Linux-Advocacy Digest #434, Volume #30 Sun, 26 Nov 00 08:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Response to: MS Office sucks? So why is anyone using it? ("Adam Warner")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (mark)
Re: The Sixth Sense (mark)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (mark)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (mark)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Ayende Rahien")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 13:27:01 +0200
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8vpjv9$5autc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In article <8vpeh6$52a0r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien
wrote:
> >> >
> >
> >> >He doesn't have a floppy drive.
> >> >And there are tools for win98 that can read ext2 fs.
> >>
> >> Not that come on a Win98 install disk, there aren't.
> >
> >So? Is there a point here?
> >Much of my software doesn't come from the Windows CD.
> >Loading tons of application on a CD is convenient, but if MS would start
> >doing this you would hear screams about product bundling.
>
> You said you were installing this to fix an ext2 system,
> that's the point.
No, I said that he did it to *back up* ext2 system.
> >He has a non-bootable cd, I think.
>
> If his CD is non-bootable, then HOW THE HELL IS HE INSTALLING WIN98?
> You said he has no floppy and you were installing from a slackware
> system which wouldn't boot. For G*d's sake, this is getting more
> and more ridiculous.
I said *CD*, not *CD-ROM*
The CD & Bios support booting from CD, the Slackware CD itself didn't.
> >vnetbios.vxd
> >you need this file to dial up, you don't need it for windows to work.
> >He skipped it because he is an idiot.
>
> Ah, in Win98 if something goes wrong with the install, the CD cannot
> be read, then the installer is an idiot?
No, the user is an idiot.
An installer is an "it", no a "he"
If he would've known what to do, he would've pointed the setup to the
alternative location.
> >Take a CD, take a screwdriver, scratch the CD, try to read the CD in a
> >CD-Rom
> >That is (to a lesser degree) happens to CD which are improperly handled.
> >It doesn't matter whose CD it is.
>
> Ah, so you're now claiming that the CD we're installing from has
> been vandalised? Even though the drive doesn't boot anyway?
No, it has been handled improperly, and it had scratches, which prevents
some of the disk from being read.
How does this has to do with a bottable CD?
The Drive boot, the Slackware CD doesn't.
And just to counter your next arguement, no, it wasn't the burned ISO,
(which as far as I know, can boot)
It was a CD that a friend burned for him, and he didn't make the CD a
bootable one
> >win98 cd contains several places where the cabs are stored on.
> >
> So you keep saying, but you also say that the CD doesn't boot,
> that he has no floppy and that the existing OS won't start. Since
> all of these cannot be true, I don't actually believe you.
There is a hell of a lot of a difference between a CD, which is a peice of
round plastic, and a CD-ROM, which is the drives that read it.
> >There are more things in heaven and hell that are dreamt of in your
> >philosopy, Huratcio - Shakspere (badly spelled, probably)
>
> You also say that the CD doesn't boot, that he has no floppy and
> that the existing OS won't start. Since all of these cannot be
> true, I don't actually believe you.
See above.
> >> >I wasn't *talking* about Linux, I was talking about why you don't need
to
> >> >re-install windows.
> >> >Microsoft provide CDs from which it's very much possible to install.
> >> >But CD has a tendacy to get unreadable if you threat them wrongly.
> >>
> >> You say quite clearly at the start of this thread that the
> >> problem was with slackware, and you even say part way up this
> >> post that you would install a third party package in order to
> >> be able to read the ext2 filesystem.
> >
> >Yes, but that wasn't what I'm talking about.
> >That is *background*.
> >I'm talking about how he reinstalled (twice!) to get rid of a problem he
> >could've gotten rid of without reinstalling.
>
> You also say that the CD doesn't boot, that he has no floppy and
> that the existing OS won't start. Since all of these cannot be
> true, I don't actually believe you.
See above.
> >> You also state quite clearly that the Microsoft CD was uninstallable
> >> from. You try to claim that he had to use a CD because he had no
> >> floppy. You do not explain how he had slackware on the machine
> >> in the first place.
> >>
> >> You now state that even that CDROM failure was the user's fault!
> >
> >Yes, if you don't keep the CD in its box, if you let your CD get
scratches,
> >it's your fault that they don't work.
> >
> >
> You also say that the CD doesn't boot, that he has no floppy and
> that the existing OS won't start. Since all of these cannot be
> true, I don't actually believe you.
See above.
> Ayende - please try telling something truthful - if you don't,
> you will surely get caught out here.
There are more things in heaven and hell that are dreamt of in your
philosopy, Huratcio - Shakspere (badly spelled, probably)
Try to think about it.
------------------------------
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 13:31:04 +0200
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I've seen it take out the majority of the WINDOWS directory on 95.
