >
> > >
> > > >Linux has now taken the lead in exploits.
> > >
> > > These exploits are being found and patches released before they are
> > > exploited, becuase it's open source.
> > >
> > > >It seems that Open Source has produced more security holes than
closed
> > source.
> > > >
> > >
> > > No the OSS ones get discovered and fixed.
> >
> > The OpenBSD website disagrees in the sense they say they are at least 6
> > months ahead of the other Linux/BSD sites in closing security holes.
> >
> > Go ahead. Take a look.
> >
>
> I did. You're knowlingly misrepresenting what is on OpenBSD's security
> page. In other words, you're lying.
>
> The only thing that comes close to what you claim is a paragraph which
says:
>
> --------
> Our proactive auditing process has really paid off. Statements like ``This
> problem was fixed in OpenBSD about 6 months ago'' have become commonplace
in
> security forums like BUGTRAQ.
> --------
>
> That's a far cry from them claiming to be "at least 6 months ahead of the
> other Linux/BSD sites in closing security holes."
It is EXACTLY the same thing. EXACTLY.
Quit playing the whining Linux semantic game.
------------------------------
From: . <[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: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 12:09:32 +1300
> 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.
IMO you would be a bit of a masochist though ;)
> 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.
Using the CLI to its full potential does not necessarily preclude using a
nice friendly mail client or editor either. It DOES give you more power,
should you want it.
Personally, I hate vi. =)
:q! to quit without saving? How intuitive! =P
> You can do the *same* for win9x/nt, but you didn't really look, did you?
You can do the same, but I've only ever heard of one attempt...
http://www.litestep.net
Are there any others that people could recommend?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
