Linux-Advocacy Digest #45, Volume #30 Sat, 4 Nov 00 21:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: I think I'm in love..... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft? (Jim Richardson)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Jim Richardson)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Jim Richardson)
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. ("Weevil")
Re: Tuff Competition for LINUX! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Chad Meyers: Blatent liar (.)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Giuliano Colla)
Re: More Certification ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
can't delete partition and "compressed file at block 0" ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. (Bob Hauck)
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! (Bob Hauck)
Re: Why Linux is great (Bob Hauck)
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! (Bob Hauck)
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. (Bob Hauck)
Re: Chad Meyers: Blatent liar ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Ms employees begging for food (John Bayko)
Re: Chad Meyers: Blatent liar ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Weevil")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: I think I'm in love.....
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 00:10:30 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (sfcybear) wrote in <8u09gl$p19$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> * My sound card (still) isn't supported
>
>Of course you don't say what it is.
What on earth for? You can read can't you? I have mentioned it before.
People moan at me to go use a search engine - so I'm returning the
compliment. Go use DejaNews to see which sound card I'm talking about.
>> * LILO boot keeps coming and going
>
>That is caused by a loose nut on the keyboard.
No, it is caused either the installation, Linux or Windows 98 SE.
>> * Fonts all got stuck on some ugly fixed font
>
>My fonts are working well!
Well bully for you. Mine aren't.
>> * Quite a few SIGSEGV's in KDE 2.0
>
>I Have not noticed very many...
Someone else, definately more helpful than you, and less insulting, has
pointed out this SIGSEGV is benign.
--
Pete Goodwin
---
Why don't I use Linux?
Waiting for Borland to release Delphi.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft?
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 16:06:49 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 4 Nov 2000 12:57:16 -0800,
Bruce Schuck, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sat, 04 Nov 2000 08:09:36 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Bruce Schuck wrote:
>> >
>> [deletia]
>> >> > >
>> >> > > When Linux starts supplying drivers for even 1/100th of the
>hardware
>> >> windows
>> >> > > supports I'll be amazed.
>>
>> In what area exactly does Linux support only one device out of
>> 100 when compared to WinDOS. Please provide actual details.
>
>You are right. I may have overestimated.
"May" have?
Tell me, does windows run on powerpc? Mips? StrongARM? motorola M68K series?
howabout HP-PA? or Sparc? what about S390?
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.linux.sucks
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 16:20:06 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 04 Nov 2000 19:53:30 GMT,
Les Mikesell, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >Can you please inform me what you can do in Vi that you can't in Word.
>> >Or even what you can do much more easily in Vi than in Word.
>>
>> "anything complex" probably would fit the bill.
>>
>> However, I will leave the details to the vi users.
>
>One I use fairly often: you have a list of names in
>Last, First form but you want First Last.
>:%s/\(.*\), \(.*\)/\2 \1/
>and you have it. And since regular expressions work
>in most of the unix tools there is nothing extra to
>learn or look up.
>
It's really unfair to compare word with vi(m), since word is only a word
processor, it can't handle the more complex tasks like inserting the results of
an arbitrary command into the document, etc. The mere thought of editing source
code in word is enough to cause spontaneous migraines.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 16:21:42 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 4 Nov 2000 13:56:09 +0200,
Ayende Rahien, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
>"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>
>> > runas command.
>>
>> Could you give some details? There's no trace of runas in NT on-line
>> doc, I tried help runas and I got sort of " no help available for runas,
>> try runas /?". I tried runas /? to be told that /? is neither an
>> executable nor a batch file. Maybe it does a lot, but documentation
>> appears a bit concise!
>
>Start>Run>Help>Index
>Write "runas", and it will take you to the runas CLI & GUI explanations.
>
Doesn't sound like the help system is very integrated does it?
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 18:22:12 -0600
Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:lCXM5.122690$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> I'm more than willing to look at some benchmarks. Do you have any?
>
> > and whether you have to write thread-safe
> > code in a thread-safe language (which in my experience takes
> > about 15 years longer than when you don't) to make it work.
