Linux-Advocacy Digest #31, Volume #30 Sat, 4 Nov 00 02:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Tuff Competition for LINUX! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Bill Vermillion)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Christopher Smith)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Marty)
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Christopher Smith)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Bruce Schuck")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 00:47:18 -0500
Bruce Schuck 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]...
> > > > 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
> > > > > > ^^^^^
> > > > > >
> > > > > > $10,000,000 ??? Oh, really.
> > > > >
> > > > > They say you _have_ to buy all they recommend _and_ pay their
> > > consultants
> > > > > for tuning your system up to the point your web site is three times
> > > faster.
> > > > > They say is they can't do it, they give you a million [back].
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If it's too outrageously expensive, then the whole exercise is
> pointless,
> > > > even from a promotional point of view.
> > > >
> > > > And you know that, don't you.
> > >
> > > What I know it that there is no claim too outrageous for Larry :)
> >
> > I'd believe Larry long before I'd believe Bill.
> >
> > Why? Because LARRY's shit works...RELIABLY.
>
> EBay disagrees. And Oracle is real expensive. Of course its cheaper than it
> was because SQL Server is even cheaper and kicks Oracles ass.
On the other hand. Oracle WORKS. Micro$hit software from Redmond, WA, doesn't--
no matter how much money you put into it.
--
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,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tuff Competition for LINUX!
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 00:50:32 -0500
Bruce Schuck wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > >
> > > Well, for a start, they are going to have unaffected copies of the
> source
> > > code, remember?
> > > They've change logs.
> > > They can simply run a doc compar of the code and check only the portions
> of
> > > it that changed.
> > > Please, this "we can never trust MS s/w now" is total bull!
> >
> > In absence of any information ...
>
> You are the Crown Prince of "Absence of Information".
I bow down before the, oh KING of "Absence of Information"
>
> And death threats.
Hey...at least *I* can carry them out.
Care to duel at 500 yards?
>
> And sleeping on the job.
My shit works....therefore, it's not an issue.
>
> And fabricated Ford/GM/Chrysler Dealerships in Detroit.
--
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.
------------------------------
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: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 05:26:50 GMT
In article <N7KM5.6196$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Bill Vermillion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> So, like, why don't we see Unix e-mail viruses?
>>
>> >Not enough people interested in making them?
>>
>> Well unless you consistanly run as root the worst any email virus
>> could do would be wipe out your own files. Why write a virus if
>> you can't nuke the entire system :-).
>Lots of viruses have been written which do just that. Melissa and
>ILOVEYOU could be accomplished without any special priveledges.
>They just need to grep the users home directory for email addresses
>to mail itself to.
We were talking about Unix email viruses - not the Mellisa or
ILOVEYOU. I'm unaware of any for Unix. First you have to execute
the program from the mailer and what Unix mail readers do that?:
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
------------------------------
From: Christopher Smith <[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, 4 Nov 2000 15:55:14 +1000
Marty wrote:
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > And thus, you touch upon the ENTIRE problem of the windows paradigm...
> > that each type of file is ONLY to be used by one specific executable,
> > and no other.
False.
> This is an area where the flexibility of OS/2 particularly shines. You
> can have several different programs associated with the file type and
> select among
> them by right-clicking the object in question. You can make the default
> something safe, like a Notepad type of app. For objects that you know are
> safe, you can change just their defaults to use a different app and this
> information is stored in the extended attributes of that particular file.
And you can do the same in Windows.
------------------------------
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: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 21:58:56 -0800
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> 1) That was Morris's, not Mitnick
> 2) it was a buffer-over run attack -- all such code was removed from
> Unix within a couple of months .. ie. 1988
Buffer overflows are still leaving Linux and Unix open to Denial of Service
attacks and hacking.
Here a few CERT advisories that point out buffer overflow attacks on
Unix/Linux.
http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-99-08-cmsd.html
http://www.cert.org/vul_notes/VN-2000-01.html
------------------------------
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: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 22:01:46 -0800
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Christopher Smith wrote:
> >
> > "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:9IzM5.12812$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:8tug1j$ci5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > > We don't because there isn't a mechanism I aware of that allows a
data
> > > > file to
> > > > > contain and then have automatically execute macros to manipulte an
API
> > > > that
> > > > > allows access to the OS.
> > > >
> > > > Neither is there in Windows, so your point is.....?
> > >
> > > How do you 'open' an attachment as a data file making sure
> > > you don't execute any content that it contains before you
> > > see what it is?
> >
> > Assuming you're talking about VBScript files:
> >
> > Either a) save it to a file and then open it in notepad b) set the file
> > associations so the default action is to open in an editor instead of an
> > execution environment.
