Linux-Advocacy Digest #423, Volume #30 Sat, 25 Nov 00 21:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (mark)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (mark)
Re: The Sixth Sense (Giuliano Colla)
Re: The Sixth Sense (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Response to: MS Office sucks? So why is anyone using it? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: I have had it up to *here* with Linux (Jim Richardson)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Giuliano Colla)
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Chad Mulligan")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Curtis)
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Chad Mulligan")
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! ("Chad Mulligan")
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! ("Chad Mulligan")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 00:23:22 +0000
In article <8vpjuo$5autc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <8vpegl$52a0r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >
>> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> In article <8vp2pl$3prmn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien
>wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >
>> >> >> Therefore your claim that partition handling is a problem for
>> >> >> storing registry information in a separate partition is
>> >> >> specious.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That's what I was saying. Hope that clarifies for you.
>> >> >
>> >> >What exactly is it that you are propusing?
>> >> >Another partition with a FS on it, or a raw partition?
>> >> >I think we were talking about different things here.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Whatever you'd like. Personally I'd choose a reliable
>> >> filesystem design, but you can design your own if you'd
>> >> prefer.
>> >
>> >No, thank you.
>> >I don't intend to add another FS to the many that already exist.
>> >Not that I think that I can, without some major studying.
>> >
>> >
>> Well, Win9x can only read FAT, so maybe you'd be better
>> sticking with it?
>
>FAT is about the simplest FS that there can be, and it should only be used
>on single user OS, as it has no way to implement security measures.
>I much rather have NTFS.
>For that matter, the registry in NT acts like an NTFS partition, where you
>can delegate permissions.
>In win9x, you can only dream about this capacity.
>
>
But if that's all Win9x can read, then that's what you'd have to
use for any other partition.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 00:25:59 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, mark wrote:
>In article <c%XT5.227$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, PLZI wrote:
>>
>>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> In article <jrWT5.209$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, PLZI wrote:
>>> >www.ietf.org propably will accept your donations, if you feel that you
>>have
>>> >to pay something. Like next time you post something here using the "not
>>real
>>> >open standard" NNTP.
>
>Well, turned out it wasn't, didn't it.
>
>>>
>>> So you don't know what 'informational' actually means, then?
>>
>>Gawd. Use the internet, Luke.
>>
>>4.2.2 Informational
>>
>> An "Informational" specification is published for the general
>> information of the Internet community, and does not represent an
>> Internet community consensus or recommendation. The Informational
>> designation is intended to provide for the timely publication of a
>> very broad range of responsible informational documents from many
>> sources, subject only to editorial considerations and to verification
>> that there has been adequate coordination with the standards process
>> (see section 4.2.3).
>>
>> Specifications that have been prepared outside of the Internet
>> community and are not incorporated into the Internet Standards
>> Process by any of the provisions of section 10 may be published as
>> Informational RFCs, with the permission of the owner and the
>> concurrence of the RFC Editor.
>>
>>
>>> > > >(formerly X/Open) standard for PC and UNIX interoperability since 1992
>>> >> >(X/Open CAE Specification C209). "
>>> >>
>>> >> I didn't think X/Open was anything other than a manufacturer's
>>> >> consortium.
>>> >
>>> >Standard bodies usually are manufacturer consortiums. Try looking who runs
>>> >committees for telecommunication and broadcasting standards, for example.
>>>
>>> I was a rapportuer at the UN for 10 years doing ITU work for
>>> Telecommunications. I have personally managed and run the development
>>> and publication of several ITU M.2xxx series recommendations.
>>>
>>> The ITU is a Governmental body, *NOT* a manufacturer consortium.
>>>
>>> I have also had strong involvement with ETSI (the European
>>> standards body) - ie., attended meetings, contributed etc. Again,
>>> this is a governmental body *NOT* a manufacturer consortium.
>>
>>You can find Ascom, Ericsson, Nokia, Nortel, Motorola, Lucent, Sun,
>>Mannesmann and Siemens in the ETSI board. Now tell me, that the GSM phone
>>manufacturers are not a part of it? (and yes, my company is there as well.)