>
> IIS works just fine. And fast too. Kicks Linux and Solaris ass
>
http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q2/
Everywhere there is a direct comparison between Linux/TUX and Win2K/IIS5.0
on identical hardware, the Linux/TUX combo wins by a wide margin. The most
impressive results are when Linux and Win2K run on identical 4-cpu
systems -- Linux is almost 3 times as fast as Win2K in this configuration.
This suggests that Win2K doesn't scale nearly as well as Linux for this
particular application.
The SPECweb benchmark is an industry standard, by the way. It wasn't run by
some Microsoft magazine, like the one you quoted.
Hope that helps.
jwb
jwb
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tuff Competition for LINUX!
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 10:23:34 +1000
"Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:vT_M5.865$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Bruce Schuck wrote:
> > > And death threats.
> >
> > Hey...at least *I* can carry them out.
> >
> > Care to duel at 500 yards?
> >
>
> What are you going to hit him with? Your Sig perchance?
LOL.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Chad Meyers: Blatent liar
Date: 5 Nov 2000 00:46:40 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8c1N5.123098$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > On Fri, 03 Nov 2000 13:51:22 GMT,
>> > Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > >> On Fri, 03 Nov 2000 03:33:10 GMT,
>> > >> Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> >Particularly the ones where Red Hat was compromised and trojan code
>> was
>> > >allowed
>> > >> >to be inserted and was released as final product by Red Hat
>> themselves.
>> > >>
>> > >> As usual, you are a blatent liar.
>>
>> How about this one:
>>
>> It lets remote users shut down a workstation on RedHat 6.0, 6.1, and 6.2.
>>
>> http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2000-044-02.html
>>
>> Or this one that allows root access:
>>
>> A security bug in wu-ftpd can permit remote users, even without
>> an account, to gain root access.
>>
>> http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2000-039-02.html
>>
>>
>> Etc etc.
>>
>> Too many to list.
>>
>> Just read through the RedHat security advisories. You'll find dozens ...
> or
>> hundreds.
>>
>> It appears every package on RedHat is -- at some time or another -- some
>> kind of trojan that allows root access.
> How about this one:
> http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2000014-16.html
> The GUI portion of Piranha may allow any remote attacker to execute commands
> on the server. This may allow a remote attacker to launch additional
> exploits against a web site from inside the web server.
The very important difference between what youre writing and
actual pertinance, is that the bugs listed above are not inclusive
within the linux operating system, but within optional third party
software packages.
Unlike the fun little bug in IIS that allows complete access to all
drives.
:)
=====.
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 00:51:42 GMT
Jim Richardson wrote:
>
> On Sat, 4 Nov 2000 13:56:09 +0200,
> Ayende Rahien, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
> >
> >"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> >
> >> > runas command.
> >>
> >> Could you give some details? There's no trace of runas in NT on-line
> >> doc, I tried help runas and I got sort of " no help available for runas,
> >> try runas /?". I tried runas /? to be told that /? is neither an
> >> executable nor a batch file. Maybe it does a lot, but documentation
> >> appears a bit concise!
> >
> >Start>Run>Help>Index
> >Write "runas", and it will take you to the runas CLI & GUI explanations.
> >
>
> Doesn't sound like the help system is very integrated does it?
>
They managed to produce 63000 bugs just by integrating GUI into OS, and
IE into GUI. Thanks God they didn't even try to integrate the help
system!
(sorry, I forgot you're pagan, let's say Thanks Jupiter, Baal or Odin,
at your choice)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: More Certification
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 01:34:24 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <tLWM5.12994$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> "VanPopering" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:rJUM5.2520$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > I'm not a big advocate of certification. If you've got extra money that
>> > you want to throw away on classes, then get your ass into college. A
>> > degree doesn't expire, it can't be arbitrarily withdrawn by a vendor,
>> > and it will qualify you for far more positions than a certification.
>>
>> college is a waste of time as far as computer go. go look at the computer
> sci. list. All the computer classes
>> required - Great. but the prerequisites you have to take before them (all
> the math, calculus, etc) has ABSOLUTELY
>> NOTHING to do with computers, networking, etc. THAT is a waste of time
> and money.