> I installed 98 on my sister-in-laws machine, and still had many
> problems. A UPS fixed them; she hasn't called me lately.
UPS?
Unitteruptable Power Supply?
Or is it some other abbrevation?
------------------------------
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 13:48:44 +0200
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8vploe$5eu5a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >Actually, no, I couldn't.
> >If I'm on win9x, I would've to go to Dos(real mode) and do it.
> >Otherwise, I would get permission denied or some such error.
>
> You have to be root user in linux to achieve this, this means,
> at the _very_ least you've made a specific decision to do
> some admin task. Otherwise you'll get permission denied or
> some such error.
A lot of users are running as root.
In nt/2000, you've to elevate your admin privileges in order to damage the
registry, which is something an ignorant user simply is unlikely to do.
> >"*Please Note*: A server-class installation will remove any existing
> >partitions of any type on all existing hard drives of your system. All
> >drives will be erased of all information and existing operating systems,
> >regardless if they are Linux partitions or not."
>
> So if you know all this, why did you do it?
Because I didn't know about it *at the time*
Gee, it's so hard to rememer that?
> >Read what I said, it won't mount on other systems.
> >I tried the rescue disk method, and it failed.
> >The hardisk was find, I repartitioned it and it worked, no bad sectors.
>
> What do you mean by 'if failed'. Rescue disks can't fail, they
> just boot. That's what they do. If you can't boot the
> machine you've bigger problems than you're claiming already.
rescue disk to boot.
fschk, on one occasion I stopped it after 5 hours (4GB HD, about 3/4 full).
The second & third time fschk itself failed to fix the system.
I think that the file table itself was screw up.
> Why would you repartition? The only reason to do this is if
> the partition table has been damaged on the machine. If that
> has happened, it is nothing to do with the filesystem on
> any partition at all. It will not prevent a rescue disk
> from working. How did you know that the partition table had
> been damaged? This just doesn't add up.
Because I then had to reinstall, and I wanted to make some changes in the
partition table for the new install.
> > >> To make a complete directory structure unusable - no, even
> >> >> Windows has never done that on me. Please provide some
> >> >> credible evidence of these ludicrous claims.
> >> >
> >> >FAT & NTFS are indeed more robust than ext2 in this regard.
> >>
> >> FAT certainly is not.
> >
> >FAT has yet to take all my files away from a system crush or power down.
>
> For ext2 to do this, you'd have to have information about every
> single file in a given area stored in the cache, which means you'd
> have to be editing eg., every /etc file, at the same time.
>
> I just do not believe this. No-one in the right mind would
> even consider doing something that risky.
> >> NTFS I don't know much about.
> >> Please provide evidence that this has happened.
> >> Perhaps you could list the files in /etc which
> >> were corrupted, that might help us here. (Although I
> >> strongly suspect you can't because you don't know).
> >
> >You weren't paying attention.
> >The whole FS vanished.
>
> Vanished???? This is isn't the X-files! Further back, you
> were claiming that the partition table was damaged. Now
> you're claiming that the filesystem vanished - what, every
> single bit on the HD just 'went away'?
The partition table was fine, I just didn't like the way it was set up, and
changed it on reinstall.
> You hope.
No, I know.
There is hardly anything that can curropt the registry.
If you know of something, please provide some info about it.
> >The almost sole reason that the registry become curropted is HD failure.
>
> HD failure is extremely rare compared to Win crashes in my experience.
> In fact, I've never had a HD fail (although I do know several folk
> who have).
Lucky you.
On my machine (home one)
I'd three failures with WD 1.6 GB HD
One with a 10 GB (Seaquest, I think)
And one with a 15 GB from IBM
Those are usually bad sectures, btw.
In one case over 25% of the disk became unusable.
Linux machines usually use older hardware, more prune to mistakes.
BTW, what Win are you talking about?
I've yet to have Win2k BSOD on me unless it's the screen saver.
> >And, if we are already talking about it, the registry is not a single
file,
> >but several.
> >
> >
> >> Damage of 1 or 2 bytes to a monolithic binary file can cause
> >> the whole file to be unparsable; to achieve the same effect
> >> in /etc., you'd have to damage *every* file in there, near
> >> the start of the file *and* each package would have to have
> >> non-sensible defaults compiled in (which they don't).
> >
> >And as I've said, you are very unlikely to damage the registry short of
> >damaging the HD itself.
>
> The registry is as likely to be damaged as any other file.
How? Nothing can write to the registry save the OS.
And the OS hadnle the registry in a very strict manner, so you can't corrupt
it.
------------------------------
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 13:55:17 +0200
"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:By3U5.2829$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8vpf2i$5buf6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> < ... >
>
> > > To make a complete directory structure unusable - no, even
> > > Windows has never done that on me. Please provide some
> > > credible evidence of these ludicrous claims.
