Linux-Advocacy Digest #35, Volume #31 Sat, 23 Dec 00 16:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: An Entire Day With Linux (Yukkkkk!!!) ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Intel Easy PC camera - cannot be supported in Linux! ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: I concede (Windows back on my machine) ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000 (mlw)
Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000 (mlw)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Entire Day With Linux (Yukkkkk!!!)
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 05:44:45 GMT
OK, DON'T Try to TROUBLE SHOOT. This guy has clearly outlined WHAT the
problems were, and WHY they exist.
The Linux is OBVIOUSLY no longer on his system.
This is why Linux SUX take the hint.
"David Dorward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:91s710$all$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I have Mandrake 7.2 already set up and running, as best as it can for
> > Linux that is.
>
> Well thats the distro I use for my workstation.
>
> > First off, this version of Linux is anything but stable and that is a
> > fact. Here are a few bugs:
>
> There are a few flaky bits, Mandrake tries to stay ahead of the game. If
> you want an ultra stable distro try debian 2.2
>
> > Open a terminal window under kde and that's the end of it. You can
> > never open another one because it is hung. You can open other programs
> > and run them but when you try to logout of kde it is hung and it's
> > kill the xserver time.
>
> Never had any problems, but then I don't use KDE. Which version were you
> using? Drak72 was rushed out with a beta version of KDE2 (1.9x), if thats
> the one you have you should get the update.
>
> > Wheel mouse worked fine until I tried Gnome instead of kde and it (the
> > wheel) never worked again after that. Re-installing via DrakConf
> > didn't help.
>
> Logitech wheel mouse (always a pain) was autodetected and has worked
> perfectly from day one (and still works)
>
> > Use the Fontmanager to find my Windows TT Fonts, which it does, but
> > they never show up in any of the menues to be selected. SO where are
> > they and how do I use them?
>
> Once you found them did you install them? I only want to use them in GIMP
> and they show up there (I haven't looked for them elsewhere so I can't
> comment)
>
> > Setting up an account in Gnome Dialer doesn't work. When you hit OK
> > button after inputting all the data it just goes back to a blank, like
> > when you started. Real nice applet that one is.
>
> I use a network connection for Internet access so I don't have any
> experience with that.
>
> > Selecting "Help" in just about any program brings up that totally
> > useless generic KDE help (How to move a mouse etc), or a message that
> > help hasn't been written yet. Doesn't surprise me seeing as half of
> > kde hasn't been written yet. It looks and acts like a toy and is very
> > unstable.
>
> So use gnome? Or icewm? Or Enlightenment? OR OR OR OR
>
> > Menues between the various window managers don't have the same
> > selections in them. For example:DrakConf is missing from
> > Enlightenment. So where did they go?
>
> I run gnome on enlightentment. Middle clicking to bring up the
> enlightenment menu puts DrakConf in EXACTLY the same place as in Gnome.
>
> > Speaking of Enlightenment (pretty nice BTW), once you run it all of
> > your menues in kde and Gnome get screwed up. Totally out to lunch
> > unless you wish to rebuild all of your menus.
>
> Really? Well I run it on underneath Gnome with no problems.
>
> > Printing doesn't work with StarOffice and CUPS.
>
> I think StarOffice may use its own funny print format and require its own
> drivers - nothing to do with CUPS. Not sure about that though - I don't
> use it.
>
> > Trying to change the fonts under Gnome Terminal is an exercise in
> > confusion. Couldn't they just have a selection "big, larger,huge like
> > kde does instead of telling me every fsking detail about the font
> > except what type it is (tty etc).
>
> Seems alright to me. If you don't want the amount of customisation
> available in gnome terminal use xterm or rxvt
>
> > XFree 4.x kills the WheelMouse. Never works even with imwheel.
>
> I still use the 3 series so I can't comment.
>
> > Not to mention none of my USB devices work.
>
> USB is still very new in Linux. As a result few developers have USE
devices
> so there is little incentive to write drivers for them.
>
> > Add to this that Netscape looks like crap no matter what font is
> > chosen.