>
> I don't consider learning the basic techniques of thinking to be a waste.
> One of the things you need most in a technical vocation is the ability to
> solve what appears to be a new problem and this is a skill that develops
> independently of the thing you are studying.
I couldn't agree more. I have found that people who have studied
science or engineering at university often become very good software
engineers. What I do find surprising is that people who have studied
computer science often don't become good software engineers. Of course
these are not hard facts, just my general impression. One of the best
software engineer's I ever worked with had a degree in music!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: can't delete partition and "compressed file at block 0"
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 01:02:41 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have an Ispirati 6X86 with a small hard disk (6.4 gig) and have lost
access to my hard disk which has a "compressed file at block 0" so I
can't install RHLinux 6.2
I would like to delete the hard disk partition. I am given to
understand that I can do so with a dos floppy but so far the dos files
I have are old, will opartitions but only create a new partition that
is under 2048meg.
While I am still looking for the appropriate boot and other files to
make a newer dos boot diskette with FDISK that will create a 6.4 gig
partition can anyone help me with the above info like how to use the
RHLinux 6.2 bootable diskettes I have during past installations?
--
Joe
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Joe
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 01:43:42 GMT
On Sat, 4 Nov 2000 12:48:18 -0800, Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What part of 'dynamic' don't you understand?
>
>Transactions. Writing to a database. I understand those concepts. Do you?
We understand that you want to define things so you can cite tpc
benchmarks. Database transactions, however, are only a part of what
people mean by the term "dynamic content".
Most of us would consider things like text searching (google, deja) and
online forums (sourceforge, slashdot) to be "dynamic content". In
fact, I daresay that there is more of that kind of dynamic content on
the web than "transactional" stuff.
You also seem to want to pretend that ASP on IIS and Perl on Apache are
comparable technologies. They aren't. One is handled in the server
process, the other launches a separate interpreter for each use. The
latter, however, is not inherent in Apache, which supports loadable
modules for in-process scripting just fine. If you want to compare
in-process scripting, then compare ASP to PHP4 or mod_perl. If you
want to compare CGI, then compare plain Perl on both.
The thing is, if you do this fairly you will find that there isn't a
whole lot of difference. Each system will be able to shine in some
contrived benchmark, but in the real world they will perform close
enough that nobody but benchmarketers will notice a diffrence. The
difference is that you have a lot more flexibility with Apache, what
with having the source code and all.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 01:43:45 GMT
On Sat, 4 Nov 2000 09:10:44 -0800, Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What has Access got to do with a web server.
>
>Access databases are used as to serve up dynamic content on IIS.
Only on really small sites.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Why Linux is great
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 01:43:48 GMT
On Sat, 4 Nov 2000 22:26:37 +0200, James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Use a download manager like GetRight 4.3. Unfortunately there is no Linux
>equivalent. :-(
WTF is a "download manager"? Is that anything like doing this:
at 4:15am
at> wget ftp://somewhere/some-file
at> wget ftp://somewhere-else/some-file
at> ^D
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 01:43:47 GMT
On Sat, 4 Nov 2000 22:10:52 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>ILOVEYOU
>
>Need user confirmation in order to active itself.
None of my Unix mailers will run a shell script at all, period. I have
to save it to a file and set the "x" bit. I count this as a good
thing, since I can't think of any _good_ reason why I'd want scripts to
run when I simply "open" them. This makes it a lot harder to fool
people.
>teardrop
>
>Don't know this one, what is this?
A way to crash NT remotely by sending malformed packets to it over the
Internet. Long since fixed.
>Back Orifice
>
>Trojan, can write the same on any OS.
Sure, but Windows makes it easy to fool the user into running it.
There are also a number of nifty buffer overflows in IIS and other
Windows services that allow remote attackers to install BO.
>Word macro attacks
>
>Require user confirmation in order to be activated.
Only if you have that setting turned on (in Word97). Why have macros
embedded in the document to begin with? Why not make a distinction?
You don't see any Emacs macro viruses going around, even though it has
a very powerful macro language.