> >
> > FAT & NTFS are indeed more robust than ext2 in this regard.
>
> With all due respect, how do you come to that conclusion? My personal
> experience is that FAT is utterly horrible. NTFS, is something i've only
had
> a few problems with. I've never had an ext2 FS failure, excepting an old
1GB
> drive that lunched itself.
Personal conclustion.
I've several cases of ext2 dying on me.
I've never had a case of FAT or NTFS dying on me, and I have seen people
abuse it to the full extent of the word.
File getting corrupted, yes, but never the entire FS.
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Response to: MS Office sucks? So why is anyone using it?
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 01:03:42 +1200
Hi Mark,
> I would recommend LDAP. It's free, supports multiple platforms,
> debian has an implementation available. Why waste your country's
> resources filling Bill's pockets when you could be educating your
> upcoming youngsters with it as well?
Does anyone know how hard/costly it would be to remove an ADS once
implemented? (Maybe that's an unknown at this stage).
> >This is obviously not the only University/College/Institute where this
will
> >be occurring.
>
> Why? Personally, I'd be looking at options which leave more resources
> for educating my people coming in.
We agree about putting scarce University resources to the best possible use.
I was only making an observation that Microsoft has probably been working
with some other institutions around the world in a similar fashion.
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
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 11:52:13 +0000
In article <8vqs5v$5e16i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
>> 2. Why have another OS just to run the one or two Windows programs that
>you
>> might need to use. I have been down this road. It's a real PITA to have
>to
>> log into Windows just to get my mail. All of my real work is done on AIX
>and
>> Linux.
>
>Aren't there email programs for linux? Why do you've to use windows to check
>your mail.
>
The thread was referring to Lotus Notes, a proprietary solution, and
how much better it runs with wine+linux than on windows.
It was not referring to email, but as you so correctly say, there are
stacks of email solutions for linux.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
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 11:54:03 +0000
In article <8vqs61$5e16i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> 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.
>
>I've POP acounts. Which was a nightmware to check.
>
>> Netscape 6 supports multiple POP severs, but I've not yet tested it
>
>According to a review from one of the more known computer reporters in here,
>it sucks.
>Of personal experiance (beta, though) it has the stability of a dove in a
>hurrican.
>
>
I like netscape 6 myself. I haven't found it to be particularly unstable
by windows standards. In fact, I've found it far _more_ stable than Outlook,
which is the other thing I've had to use a lot in Windows.
Mark
------------------------------
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 12:15:06 +0000
In article <8vqs65$5e16i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <8vpjv1$5autc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>> You said that his floppy wouldn't boot, that the CD wouldn't boot
>> that the OS wouldn't boot, and that he was installing Win98 to
>> fix an ext2 problem, even though win98 can't read ext2 without
>> some exta add-on.
>
>The OS would boot, he can only log on as root, and in read only mode.
The filesystem initially mounts as read-only, and then it remounts
as read-write during the normal boot process.
It is a trivial matter to run fsck manually on a read-only file
system and fix it. You do not need to attempt to install an
OS which cannot read ext2 in order to fix an ext2 system. There's
nothing to fix it with if you do.
You do not login in 'read-only' mode in Linux.
>He doesn't have a floppy.
>The slackeware CD in a non-bootable one.
You previously said "he has a non-bootable CD, I think".
>Win98 CD is a bootable one.
This is a newly added claim.
But according to you it was corrupted and wouldn't install
properly.
>One I'd win98 up & running, it was a matter of minutes to get the ext2
>reader and back everything up.
Which apparently took forever, more than one install, the CD
was corrupted and the 'experienced' slackware user didn't use
fsck to fix his filesystem, he decided to install a different
OS which is not capable of fixing his filesystem. I just do
not believe this tale.
You also previously said that you installed the ext2 reader
for Win98 to 'the fat 32 partition'. If you've got one of
those already on the machine, then the slackware will be
able to write to it - all you have to do is mount it.
Also, if you've got a Fat32 partition on the machine, you
must have Win98 already on there, so why were you installing
it again?
Or perhaps you might claim that you re-partitioned during
this amazing installation, but then, you've destroyed the
ext2 partition anyway.
In fact - _how_ are you installing win98 _without_ trashing
the ext2 partition?
This again simply does not ring true.
Mark
What's more, you've said he could read the filesystem anyway,
so what exactly does he need Win98 for? To read the filesystem
he can already read?
You've gone to great lengths to explain that the floppy doesn't
work. I'm wondering what you'll pull out of the bag this time.
You had hours for the last one, and this response seems more
than a little weak, although I'm impressed with the amount
you've cut - it hides the number of times you've subtly
changed the story by subsquently adding information.
