Linux-Advocacy Digest #61, Volume #31 Tue, 26 Dec 00 05:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows Stability ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: ATA RIPOFF! ALERT! ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000 (israel raj thomas)
Re: Windows Stability (israel raj thomas)
Re: SV: open source is getting worst with time. (kiwiunixman)
Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000 (kiwiunixman)
Re: open source is getting worst with time. (kiwiunixman)
Re: open source is getting worst with time. (kiwiunixman)
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) (J Sloan)
Re: So how do we get from here to there? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000 ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Which OS for 2005 ? (steve@x)
Re: What if Linux wasn't free? (kiwiunixman)
Re: ATA RIPOFF! ALERT! ("Adam Warner")
Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000 (kiwiunixman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows Stability
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 08:10:00 GMT
[snips]
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> There's never been a Windows box made which I've seen go beyond 2.5 years
> useful business life as the upgrades ususally end up killing the machine.
Got one here. Used to be my primary development machine, now it's working
as a server. It's about 2 years old and still going. I don't expect to
retire it until it dies of natural causes.
> The performance aspect falls off so suddenly the machine is useless.
Performance is just fine. Actually, far more than is required for the
current demand.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ATA RIPOFF! ALERT!
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 08:18:52 GMT
"Ken Klavonic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Adam Warner wrote:
> >
> > Hi Ken,
> >
> > > But you missed one of the articles (the Register has been publishing
> > > these like mad over the past few days):
> > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/2/15620.html - apparently
Microsoft
> > > is a vocal opponent of the copy prevention scheme that is being
> > > proposed. Strange days indeed.
> >
> > Thanks for clearing up that point quickly. It's good to be on side with
> > Microsoft for once.
> >
> > This is the most bizarre proposal I have ever come across. It defies
belief
> > and common sense. If such an austere publication as The Register hadn't
> > reported it I wouldn't have believed it ;-)
> >
> > I still haven't got my head around why or how I won't be able to
image/copy
> > my own hard disk partitions without external permission. Again it defies
> > belief. This is becoming a very strange world.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Adam
>
> It is very odd indeed. Frankly, I think that it's doomed to failure, but
> that's not going to prevent me expressing my outrage with the various
> entities (both legal and corporate) if I can confirm this story with
> another source (or two).
>
> Problem is, I've heard from other folks that the Register isn't exactly
> 'austere'. More like the National Enquirer of tech rags. They do seem to
> have a goodly amount of detail, but I wonder that other news sources
> haven't picked up this one... And Slashdot doesn't count - they're
> reporting what the Register has to say.
>
> Has anyone else seen additional, independent reporting of the stuff that
> the Register is reporting???
No ,but....
"The ramifications are enormous. Although the benefit to producers is
great - bringing the holy grail of secure content one step closer - the
costs to consumers will be significant. For example, corporate IT
departments will be unable to mix compliant and non-compliant ATA drives as
they try to enforce uniform back up policies, we've discovered. Restoring
personal backups to a different physical drive - a common enough occurrence
when a disk has failed - will require authentication with a central server.
Imaging software used by OEMs and large corporates to distribute one-to-many
disk images will also need to be modified. "
...sounds like the only thing they're securing is the sale of new hard
drives and software.
I wouldn't put it past them.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: israel raj thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 08:20:57 GMT
On Tue, 26 Dec 2000 02:40:40 -0500, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> >That's not true. NT is perfectly capapble of being used in locked down way.
>> There appears to be a perception amongst people within this group that
>> NT (and Microsoft products in general) should be completely secure
>> "out of the box". On the other hand Unix systems in general require
>> attention from an experienced administrator to secure them. Apply the
>
>Yes....choosing the "secure" option during installation takes YEARS
>of experience...
Or else one can use OpenBSD :-)
------------------------------
From: israel raj thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp,os,os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows Stability
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 08:24:59 GMT
>> There's never been a Windows box made which I've seen go beyond 2.5 years
>> useful business life as the upgrades ususally end up killing the machine.
>
>Got one here. Used to be my primary development machine, now it's working
>as a server. It's about 2 years old and still going. I don't expect to
>retire it until it dies of natural causes.