>
>I didn't say they weren't - they were admitted within the last 6 years
>or so as paying members. Before then, they always used to attend anyway,
>but as _government reps_. The companies pay the individual countries
>to attend. For example several US companies pay in the UK because it's
>cheaper than paying in the US. The body, however, remains a Governmental
>body. Speak to your reps there, they will explain how it works.
>
>To make it very clear, EC countries vote in ETSI. World countries
>vote in ITU. A bit more subtly, the ITU is split into 3 areas,
>the ITU-T, ITU-R and ITU-D. T and R are attended typically by
>the industrialised countries, whereas D is more popular with the
>devloping countries, because they deal with different things.
>
>>
>>Come on. The bodies may be straightforward, balanced, righteous and all
>>that - but still, the money comes from somewhere - and it is not
>>government/governments who pay for this.
>
>Oh god, yes it is! What's more, the US has a huge back-bill against
>the UN work.
>
>>
>>> I think I have 10 years more experience in standards production
>>> than you have.
>>
>>Be my guest. I'm not saying that the standard bodies are the Evil and
>>Invisible Empire of Manufacturers - but they are funded and run by them.
>
>No they are not. I can tell you've never been. The ITU is a
>sub-body of the UN which is funded by government. ETSI is an
>artefact of the EC (a government body), unlike the CEPT which
>it has more or less replaced.
>
>Go to the ITU web-site for more info. Sorry, I would have said
>
>'Gawd, use the internet, Luke'. FYI, the web was invented in
>Switzerland, very close to ITU headquarters.
Sorry:
www.itu.int
>
>>
>>
>>> I still want to know what the significance of 'informational'
>>> is.
>>> Do you know?
>>
>>The quote from IETF is above.
>
>
>Okay, so it's not a standard. It's not open. It's really
>not very useful at all.
>
>
>Mark
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 00:35:09 GMT
mark wrote:
>
> In article <8vpegc$52a0r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
[snip]
> >
> >Really? I never could force netscape 4 to read more than one email per
> >profile. How did you do that?
>
> I can just add as many as I want. Is there something wrong with
> the windows version?
>
> >
> >> >With IE, I could get all the mail from all those email boxes with no
> >> >trouble.
> >>
> >> As can I with Netscape 4.
> >
> >No, you couldn't.
>
> Err, yes I can.
>
It just depends on what you're speaking about.
Netscape 4.xx can handle either multiple IMAP e-mail servers, or a
single POP server, per profile.
Netscape 6 supports multiple POP severs, but I've not yet tested it
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 00:37:00 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > The NT4.x and 9x EULAs specifically prohibit ANY customer statement
> > which is damaging to Microsoft in any way.
>
> Can you point me out to where those statement are?
> I can't see how this is true, because when ME came out (and 95/98 too, for
> that matter) a lot of magazines said something like: "You buy a new
> computer, get it, otherwise, keep your own OS" Which is clearly damaging MS
> http://www.iarchitect.com/shame.htm is taking apart several of MS
> application.
>
> Two examples out of the millions I could've given.
EULA binds customers, not journalists or net sites, hopefully!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Response to: MS Office sucks? So why is anyone using it?
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 00:37:50 GMT
In article <8vp97s$mfa$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Adam Warner wrote:
>Hi MH,
>
>> Why is the MS Office suite important? I thought everything MS sucked?
>> wats up wit dat?
>
>I can't do my (academic) work without MS Office. For example, someone tells
>me they need a document created/formatted in Word and I can't tell them
>"Please wait until the MS Office file formats have been fully reverse
>engineered and Open Office is fully compatible with them and I'll send it to
>you."
>
I don't think you'll have to worry about this much more.
Most companies will be throwing out word starting next year
as MS office went subscription.
>And them Microsoft will have shifted the goalposts, and many gullible
>institutions may follow them straight away. I bet .NET Office software will
>have lots of nice "features" that make the current Office suites less
>desirable. Who knows this could be a winner: "I'm sorry you cannot use any
>online .NET features until you have upgraded your file format to Office
>xxxx. As a helpful paperclip do you want me to do that now for you?"
>
They are going subscription. When they do that companies will
start to leave Microsoft in hoards! It's already too expensive
to have a Microsoft OFFice right now!