------------------------------
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 12:16:18 +0000
In article <8vqs64$5e16i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <8vpjuo$5autc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>> >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.
>
>Since when?
>I can read just about any fs in the world from win9x.
>Third party, yes, but I don't care about it.
>Isn't 3rd party products what linux all about?
>
>
>
We're talking about the registry.
This is fundamental to the OS and requires a native
filesystem.
Mark
------------------------------
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 14:12:08 +0200
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8vpm8e$5alsr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >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?
>
>
> The barriers to entry in monopoly analysis are business barriers
> not technical barriers. This is how they are defined. This is
> not really the place for a lecture on economics, but...
>
> Massive existing installed user base of technology X is a major
> barrier to a vendor who would like to introduce technology Y.
>
> When the user base is over 49% it is considered to be virtually
> impossible to overcome without vast resources. This is usually
> impossible because the organisation which has the vast resources
> is the one which already has the 49%. This is why governments
> have agencies or departments charged with observing and analysing
> markets and taking action where monopolies are found to exist.
Correct, now did you know that one of the very few things that Judge Johnson
ruled in favor of MS was that even though it's a monopol, and used its
influence to make more people use their products. It has *not* prevented
other products from competing with it.
The first is a perfectly legal, morally correct, and a wise bussiness
decision. The second is considered illegal, but still a wise bussiness
decision, moral I leave to others to ponder about, as value systems are
different around the world.
> They also observe for Cartels. A Cartel is where a small group
> of organisations artificially joins their market spaces together
> such that the sum-total of their joined market is 49% or more.
> They can then impose technology, pricing or whatever on the
> market because they have made the barrier too high for another
> organisation to overcome.
Yes, I know.
> >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.
>
> The additional money would not have been required had there
> been any competition, since a competing organisation would
> have provided the functionality. Basically, Microsoft had
> to be bribed by a Government to meet the customers
> requirement, since they were not going to do it themselves,
> because they have nobody to compete with.
No, there was a competition.
Linux, Mac, Unix, BeOS, OS/2, and so on.
They could've choosen antoher OS.
The customers requirement was met by MS, since most of the people in iceland
can understand english pretty well.
It wasn't profitable to make a localize version.
Naturally, if there would've been another OS which *did* supported the
language, and it wasn't much worse than windows, it is likely that the
icelandians would've used that.
But, that is not the point, the point is that *no other* OS presented a
localized, viable alternative.
They could've.
> >> 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.
>
> No, because of the barriers to entry given above. The issue
> here is a business/economic issue not a technical one. Monopolies
> are business entities not technologies.
I understand that, but I don't understand how a MS could've prevented the
Iceland goverment from choosing Mac, BeOS, Amiga, Linux, Unix, Os/2 as their
primary OS and localize it.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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 14:17:13 +0200
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <qFZT5.10131$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Chad Mulligan wrote:
> >Because they are still looking for a way in.....
>
> Yeah, on windows trojan ports - as I said above. I don't run
> windows so the trojans they're looking for are not on my
> machine.
The most wide spread OS is?
Most trojans are written to what OS?
Combine those two answer and you'll realize why you've a lot of port scans
to windows trojans
Not to mention that this is about the most inefficent way to do this.
> >> I see thousands of scans for windows machines. I don't see any for
> >> unix machines.
> >>
> >
> >Because they've already found a way in.
>
> No, not on my machine. I've never been cracked.
That you know of :)
> The massive amount of port-scanning shows how many thousands of
> people are trying, continuously, to crack windows machines using
> one of the very very many trojans out there. These are the ones
> which are eg., regularly posted to newsgroups, knowing that many
> windows users run Outlook express, and will 'open' the attachment,
> infect their machine because 'open' also happens to mean 'run'
> in the windows world.
You can't tell the difference between a trojan and an exploit?
If there was a wide spread trojan for unix machines, wouldn't people scan
for it?
If unix was a wide spread OS, used by average computer illeterate persons,
you would see the same for unix.
> Then, a few mins later, the scanner detects the running trojan,
> and, guess what, your windows machine just got owned.
That is true for all OS.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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 14:27:01 +0200
"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > > Netscape 6 supports multiple POP severs, but I've not yet tested it
> >
> > According to a review from one of the more known computer reporters in
here,
> > it sucks.
> > Of personal experiance (beta, though) it has the stability of a dove in
a
> > hurrican.
>
> I gave a quick test (under linux) of beta's. Until PR3 they were just
> for fun. PR3 appeared to be a reasonable beta (a little buggy, something
> not implemented, but usable).
> You may have different behavior under Windows, because the application
> must handle a lot of issues which under Unix are handled by OS.
Probably, but after the disappotment 4 was, I'm not sure if I'll try it
until it's tested thourghfully.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