>
> Ok. Now...try to take the same safety precautions with an Excel file,
> or a Word document.
>
> Hint fucking hint: you can't.
Unix = Ignorance
>From the Excel 2000 Help File:
Microsoft Excel doesn't scan your floppy disk, hard disk, or network drive
to find and remove macro viruses. If you want this kind of protection, you
need to purchase and install antivirus software. However, Excel can display
a warning message whenever you open a workbook that contains macros. You can
then decide whether to open the workbook with the macros enabled or whether
to open the workbook with the macros disabled so that you can only examine
and edit them. A macro virus can be harmful only if it is allowed to run, so
disabling the macros allows you to open the workbook safely.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[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, 04 Nov 2000 05:56:33 GMT
Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> Marty wrote:
>
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > > And thus, you touch upon the ENTIRE problem of the windows paradigm...
> > > that each type of file is ONLY to be used by one specific executable,
> > > and no other.
>
> False.
>
> > This is an area where the flexibility of OS/2 particularly shines. You
> > can have several different programs associated with the file type and
> > select among
> > them by right-clicking the object in question. You can make the default
> > something safe, like a Notepad type of app. For objects that you know are
> > safe, you can change just their defaults to use a different app and this
> > information is stored in the extended attributes of that particular file.
>
> And you can do the same in Windows.
Yeah, but we had it first. ;-)
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 22:03:48 -0800
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:dvMM5.12935$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:P4KM5.6195$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:t5qM5.12761$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Back then it was 3.51.
> > >
> > > Oh - the one that would crash if it received a bad packet on the
> > > network...
> >
> > IIRC, Linux was also effected by some of those same attacks. Ah, yes..
> >
> > http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-1997-28.html
> >
>
> Yes, but at the time no one was spending billions of dollars promoting
> the 'new technology' in Linux trying to convince everyone it was
> robust enough to replace real servers.
A year or two later they conned millions of people to buy worthless stock in
RedHat and other Linux vendors on the promise that Linux was robust enough
to replace real servers.
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 22:05:37 -0800
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:MyMM5.12936$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:EULM5.121753$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > In practice, nobody cares about the speed of static pages. Any
machine
> > can
> > > serve faster than the internet bandwidth you can afford. What matters
> is
> > > dynamic content which is best done with apache and mod_perl or php.
> > > Note that the server they tested could have used either, but they only
> > > mention testing cgi programs that run about a hundred times slower.
> > > Did they avoid testing the best capabilities on purpose or just out
> > > of ignorance?
> >
> > They tested the best capabilities of all systems.
>
> Did I miss the php and mod_perl timings?
>
> > It's well known fact that IIS 5 on Win2K kicks ass on dynamic content.
> >
> > If you have alternative benchmarks post them.
>
> Why would I have any IIS timings? I would be interested if anyone
> has equivalent perl code running under IIS and apache/mod_perl, though.
That is the beauty of IIS. You can write you ISAPI filters in many
languages, including Perl.
.NET will have options for even more languages to experience the speed and
power of IIS and Win2K.
------------------------------
From: Christopher Smith <[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, 4 Nov 2000 16:04:49 +1000
Marty wrote:
> Christopher Smith wrote:
> >
> > > This is an area where the flexibility of OS/2 particularly shines.
> > > You can have several different programs associated with the file type
> > > and select among
> > > them by right-clicking the object in question. You can make the
> > > default
> > > something safe, like a Notepad type of app. For objects that you know
> > > are safe, you can change just their defaults to use a different app
> > > and this information is stored in the extended attributes of that
> > > particular file.
> >
> > And you can do the same in Windows.
>
> Yeah, but we had it first. ;-)
We did indeed, but I really don't think that was the point.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 06:10:27 GMT
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8u08co$nve$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Marty wrote:
>
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > > And thus, you touch upon the ENTIRE problem of the windows paradigm...
> > > that each type of file is ONLY to be used by one specific executable,
> > > and no other.
>
> False.
>
> > This is an area where the flexibility of OS/2 particularly shines. You
> > can have several different programs associated with the file type and
> > select among
> > them by right-clicking the object in question. You can make the default
> > something safe, like a Notepad type of app. For objects that you know
are
> > safe, you can change just their defaults to use a different app and this
> > information is stored in the extended attributes of that particular
file.
>
> And you can do the same in Windows.
What do I have to change so I always have the option of opening a file
with notepad (even files with no extension) instead of executing
whatever it is that explorer thinks should happen when I touch it?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
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: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 22:13:29 -0800
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Bill Vermillion wrote:
> >
> > In article <8tsopq$36g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > >> > 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?