>
> So use something else. Mozilla is nice, although you have to download it
> seperatly. Or there is konqurer.
>
> > StarOffice takes an eternity to load and doesn't import
>
> StarOffice is a big program. If you want speed go for something a little
> lighter.
>
> > correctly from Word for Mac, which even Wordperfect for WIndows does
> > fine.
>
> So use Wordperfect for Linux
>
> > MusicMatch Jukebox is a half assed, bloated (13meg) pig that runs like
> > molasses under Wino.
>
> Yes it is. Its also beta IIRC. I wouldn't use it if I were paid. I'm quite
> happy with grip. The reason its so big is it has to include the
translation
> layer known as wine.
>
> > Typical of Linux programs, it is a generation behind the Windows
> > version.
>
> Its not a Linux program, its a window program running though a custom
> version of wine as you said.
>
> > I did like knode though and that application has promise.
>
> I use it myself, very nice. I can't wait for it to support a killfill.
>
> > And on and on and on....
> >
> > Free or not, one has to wonder if anyone test's these things before
> > they ship this garbage.
> >
> > So tell me again, why should I switch from Windows 2000 to Linux? Why
> > should anyone switch? Is there a compelling reason? Surely just
> > looking at the painful boxy fonts of Linux is enough to make one run
> > back to Windows. The way I see it I would be taking a huge step
> > backwards all for the joy of running Linux.
>
> Its cheeper. It is easier to maintain. It doesn't crash very often (unlike
> windows which crashes within a day of being installed on this boxen). What
> on earth have the fonts the linux uses got to do with it?
>
> > Nothing much has changed in 2 years from a UI point of view.
>
> We are talking about Windows now aren't we?
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Intel Easy PC camera - cannot be supported in Linux!
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 06:48:38 GMT
"Anthony P. Rounsaville" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:%OL06.23139$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Have you acctually used 2000 or ME? They are the WORST products Microsoft
> has ever made.
OK, this is clearly an opinion topic (this is an opinion NG) but saying that
2000 and Me were "the worse" means that you'd clearly prefer NT and 98 over
the afformetnioned products.
> Why would you build a sever OS that is designed for idiots? Have you even
> tried to load non-standard drivers on 2000? I'll say not, because you
> can't.
You can. Devices not assoicated with the HID, network or DirectX layers
(such as scanners, printers, media devices) will function with non-2k
drivers.
> They are now shoving Plug and Pray down your throat.
So? Why shit around with jumpers and conflicts when you can plug it in, and
have it WORK then, and there? Or are you still bitter about Windows 95's
"plug-and-play" functionality. I'd love to see Linux even attempt to aspire
to what Windows Me & 2000 have for PNP support.
> Active Directory is nothing more than a rip off of an NDS tree.
True, but it works, and it's easy to set up. I don't see why even the
administrator should have to spend hours on complicated tasks when the admin
has better things to be doing then running around catering to their PC
networks. The network works for the users, remember? The administrator is
exactly that, the administrator of the domain. Not the other way around.
> If you are configuring or managing a server you want and need controll.
Please, tell me how the MMC reduces your "control" over the Active Directory
and Legacy DS's
> Not to mention security. Considering that no Microsoft product has any
security at all.
I'd love for you to decrypt my personal profile from my NTFS5 volume.
> If there is IP connectivity Linux will compleatly bypass MS security.
Yes, Linux's NTFS module provides full read-only to the NTFS permition
structure, user class nothwithstanding. I can get similar software for
Windows to access EXT2 volumes and do the same thing.
> This was confirmed on a 2000 Domain with an NTFS partition. Linux
instantly had full access to the disk in question, no errors or security
checks.
Yes, I remember this one. Only it wasn't a "2000 domain", but a "legacy
domain". And NT4 systems could pretty much do similar stuff. (remember PC
masquerading)
> As for ME. ME should get the title as the worst OS ever released. You
have
> to love an OS that crashes every two hours.
You don't use Me, do you.
> I just love the "Linux Myths Page" on MS' web site. They refer to the
high
> cost of Linux support. Do they honestly think that $300 per incident is
> cheap. Taking into consideration that they don't help. They will
generally
> give you the reinstall line.