The whole point here is that Windows has it's share of security
problems. It is not notably different from Linux in this regard. If
Linux is "insecure", then NT is too.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 01:43:43 GMT
On Sat, 4 Nov 2000 12:56:33 -0800, Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> When you use multiple process, then you only lose the one
>> request.
>
>And it is slooowwww.
If you have pre-spwaned processes waiting around, which Apache does,
the only extra overhead is some IPC.
A fork() on most Unixen is about as fast as a CreateThread() on NT,
and under most common circumstances a context switch isn't much more
expensive than a thread switch on NT. So as long as you don't follow a
fork() by an exec() to load a new code image (which will be the case if
you are just spawning another copy of yourself), it is just a matter of
copying some kernel data structures. Not a big deal at all. If you
pre-spawn some worker processes, then you even avoid the overhead of
fork() most of the time.
Creating a process on NT is _much_ slower than on Unix. That's why
threads aren't quite so important on Unix. The main disadvantage of
multiple processes is that communication between them is not as easy as
with threads. The main advantage is robustness.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Chad Meyers: Blatent liar
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 11:46:29 +1000
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8u2alg$2kev$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > How about this one:
>
> > http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2000014-16.html
>
> > The GUI portion of Piranha may allow any remote attacker to execute
commands
> > on the server. This may allow a remote attacker to launch additional
> > exploits against a web site from inside the web server.
>
> The very important difference between what youre writing and
> actual pertinance, is that the bugs listed above are not inclusive
> within the linux operating system, but within optional third party
> software packages.
>
> Unlike the fun little bug in IIS that allows complete access to all
> drives.
IIS also being an optional software package.......
------------------------------
From: John Bayko <"jbayko"@ sk.sympatico.ca>
Reply-To: jbayko@, sk.sympatico.ca
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc
Subject: Re: Ms employees begging for food
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 01:54:38 GMT
> Said Weevil in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...continuing from a previous response...]
>>I need make no presumptions about the existence of anyone, anywhere, in
>>order to open a socket.
>
> Thus the presumption that you are making. ;-)
>
>>I just open the socket. Simple. Whether a
>>connection will be made at some later time need not be known. Actually,
>>since programs are not psychic, it is impossible to know whether the socket
>>will ever be used in a connection.
>
> This is, as I've said before, why you cannot treat sockets like files
> when you open them. The socket *may* be used in a connection, and since
> programs are not psychic, you presume they will be used (potentially, by
> anyone, anywhere) when you open them, or you are merely "pretending" to
> open them. Either you are taking the abstraction of sockets in
> programming too seriously, or not seriously enough.
[...]
>>The same is true of a file, as I mentioned above. Neither I nor my program
>>necessarily "knows" whether a file that I create/open will actually be used,
>>but that doesn't prevent me from opening it, and it doesn't prevent
the file
>>from existing.
>
> The file is local, and therefore under the complete control, ostensibly,
> of the local system. A socket is, supposedly, a connection to something
> outside the scope, control, and authority of the local system, or the
> local system programmer.
Are you saying that a serial device is not a local resource on a
machine? Like a socket, you can open it, and not know that it's
connected to anything on the other side.
If a serial port or socket port aren't local resources, then are
they local to anything in the world? Or are they non-local concepts of
some sort (ie. the computer serial port, serial cable, and modem or
printer serial port are physically irrelevant to the serial connection
itself, which is only a 'concept')?
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Chad Meyers: Blatent liar
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 18:00:09 -0800
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8u2alg$2kev$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8c1N5.123098$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> "Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >>
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > On Fri, 03 Nov 2000 13:51:22 GMT,
> >> > Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >
>
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > >> On Fri, 03 Nov 2000 03:33:10 GMT,
> >> > >> Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >Particularly the ones where Red Hat was compromised and trojan
code
> >> was
> >> > >allowed
> >> > >> >to be inserted and was released as final product by Red Hat
> >> themselves.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> As usual, you are a blatent liar.
> >>
> >> How about this one:
> >>
> >> It lets remote users shut down a workstation on RedHat 6.0, 6.1, and
6.2.
> >>
> >> http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2000-044-02.html
> >>
> >> Or this one that allows root access:
> >>
> >> A security bug in wu-ftpd can permit remote users, even without
> >> an account, to gain root access.