>
>> The performance aspect falls off so suddenly the machine is useless.
>Performance is just fine. Actually, far more than is required for the
>current demand.
Yeah, I find that an occasional defrag , cleaning the registry and
making sure that there are no bizarre services running ( maya and
oracle are the worst offenders : I only want to use oracle
occasionally, and it starts a background service on boot up that eats
50 megs of RAM ! ) helps to keep the system responsive.
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SV: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 08:26:39 GMT
SO by your little bitch-feast, I should be able to install Office 2000
Pro on a Machine loaded with Windows 1.0, get a fucking life, grow some
balls and stop bitching like a women suffering from PMS.
kiwiunixman
steve@x wrote:
> In article <928hhd$rfp$06$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter says...
>
>
>
>> I DID read the post. The original post was just that, crap.
>
>
> crap up yours.
>
> It is a valid problem. I simply wanted to install a small
> application on linux, and I can't.
>
> All the suggestions given are worst than the problem.
>
> Why the hell should I install a new OS just to install an
> application? If MS forced people to do that, all will be crying
> foul.
>
>
>> I don't believe a single word of the original post.
>
>
> who cares what an idiot like you beleives.
>
> typical linux zelot reponse. deny that the problem
> exist. keepm denying problems exist, and linux will remain
> in the back room, where only hackers will use it, while
> the rest of the world will use an OS meant to be used
> by normal people.
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 08:38:40 GMT
<snype>
>> BTW for the clueless, Administrator is something they introduced with
>> the NT series. Before that they had no concept of a super user.
>> The Super User concept was indeed stolen from the Unix arena.
>
>
> Actually, no.
>
> Using Windows, you have always had direct access to the software, your
> files, and the hardware.
>
> What is new with NT/2000 is the concept of multi-user - and those users
> having *less* access than normal.
>
>
Multi user is when you share the servers/workstation resources
(CPU/Mem/hdd space) with multiple users. NT has never had multi-user
support until Citrix released Citrix Winframe, which allows a sort of
suedo multi-user system possible. And from your extensive knowledge,
your should know what security access level 1 is, reply with the
answer, if you know, wintroll!
kiwiunixman
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 08:52:03 GMT
The puzzling question I want answered is wtf is he running games on a OS
clearly designed for sever. But here are some more puzzling questions:
Why is there IE on the server version of Windows?
Why is there directX on the server version of Windows?
Why is there a GUI for the server version of Windows? wounldn't that
just be a memory and CPU cycle hog?
kiwiunixman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:926u8o$h0a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>>> steve@x <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>> funny, that I had win95 for 5 years before I upgraded, and in
>>>> all that time, never had an application not install becuase
>>>> it needed something else to be there before it installed.
>>>
>>> You don't install many games, do you? DirectX seems to be legendary for
>>> always being one version behind what your software actually wants...
>>
>
>> FUD.
>> I use my Windows 2000 Advanced Server box for all of my work *plus* games.
>> I installed DirectX 8.0 from the 'windows update' menu item.
>
>
> So by using the very latest MS OS *and* updating it to the very latest
> release of DirectX, you can get current games to run. Whoopeedoo, big
> surprise!
>
> Now, how exactly does that relate to Steve's amazing story about using
> Win95 for 5 years and never having an application requiring upgraded
> components to install?
>
>
>> Now let's get back to how difficult it is to install stuff on Linux...
>
>
> I take it that, to level the playing field, we will use the very latest
> Linux distribution, and apply all the upgrades that are available? Oh,
> wait, that doesn't sound like what you suppose to "get back" to....
>
> Bernie
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 08:55:41 GMT
hmmm, no, use OpenSSH or SSH for remote telnet sessions are you will
find that it is even more secure than the Windows counter part. Also,
you can remotely administrate a Linux server, no matter what platform
you are administrating from.
kiwiunixman
Todd wrote:
> "Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> On Tue, 26 Dec 2000 00:50:45 +0800, Todd wrote:
>>
>>> If you want to do it via the command line, you can use Telnet or for more
>>> security, go with rcmd. If you want to use the GUI remotely, fire up
>>> terminal services (administration, not user).
>>
>> I thought rcmd was mush like rsh, in which case it isn't terribly secure ?