>That will be the error message if we're fortunate. Microsoft will upgrade
>all files to the new format by default without saving a backup if we're not.
>And then we'll find out that the file converters are less than perfect. Gosh
>they may even be so fantastic that they will be only be able to output Rich
>Text Format. But we've got no precedent for that have we?
>
>Gosh I can be acerbic without even tryng ;-)
>
>Regards,
>Adam
>
>
I think major blocks of users such as universities will
be the first to leave Microsoft. Attorney's by and large
have been word perfect users and never left. They are
using Corel Linux mainly. Beyond that, small and large,
businesses will begin to leave Microsoft on the shelves.
The WHOLE idea for bringing the PC into the work place
was to help CUT the extremely HIGH cost of mainframes.
And for a decade they have accomplished this feat, but
with Microsoft jacking up the prices on everything,
in this day and age a mainframe is actually a cheaper
way to go for large companies.
Charlie
------------------------------
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, 26 Nov 2000 00:41:33 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Curtis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > Rant off, I'm having a bad day with linux & its users.
> >
> > Windows and their users are typically worse.
>
> I'm holding Linux users to higher standards.
Don't mix up OS merits with user merits.
I'm forced to use for a portion of my time Windows, but this doesn't
necessarily make of me an incompetent amateur.
------------------------------
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: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 02:38:11 +0200
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8vpjvh$5autc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >> This is why monopolies can chase profit quite happily, whilst
> >> completely avoiding providing what the customer *actually* wants.
> >
> >Do this, and you are no longer a monopoly, because other people will give
> >the customer what they actually want, and the customer will go with them.
>
> The definition of a monopoly that that there is nobody else to do
> that. More subtly, the reality is that the monopolist ensures that
> the barriers to entry for the market in question are too high for
> any competitor to overcome, thus preventing the customer need
> to be met by another party. ie., what you're saying cannot
> happen in a monopoly by definition.
There are plenty of alternatives, and the barriers you are talking about
are, what?
Mac: High cost, now this is eliminated.
BeOS: Lack of drivers, any new info about this? I've not looked into it in a
long time.
Linux/Unix: Lack of application, taken care of, unfriendly, taken care of,
not yet complete.
OS/2: ???
Amiga: ???
What are those barriers that you are talking about?
What would prevent me from moving to linux/beos/mac/amiga/ Os/2 ???
I can get applications to do much the same things that I do in windows, I
can read windows files, I can do everything I can do in windows on other OS.
(And in 9x & especially ME case, a lot more)
What prevents me from moving OS?
> >> >> I believe that some Government pressure in the
> >> >> end caused them to change their minds.
> >> >
> >> >IIRC, it was that they were offered by Iceland goverment to get paid
for
> >> >doing the localization.
> >>
> >> *Exactly* Nothing pressurises a monopoly more than cash.
> >
> >No, if there is money in it, it will be done.
> >If there isn't money in it, it won't be done.
> >Basic rules of economics.
> >Localizing windows wasn't worth it.
> >Getting paid to localize windows was worth it.
> >Simple.
>
> Getting paid *additional money* by a 3rd party was enough.
> There customer demand for that market was not significant
> enough for the monopoly to care about, since they'd get
> the customers anyway (see further above for the reasons
> why).
No, if you don't get enough money to return your invesement, you don't do
it.
The additional money was enough to return the invesement.
> Thus, in a non-monopoly, one of the competing organisations
> would have provided a localised version; in a monopoly, it
> was necessary for a Government to pay the _only_ supplier
> to do it.
No, they could do a whole lot of other things.
Go with Macs, BeOs, Unix, Linux, a lot of other things.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: 26 Nov 2000 00:52:44 GMT
On 26 Nov 2000 00:37:20 +0100, Stefan Ohlsson wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
>But why not j,i,k,l? Then the layout is much like the arrow-keys, but in
>the main keyboard area, and unlike ji,l no contortions are needed.
You've got me there (-; I use something similar for gaming (wasd) and it works
beautifully. Still, hjkl is pretty good.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: I have had it up to *here* with Linux
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 17:29:15 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 19 Nov 2000 19:49:31 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>On Sun, 19 Nov 2000 11:50:49 -0500, Chas2K
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>over and over to get just these reactions from you. I will build a kill
>>filter for Clair the Troll as soon as this post goes out. It will reside
>>along side the one for pencil-dick Rev. Kool who trolls the BSD
>>newgroups.