> >
> > Well unless you consistanly run as root the worst any email virus
> > could do would be wipe out your own files. Why write a virus if
> > you can't nuke the entire system :-).
> >
> > Many many many years ago - and details are fuzzy as this happened
> > before I got into Unix 15+ years ago - I remember reading how some
> > pepole would have 'fun' embedding some strings in documents, and
> > that it was either 1) vi or 2) mail application which would execute
> > code if it was in the first 4 lines of the file. This was used to
> > nuke files when someone read/edited the file. That was very very
> > early usenet - so maybe someone else who was around then can fill
> > in the details.
>
> if you start any line in the top four lines with a colon (":") vi
> will interpret the line as an ex command. However, unlike word
> macros, you can avoid such things by first using top (1) on the file.
>
> >
> > What makes the MS type machines such an interesting target is that
> > they the vast majority are all the same. Printer port, serial
> > port, keyboards, HD, and on and on, all have the same interface
> > across 100's of millions of machines. Biggest problem I remember
> > was Morris' worm - 1986 - that propagated itself through sendmail
> > on certain platforms. [Gawd that's been a long time].
>
> VAX and SUN. Used a buffer overrun attack.
>
> Code that allowed buffer overruns was all cleaned up out of Unix within
> a couple weeks.
http://search.cert.org/
Search for "buffer".
Notice how many Linux/Unix vulnerabilities there are.
Here is an example for Solaris:
http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-1999-16.html
Aaron is an idiot.
------------------------------
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: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 22:15:11 -0800
"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:
> > > >
> > > > "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.
>
> Yes, yes...against improperly managed systems.
Nope. All Unix/Linux systems have vulnerabilities.
Especially buffer overflow vulnerabilities that Aaron claims were taken out
of Unix 12 years ago.
Ha ha ha. What a joker.
------------------------------
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: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 22:16:14 -0800
"Marty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > Christopher Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:SGLM5.121746$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > > But if someone double-clicks it instead of starting the other app
to
> > > > > access it you are still fried.
> > > >
> > > > True of any email attachment in any operating system.
> > >
> > > Not quite true. What double clicking an attachment in outlook does is
hand
> > > it off to the shell for handling (after the obligatory "this could be
a bad
> > > idea" dialog box) by whatever application has registered as the
handler for
> > > its filetype. Not all mailers do this, and not all shells have a
direct
> > > equivalent to a filetype being mapped to a "handler" - thus the "not
quite
> > > true" above.
> > >
> > > The equivalent exercise under most *nix mailers would be to manually
pipe
> > > the attachment to its "handler", in which case the results of
something like
> > > a script to delete a whole bunch of files (a la "ILOVEYOU") would be
pretty
> > > much identical.
> > >
> > > I'd imagine some GUI mailers under *nix do much the same thing Outlook
> > > does - hands the attachment off to whatever handler is registered for
that
> > > filetype. I wouldn't know - I use pine.
> > >
> > > The quickest and easiest way for a sysadmin to neuter VBScript
"viruses" is
> > > to just set the default handler for a .vbs file to notepad (or some
other
> > > editor) and distribute the setting as a .reg file. Of course, your
users
> > > that normally run a lot of .vbs files by just double clicking on them
might
> > > get a tad annoyed.
> >
> > And thus, you touch upon the ENTIRE problem of the windows paradigm...
> > that each type of file is ONLY to be used by one specific executable,
> > and no other.
>
> This is an area where the flexibility of OS/2 particularly shines. You
can
> have several different programs associated with the file type and select
among
> them by right-clicking the object in question. You can make the default
> something safe, like a Notepad type of app. For objects that you know are
> safe, you can change just their defaults to use a different app and this
> information is stored in the extended attributes of that particular file.
Same with Windows.
Aaron is very very ignorant.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 06:15:46 GMT
"Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:wDNM5.121777$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >
> > Yes, but at the time no one was spending billions of dollars promoting
> > the 'new technology' in Linux trying to convince everyone it was
> > robust enough to replace real servers.
>
> A year or two later they conned millions of people to buy worthless stock
in
> RedHat and other Linux vendors on the promise that Linux was robust enough
> to replace real servers.
And by then it was, and everyone trying to use NT still had farms of
dozens of machines behind load balancers hoping that a few would
keep working. Do you consider google, deja, or sourceforge to be
real servers?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
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: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 22:17:15 -0800
"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]...
> > > 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.
>
> On the other hand. Oracle WORKS.
Sometimes. With great cost. I hear it's better on VMS than Unix though.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