> >>
> >> http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2000-039-02.html
> >>
> >>
> >> Etc etc.
> >>
> >> Too many to list.
> >>
> >> Just read through the RedHat security advisories. You'll find dozens
...
> > or
> >> hundreds.
> >>
> >> It appears every package on RedHat is -- at some time or another --
some
> >> kind of trojan that allows root access.
>
> > How about this one:
>
> > http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2000014-16.html
>
> > The GUI portion of Piranha may allow any remote attacker to execute
commands
> > on the server. This may allow a remote attacker to launch additional
> > exploits against a web site from inside the web server.
>
> The very important difference between what youre writing and
> actual pertinance, is that the bugs listed above are not inclusive
> within the linux operating system, but within optional third party
> software packages.
Included on the installation CD.
>
> Unlike the fun little bug in IIS that allows complete access to all
> drives.
IIS is an optional service that has to be installed and started after the
install of the OS.
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 02:02:11 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Fri, 3 Nov 2000 20:58:44 -0800, Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >Anyone who reads the security advisories knows that Linux distros are
> > >unsecure and open by default.
> >
> > I do read the security advisories. There are about the same number for
> > MS products as for Linux.
> >
> > I agree that many Linux distributions run more services by default than
> > they should. This, however, does not mean that they are necessarily
> > "unsecure". They may become insecure down the road when people don't
> > update their systems.
> >
> > MS products, on the other hand, don't run many network services by
> > default. This doesn't mean they are secure though, as
>
> ILOVEYOU
>
> Need user confirmation in order to active itself. You can do the same for
> any other OS.
>
> teardrop
>
> Don't know this one, what is this?
>
> Back Orifice
>
> Trojan, can write the same on any OS.
>
> Word macro attacks
>
> Require user confirmation in order to be activated.
To make these statements is to say I know nothing about *nix's.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 20:06:07 -0600
John Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:THBM5.7927$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:FzzM5.12810$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "John Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:27xM5.228$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >I think it was that well-known Microsoft megalomania that prevented
> > them
> > > > >from seeing what was coming. Since they didn't have anything to do
> > with
> > > > >it, they couldn't believe it was important.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Just to remain all of us, Bill Gates published in 95 book
> > > > called "The Road Ahead" or something. He did not mention
> > > > Internet in that book.
> > > >
> > > > Andrew.
> > >
> > > The word 'internet' is used 4 times on the first page.?
> >
> > Do you have the 2nd edition or the original? I heard there
> > was a bit of historical revisionism done along the way
> > but never bothered to check it out myself. Can anyone
> > verify?
> >
>
> Yes, its 2nd edition. Would have to re-write the entire book as its mostly
> about the internet.
>
Finally tracked down my 1st edition copy. I never actually read it (got it
for $1 in a bargain book bin), but I have browsed it a bit. The word
'internet' is used 0 times on the first page. He does mention the
'information superhighway' (as the popular political phrase went back then),
and also a "...newer form of communication---electronic mail, or e-mail..."
The first mention of the Internet is on page 3, where he makes it clear that
he doesn't consider it to be the 'information superhighway.'
"Now that computing is astoundingly inexpensive and computers inhabit
every part of our lives, we stand at the brink of another revolution. This
one will involve unprecedentedly inexpensive communication; all the
computers will join together to communicate with us and for us.
Interconnected globally, they will form a network, which is being called the
information highway. A direct precursor is the present Internet, which is a
group of computers joined and exchanging information using current
technology."
"The reach and use of the new network, its promise and perils, is the
subject of this book."
Apparently, Gates didn't realize that the Internet *IS* the information
highway. But as was said earlier in this thread, that's most likely because
Microsoft had nothing to do with it.
I might browse a little more through this book. I just came across a little
passage in which Gates describes how he holed up in his dorm room, losing
track of the days and his meals, as he wrote that first version of BASIC for
the Altair microcomputer and thus created Microsoft. He didn't mention the
source of 'his' BASIC interpreter.
I wonder if he mentions DR DOS anywhere in here...hahaha.
jwb
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