>>
>
>There is your first problem.
>
>" Building" a kill filter.
>
>I just killfiled you with 2 mouse clicks..
>
>Bamm...into the Bozo bin...
>
Damn, you have to take your hands off the kbd to killfile someone?
lame...
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
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, 26 Nov 2000 01:08:37 GMT
mark wrote:
>
> In article <8vpf2i$5buf6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
[snip]
>
> >upgrading was also my fault, I choose server install in redhat 6 and it
> >wiped my system.
> I do not find this credible.
>
> > (I used to do custom installs, and intended this to be a
> >test to RH6 until I would decide if it was good enough to move to, which is
> >why I didn't choose upgrade, I intended this to go to another HD, but choose
> >to do a server install instead of custom one, and it wiped the system.
> >Documented, but unwarned from.)
>
> But I'm not a Redhat expert. I'll need to leave this to a
> Rhat expert to let us know whether installing redhat can
> 'wipe the system'. This seems like another windowsism
> to me.
>
Redhat offers you two options (besides others not relevant in this
context): either upgrade or install.
Upgrade fully preserves the existing filesystem.
Install assumes an installation from scratch. A custom install allows
you a certain amount of control on partition handling, while server
install will just use the full disk, effectively wiping whatever was
there before.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 01:19:18 GMT
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <vrST5.5567$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Chad Mulligan wrote:
> >
> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In article <J4cT5.5264$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> Chad Mulligan wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >>
> >> >> Try publishing an "unhappy Microsoft experience" on company letter
> >> >> head, and watch how quickly Microsoft has your company in court
> >> >> for violating the EULA, which specifically states that the
corporation
> >> >> MAY NOT publish *anything* disparaging about Microsoft's products...
> >> >> EVEN IF IT'S TRUE.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Not true, I published a letter to the editor of PC week some 6 years
ago
> >> >with a minor complaint about Microsoft and received a call from MS
asking
> >> >what they could do to fix the problem, I told them and it was done,
both
> >> >retroactive and made policy in their next release.
> >>
> >> I thought that the EULA was not enforcable 6 years ago, but might
> >> be now? Related to UCITA or DMCA or something?
> >>
> >> Would be interesting to see what happened now.
> >>
> >
> >Most likely the same, MS saw this as a PR/Marketing problem and did what
> >they do best, give the customer's what they want.
> >
> >
>
> Chuckle. I'm still waiting for any of the things I want. Still,
> I'll assume you were joking here.
Not exactly, They do try to meet marketing requests. Little things like the
Terminal Server addition to Win2K Server for remote adminstration originated
from an e-mail sent to tech support at MS by myself.
>
> Mark
------------------------------
From: Curtis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 20:23:26 -0500
mark wrote...
> In article <8vpb92$5c60s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> >"Curtis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> mark wrote...
> >
> >
> >> > Linux at some undetermined point after 1996 and
> >> > up to and including today, (wonder which version & which
> >> > distro?), and now Win2k with its somewhat restricted set of
> >> > available apps?
> >>
> >> Restricted apps for Win2k. Hehehehe. What apps are you looking for that
> >> gives you this impression? Or is this second hand information that you're
> >> stating?
> >
> >There are all too many application that are written by lazy/idiot
> >programmers which assume 95/98/ME and full access to the registery.
>
> The thread was about a claim of some applications which were
> available in 1996 for win9x, had some functional equivalent at
> the same time for OS/2, had some functional equivalent at
> some indetermined later date on Linux and also have some
> functional equivalent now on Win2k (or they've been ported).
You're misinterpreting me. What do you mean by functional equivalent?
When I say I found similar apps, I meant I found apps with similar
functionality, not ports of the same applications. Do I have to spell
things out to you?
> Please read the thread before you post.
You're not reading either.