>
>
> err... no :)
>
> Not your fault though, MS built in 'extra stuff' into rcmd so that it would
> authenticate remotely via user domains... in other words, proprietary
> encryption and stuff.
>
> But, if you are only connecting to NT/2000, it is far more secure than
> telnet.
>
> -Todd
>
>
>
>>> There are more powerful tools to remotely update more than one machine
>>> automatically if you are administering many computers (say an IT job),
>>
> but
>
>>> that would be way off topic... what is on topic is that with Linux, it is
>>> hard to install stuff period.
>>
>> I think this has just been discussed. It actually isn't very hard at all.
>>
>>
>>> Forget remote capabilities... it is hard
>>> enough to use when you are directly on the console!
>>
>> For a competent user, it is quite easy from the console, and the marginal
>> difficulty of doing it remotely is negligeable.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
>> elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 08:59:53 GMT
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> Just because you've had a picture perfect Linux experience doesn't mean all
> the people I test for also have perfect experiences.
>
> I don't use Linux in a professional environment. I hope to, one day. But
> now, Linux is just a crappy plaything. My personal problem is it's not
> getting better. On the desktop, it sucks. As a server? Only a few
> distro's are even worth my 10 minutes. And god help me if I call tech
> support.
You seem pretty clueless about the server capabilities of Linux -
For instance, did you know Linux walks all over windows nt/2000
as a webserver, with the performance gap widening as you add
CPUs? (I know, saying it beats windows isn't saying much, but if
I told you it beats AIX you'd probably get this blank stare - OTOH
I know you can relate to windows!)
For a heads-up, check out the specweb 99 benchmarks at
spec.org. Sort all submitted results to date, and you will see
that in fact windows 2000 is the "crappy plaything", while Linux
owns the high end.
> I test Linux releases. Constantly, waiting for one to crop up and say "I'm
> different, Really!" so far, the results have been pretty disappointing.
I doubt that you'd have any meaningful way to evaluate them,
coming from your windows centric background.
> As for Bill choking off the competition, I'd love to see the competition
> come up with something as impressive as Windows 2000, let alone Windows 98.
> As far as getting things done went, the products are superior.
Linux mops up the floor with windows on the server side.
But the desktop is all you're concerned about, right?
Well, have patience - things are developing, but these
things take time. Give it say 5 years, and then we'll see.
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So how do we get from here to there?
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 03:08:19 -0600
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I've got a better one for you! I have an old 486-75 laptop made
> by Toshiba. It has 5 megs of ram on board and a 500 meg hard drive.
There's no such thing as a 486-75. The fastest 486 is a DX2/66. Unless
your talking about some 486 clone, in which case, it's not a 486. That's
lie 1.
> My friend took it out of my closet, I'd forgotten about it and attempted
> to install W98 on it. Wouldn't do it. Then he tried W95. Again, wouldn't
> do it. Not enough memory.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but Win95 will install with only 4 megs. I
don't claim it's useable, but it will indeed install. Yet another lie.
> Took the computer with me to my Dad's house for Christmas and
> he was so impressed he's running 2.2R2 now with X windows.
> He has an old Pentium 133 with 32 megs of ram and the thing
> just SCREEMS now. They had W98 on it before and it would
> just BARELY MOVE. You could double click on a window to open
> it and it might be as long as 10 seconds before you saw the
> window open.
And what applications does Daddy use?
> That speaks very highly of Linux.
>
> And we have another Linux user in my hood now.
What does daddy do when he wants to install new programs? In one day you've
taught him all the wonders of Unix?
> Anybody who tells me Windows is on an even keel with Linux
> in the performance department is a total liar. There's
> no way it can even come close.
Well, given that you lie without thought, I won't put much credence in your
statements.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 03:18:45 -0600
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Philip Neves" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Xu_06.862967
> > > > > As of right now There are no viruses that I know of for linux.
> > > >
> > > > Guess you've never heard of Bliss:
> > > >
> > > > http://math-www.uni-paderborn.de/~axel/bliss/
> > > >
> > > > It's been around for a while. Not to mention that there have been
> > > > virus-like things, such as the morris internet worm.