At least the install line will give you the time of day, (and most
importantly, walk you through the reinstall). RedHat's support line is
staffed with people who remind me of "Nick Burns, your companies computer
guy" who would sooner have hung up on me then walk someone through the
actual process of <INSERT TASK HERE>.
> Winblows was designed for idiots and novices.
And Linux is designed for computer geeks who adore control, because they
have none. Fine, Windows is for "idiots". Then is MacOS X designed for
dumb UNIX administrators? No, it's desgned for people who can clearly see
the real power behind UNIX. HINT: try copying some of the REAL innovation
found in OSX.
> This is one point that even MS has not denied. This has been their market
strategy. If it were not for the boom in the tech industry, Winblows would
have gone the way of OS2.
This sounds like a statement from someone who feels their IS/IT knoledge
isn't worth what it used to be.
> There is one undeniable fact in all of this, Linux acctually works. I
have
> set up a dual boot PC running both Linux and NT4 server. (Linux was a
> server build) Linux ran at least 50% faster, was more secure, and never
> crashed. All of my hardware was suported and worked far better than using
> NT. The PC in question's specs are below.
<SNIP>
> Amazingly everything worked with Linux the first time out. The video took
> three days to get running on NT4. You can choose to ignore these facts
and
> continue to support an inferior product line. If there is any one clear
> indication that Linux and Unix are far supperior to Window it would have
to
> be that most if not all high end network security devices run clones of
Unix
> as an OS.
Your only point of WIndows NT being a problem was the video card took "three
days to setup". Fine, why is the video card such an issue on a SERVER
anyway. 16 colors are 15 more than your Linux system seems to have needed
to provide basic data services (of which you do not list).
I don't think I care about Windows NT and Linux. When Linux can out do
Windows 2000 in every aspect (desktop and server), call me, then SHOW ME.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 20:30:17 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 18 Dec 2000
>Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>> Chad Myers wrote:
>> >
>> > "Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 13:36:45 GMT, Chad Myers wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Laughable in the extreme ! Was it the liberals or the conservatives who
>> > > were pro-segregation ? Was it the liberals or conservatives who lead
>> > > the anti-communist witch-hunts of the 50s ?
>> > > .......
>> > >
>> > > Liberal implies moderate.
>> >
>> > Wrong. Liberal implies bending and stretching the rule of law and the
>> > foundations of this country (as seen recently in Al Gore's Election Debacle).
>> >
>> > Moderate implies moderate. Liberal implies eco-wacko, red commie (Jane
>> > Fonda, et al), baby killer (Barbara Boxer who believes that a baby isn't
>> > the Mother's until she's released from the hospital and a slipped-up
>> > partial-birth abortion in which the baby is fully delivered and then
>> > killed after birth is still legal), etc.
>>
>> Donovan, don't try arguing with this guy. He's quite crazy.
>
>Standard leftist attitude. Anybody who questions communist
>dogma must have psychological problems.
>
>Spare us the meaningless platitudes, oxygen thief.
>
>
>> It is common in schizophrenia to apply meanings to words that are
>> quite outside the accepted norm.
>
>Spot the character assasination.
>
>>
>> Delusional talk is a tough meme to argue against, since it
>> isn't based on rationality.
>
>blah blah blah
>
>
>>
>> I give up. This guy is an automaton. Or else he's one huge troll who
>> is greatly enjoying this thread.
>
>Translation: I believe that it is impossible for a rational person
>to disagree with my theory that all earnings should be confiscated
>by the government.
ROTFLMAO!!!
That was just too precious. The "Spot the 'character assasination'"
part was just TOO fucking funny!
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I concede (Windows back on my machine)
Date: 23 Dec 2000 20:33:51 GMT
John Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> I just did a search for "C++" on dice.com and most of the matches were
:> actually UNIX.
: You are only fooling yourself. In the world of computers (especially
: development), 99.9% runs on Windows.
LOL! :)
That's like saying 25 years ago that in the world of computers,
especially development, 99.9% ran on VT100 and TN3270 terminals.