--
| ,__o
!ACM _-\_<, A thing is not necessarily true because
<(*)>--(*)/'(*)______________________ a man dies for it.
mailto:martian*at*cwjamaica*dot*com
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 01:23:18 GMT
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8qST5.5564$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Chad Mulligan wrote:
> >
> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Byrns wrote:
> >> >mark wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >> >> Netmeeting phones home as well. It's kind of unsurprising that
> >Windows is
> >> >> >> so insecure - it needs to be in order to enable all these bits of
> >soft-
> >> >> >> ware to phone back to Microsoft Headquarters so they can see what
> >you're
> >> >> >> doing, or where you are, or who you are, or, well, what, exactly?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Incidentally, last time I mentioned this someone responded very
fast
> >to
> >> >> >> say that you could disable this behaviour, but I've not been able
to
> >> >> >> see how. Maybe I need that MCSE :)
> >> >> >
> >> >> >And in today's MCSE lesson... how to make the fucking thing work
the
> >way
> >> >> >you want.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Tomorrow: How to stop your computers reporting your hard drive
> >> >> >contents and bank details to Microsoft.
> >> >>
> >> >> :-)
> >> >
> >> >What I think would be really amusing is to prove where the operating
> >system sends
> >> >banking information to Microsoft. Netmeeting sends your conversation
> >through
> >> >Microsoft servers only if you configure it to. Just like AIM and ICQ
et.
> >al. If
> >> >you use your own server then, of course, it does not. The where an
who
> >you are
> >>
> >> Er, no - that's wrong. The copy of netmeeting I'm looking at sets up
> >> tcp links to microsoft even though the server is within our intranet.
> >>
> >
> >During setup it asks you if you want to use ils.microsoft.com as a
directory
> >(read name) server. Say no and no connection to MS exists. This is also
a
> >setting change IIRC.
>
> Indeed, and it's not set up that way, and it _still_ creates TCP links
> to microsoft.com.
>
No it doesn't. I've checked that everywhich way you can and those links
are a figment of your imagination.
> I haven't seen anything else to switch this off, and I _really_ don't
> like it.
>
> Mark
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 01:26:46 GMT
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <VwQT5.18617$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad Myers
wrote:
> >
> >"neJ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Sun, 19 Nov 2000 21:43:25 GMT, Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Microsoft don't care two hoots about security - so of course this
means
> >> >nothing to them.
> >>
> >> And yet look at the number of security problems in *nix systems -
> >> those infamous DOS attacks weren't lauched from Windoze platforms, now
> >> were they??
> >
> >Nor were the majority of computers that the attacks were launched AGAINST
> >running Windows.
> >
> Beg to differ massively. All the scans I see (and I see 2-3 port-scans
> an hour) are _all_ looking for ports used by windows trojans.
>
Because they are still looking for a way in.....
> I see thousands of scans for windows machines. I don't see any for
> unix machines.
>
Because they've already found a way in.
IAC, there are many methods of invading systems, port scans are, IMO, the
least effective and least sophisticated. A true hacker wouldn't leave any
trace of his infiltration. Port scans leave a heavy footprint in any
firewall, proxy or router log.
> Mark
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 01:29:12 GMT
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <7qST5.5563$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Chad Mulligan wrote:
> >
> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, neJ wrote:
> >> >On Sun, 19 Nov 2000 21:43:25 GMT, Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>Microsoft don't care two hoots about security - so of course this
means
> >> >>nothing to them.
> >> >
> >> >And yet look at the number of security problems in *nix systems -
> >> >those infamous DOS attacks weren't lauched from Windoze platforms, now
> >> >were they??
> >>
> >> The number of security problems in *nix systems are few and far
> >> between compared to windows. Attacks are frequently launched from
> >> *nix machines because the of many advantages (better IP stacks,
> >> for example). I have had my router scanned by NT machines, though,
> >> so they're not all done from *nix.
> >>
> >
> >The problems with eunics are neither that few nor that far between, NFS
is a
> >primary case in point.
> >
> >
> NFS is a protocol, what's the problem?
>
It is a fairly simple matter to achieve root access on the host machine due
to a flaw in the original Sun NFS code. As of eight months ago this NFS
security flaw still existed. I'm not sure if it has been resolved as yet
because I've been, intentionally, away from UNIX for some time. The problem
is in the authentication of clients once the connection was made that allows
root access to the target file system.
> Mark
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