> > > >
> > > > > I've been using linux for five years and I have never heard of
one.
> > > >
> > > > I guess ignorance, is Bliss.
> > >
> > > The thing you are missing is that most NT users must operate with OS
> > > privileges which would allow a virus to spread
> >
> > That's not true. NT is perfectly capapble of being used in locked down
way.
>
> This is clearly not 100% true.
It is 100% true.
> As I have said before:
>
> Some Windows programs can not install for administrator and also put
> their settings into a user's account. (You must know this if you use
> NT.) They don't know how. So, these programs must be installed as the
> user who will be using them. To do this, you must have the privileges
> which would allow a virus to spread.
There are any number of solutions to this problem. 1) give the user
account temporary admin privs, install the program, remove those privs.
Problem solved. 2) Using Win2k, simply install the program with admin
privs as the dialog box that pops up allows. 3) Monitor the keys created
via any number of tools, then recreate those same keys in each user hive.
There are other solutions, but those are just off the top of my head.
> Some Windows programs assume system wide access to operate. To operate
> these programs you must also have privileges which would allow a virus
> to spread.
Name one. The only one I know of that requires this out of the box is
Office 95, and that can be worked around pretty easily.
> The answer is to not use Windows NT for these programs OR use NT in an
> insecure way. Most users will choose to use NT in an insecure way.
No, the answer is to use it the way it's intended to be used.
------------------------------
From: steve@x <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.inferno,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Which OS for 2005 ?
Date: 26 Dec 2000 00:26:01 -0800
OSX
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What if Linux wasn't free?
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 09:26:24 GMT
Swangoremovemee wrote:
> Would anyone but nerds be interested?
>
> I doubt it.
>
> The only reason the big companies are jumping on the Linux bandwagon
> is because they figure if it catches on (doubtful at best) they can
> make a buck selling hardware and services.
I think (third-party software developers, and hardware manufacturers)
companies have finally relised that they were the ones who made Windows
a success, and they have also relised that they can bring it down.
Linux is a position, where there is no commercial drive, hence,
programmers can do what they aim for, perfection! Linux will always be
around as there is no need to make money, hence, no demanded release
dates, hence, better products, rather than substandarded products
released ontime.
>
>
> It has such a dismal market share amongst desktop users now, that if
> it were commercial it would be dead by now.
And growing. Linux now has a stable base to build a GUI onto, a GUI is
the last component of the "Linux Distro" that needs more work. You will
find that by half way through next year there will be two complete GUI
ready for user consumption. Microsoft however, had DOS, which was shit,
then threw a gui on it. It's like building a house on sand, and the end
result when it rains.
kiwiunixman
>
> Point is Linux can't even be given away because no desktop user in his
> right mind (programmers are not in their right minds) would want it.
>
> As Redhat and SuSE and Corel move toward commercializing Linux, and
> don't kid yourself that is their ultimate goal, to make money, Linux
> will be even deader than it is now.
>
> Swango
> "It Don't Mean a Thang if it Ain't Got That Swang"
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ATA RIPOFF! ALERT!
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 22:48:41 +1200
Hi Ken,
> Problem is, I've heard from other folks that the Register isn't exactly
> 'austere'. More like the National Enquirer of tech rags.
Of course. That was tongue in cheek. But they do ocassionally break some
really big stories. And get others horribly wrong.
You don't have to trust them. You can look at the proposed specifications of
the new interface for yourself:
http://www.t13.org/
And from there check out these links:
ftp://fission.dt.wdc.com/pub/standards/x3t13/technical/e00148r0.pdf
ftp://fission.dt.wdc.com/pub/standards/x3t13/technical/e00148r1.pdf
ftp://fission.dt.wdc.com/pub/standards/x3t13/technical/e00148r2.pdf
I original found some of the links from /.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/12/22/1956201&mode=thread
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/12/24/1837215&mode=thread
And here:
http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?q=Y&a=tpc&s=50009562&f=3470983
4&m=364099635
So you're right. I don't trust any one news source either.
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 09:48:26 GMT
<snype>
> Or else one can use OpenBSD :-)
I hope that comment doesn't cause a *BSD vs. the world thread! :)
kiwiunixman
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