Sure, that's all that people actually saw, but, then as now, the vast
majority of actual work was and is being done elsewhere.
Just like the VT100 of yesteryear, 'Blows today exists almost
exclusively on the client side, serving as a dumb terminal to view
content generated and propagated almost exclusively via Linux and
UNIX.
Joe
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 15:54:04 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Zane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:7KK06.250$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > At work we use Windows NT on workstations and the other day people got
> > email with an attached virus. The virus reformatted that persons hardrive
> > if they clicked on the attachment.
>
> Someone lied to you. NT doesn't allow you to reformat your system drive
> while NT is running. It cannot be done.
>
> Now, it's possible to reformat a secondary drive, but the way you phrased
> this it sounds like it reformated their only hard drive, which simply is not
> possible.
>
> Second, I've found no evidence of any email virus which does this. Symantec
> has never heard of it.
>
> *IF* this is true (meaning it formatted a secondary hard drive, and it was
> recieved in email) then it was probably a binary attachment rather than an
> email virus such as Melissa.
I don't know about "format" in the strict sense of the word, but should
you have sufficient privileges one could easy write a piece of code that
corrupts the file system and/or partition table, even on a system drive.
It may not be a "format" but will do the trick, and a casual user could
confuse the two.
>
> > I thought the purpose of NT was to protect the workstation from being
> > manipulated either from the user of that workstation or from an outside
> > source. Isn't that why you have an administrator login versus a login for
> > a user?
>
> That depends on how the system was set up. If they were running with
> administrator priveledges, then it's possible (given the circumstances I
> explained above).
AFAIK, this is how most users must use their system. Granted, some do
not, but must users are forced to use at least poweruser because to
install the software you must have some number of privileges, but most
Windows software does not understand being installed as one "NT user"
and being accessed as another. Thus, most users without any knowledge of
how to move this stuff around will run with at least poweruser. This
means that to use the much touted wealth of Windows programs, a user
must forgo any of the dubious benefits of the NT security model.
>
> > Is Linux or Unix vulnerable to this?
>
> Nothing in Linux prevents you from saving a binary attachment and executing
> it. If you're running as Root when you do this, it can do anything.
Yes, but most people do not run as root. Some programs actually refuse
to run as such. Under Windows NT, you are almost forced to run with
administrator privileges to use Windows software.
That is a big difference. Linux/UNIX has a workable system security.
Windows NT has a straw man which must be circumvented for the system to
be generally useful.
Take for instance, being a software developer.
When I write Windows programs I have to be at least poweruser to use the
debugger. In Linux/UNIX I can be me, joe user.
This one small difference is a huge example of how NT is not designed to
be a truly secure system. It does not have the infrastructure to provide
sufficient functionality within a sufficient security level. The only
way to use the system -- casually -- one must have some dangerous
privileges.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 16:05:48 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Is Linux or Unix vulnerable to this?
> > >
> > > Nothing in Linux prevents you from saving a binary attachment and
> executing
> > > it. If you're running as Root when you do this, it can do anything.
> >
> > bzzt, wrong answer - there are mechanisms in Linux like
> > immutable files, etc which make it impossible for even root
> > to overwrite or delete them.
>
> We're talking about formatting the drive.
The point is that a UNIX system is VERY usable as a normal user.
To do real damage, one has to be user ID 0. AFAIK no system installs a
user account as this. To do maintenance on a UNIX system one uses su, or
su enabled programs which ask for a password. One does not read e-mail
as root.
In Windows NT, one can assign themselves any privileges they wish. Often
times, as I have said before, and is made evident from some of
Microsoft's own knowledge base articles, one must assign themselves many
privileges which are dangerous, just to install and use software.
Most Windows software, under NT, must be installed as the user which
will be using it. Other wise, the registry settings and start menu
entries won't be available. Thus, to install the software they must
assign themselves privileges which a normal user should not have.
The difference being that UNIX software is made assuming that a user
account does not have the rights to install, but must be able to use the
software once it is installed by the system administrator.
NT will never be truly secure as long as this problem persists.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
