Linux-Advocacy Digest #731, Volume #31 Thu, 25 Jan 01 18:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4
Re: Poor Linux (Donn Miller)
Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4
Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4 ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: Microsoft "INNOVATES" again! ("Martigan")
Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4 ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: The Server Saga (J Sloan)
Re: The Server Saga ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4
Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4 (J Sloan)
Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others (.)
Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4
Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others (.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:24:14 -0000
On 25 Jan 2001 16:14:33 -0600, Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Paul Colquhoun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On 25 Jan 2001 13:35:25 -0600, Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> |
>> |"Philip Van Hoof" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> |news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> |> Conrad Rutherford wrote:
>> |> >
>> |> > OK, lesse...
>> |> >
>> |> > W2K:
>> |<snip>
>> |
>> |Ahhh, I clipped all your crap because you simply skipped my point and the
>> |thread. You didn't address my text - instead created a strawman and some
>> |more made up scenarios of your choosing...
>> |
>> |Can't take the heat...
>>
>>
>> Sorry, *you* are accusig *him* of using "made up scenarios of your
>choosing"
>>
>> That must be the best example of the pot calling the kettle black that
>> I've seen in a long time.
>
>Gee, my scenario is how to install W2K versus how to install the 2.4
>kernel - is that a big stretch of the imagination for something someone
rpm -i newkernel.rpm
>might do? I didn't specify hardware or any conditions except, how to get it
>running BASICALLY.
>
>wow - this must have really hit a nerve... P)
No, you're just misrepresenting things to such a grievous degree
that even the moderate elements of this forum are flaming you.
--
Section 8. The Congress shall have power...
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for
limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries;
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 17:25:33 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
J Sloan wrote:
> Actually there's a kernel mod that lets you switch scheduler
> policies on the fly - haven't tried it, but it sounds like fun.
Wow, that's sounds pretty cool. Which kernel version is this? I've
noticed that FreeBSD stable (4.2) has some pretty strange scheduler
policies lately. For example, I've noticed that heavy disk activity
kind of swamps the system, and it never did that before. Of course, I
don't have SCSI, so maybe that's a factor.
Custom scheduler policies are nice to suit the individual user.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:27:03 -0000
On 25 Jan 2001 16:15:34 -0600, Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Conrad Rutherford wrote:
>>
>> > Oh really? Then perhaps you'll tell me why this article was taken from a
>> > PRO-LINUX website that was linked to by slashdot...
>>
>> If there is an article on how to compile a kernel from
>> scratch, it is clearly not meant for you, or other non
>> technical end users. It was meant for those who would
>> like to try compiling a kernel from scratch.
>>
>> End of story.
>>
>> Say, how do you do that in windows?
>
>Wouldn't know, never HAD to and never wanted to.
Similarly, you would likely have no interest in any of the
other content at the Duke of URL save to use it to stretch
the truth to the point of nearly breaking it.
OTOH, if you actually went to the "horses mouths" like
suse.com,linuxmadrake.com or Redhat.com you would likely
be displeased to find information that doesn't already
fit your desired conclusion.
Anyone know if Mindcraft is hiring?
--
Common Standards, Common Ownership.
The alternative only leads to destructive anti-capitalist
and anti-democratic monopolies.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:28:39 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Russ Lyttle
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 25 Jan 2001 05:03:16 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Ayende Rahien wrote:
>>
>> "Russ Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> > >
>> > > "Russ Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>
>> They don't need to have special support to 2000, they need to treat it like
>> ME (actually, it's the other way around, but it doesn't matter at the
>> moment.)
>
>Perhaps they don't need special support, but they do differentate
>between the two when you call in.
>> It should go like this:
>> A> Log on as administrator
>> B> Go to Start>Settings>Network & Dial Up Connection
>> C> double click Make New Connection
>> D> Click Next
>> E> Choose dial up to the internet and click next
>> F> (not logged as admin at the moment, doing it from memory) enter user name
>> & password, ISP phone number, enter DNS & IP.
>>
>> Good luck.
>>
>> User wise, except for having to be logged in as admin, there is very little
>> difference between ME & 2K in how you set up a DUN.
>In linux ( the long way )(you don't have to be root)
>
>cp ppp.template [newconnectionname]
>emacs [newconnectinname]
>provide the phone number, user name, password where prompted
>ctrx-x-s
>ctrl-x-c
>[newconnectionname]
>
>To be truthful, I did have to run once to see if they prompted for
>"Login:" or "User Name:".
You think that's bad ... my ISP likes to go through multiple machines,
and some of them like "login: ", but some like "login:" and
I think there's one or two out there that print "login".
A bit of a pain, but manageable.
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- there's always something
EAC code #191 0d:16h:43m actually running Linux.
Yes, uptime & wall clock aren't in synch; I don't know why.
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4
Date: 25 Jan 2001 16:28:26 -0600
"Daniel Tryba" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:94q48p$o11$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >> > familiar GUI up and running with all your hardware ready to rock.
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Only if you are used to Windows.
> > Who hasn't?
>
> MacOS users for example.
Yea, but it looks a lot like Windows and a whole lot not like any linux
gui. so your point is moot.
>
> >>
> >> > HTTP, FTP,
> >> > Media Server, Journaling file system, DirectX hardware acceleration
of
> > every
> >> > device, OpenGL running at the right refresh for that autodetected
> > monitor
> >> > and video card and the list goes on.
> >> Nope, my Matrox G400 was not supported, needed to install drivers,
Linux
> >> supports it natively (framebuffer).
>
> > Framebuffer - do you call that "supported?" I sure don't
>
> I do. See below.
ha!
>
> > Besides, your Matrox will come up in svga mode - that's frame buffer
mode -
> > so guess what, according to your definition of supported, W2K handled
the
> > G400 too.
>
> Yeah, 640x480 or 800x600 with 256 colors, Whooopie. The builtin
> framebuffer drivers support anything that your monitor can handle in
> high or truecolor. They even have some acceleration builtin, which can't
> say for the SVGA drivers.
Woopee! So, do you intend to run your card in this framebuffer mode for
ever? No, I'm certain you'll go and get the latest builds and compile them
of course. But, it's the same thing. I'd say i've never heard of ANY card
you couldnt' finish setup with. Then you'd do the normal thing, go find the
drivers for the items that didn't get fully installed. Tell me it's not the
same with Linux - of course it is. The difference is, EVERYTHING has windows
drivers, not everything has linux drivers (and those that do are no where
near as mature and often not even supported).
>
> > And besides, when you look on that G400 CD, did you find linux or
> > windows drivers? Rest my case.
>
> Didn't look at the CD, downloaded them from their website, and there you
> will find both Windows and Linux drivers. So what case are you resting?
> (http://www.matrox.com/mga/support/drivers/latest/home.cfm)
Well, you had to go to the site after installation to get them. Chances are
the drivers are on the CD already so you could probably install them during
the original setup. But, see my previous reply, of course you'll go to the
site to get drivers - IF they are available. Without doubt, there are more
windows drivers than for any other OS. So it's YOUR comment I've rebuffed.
>
>
> >> Nope had to replace my 3Com595TX with another networkcard (btw
> >> manufactured somewhere in '95). Hercules (third head to my machine (the
> >> G400 is dualheaded)) doesn't work either, and it is still usefull for
> >> debugging and logging stuff.
>
> > Wow, did you have to spend more than $15 for that NIC?
>
> Who cares what it costs, it used to work with pre Windows 2k MS
> operating systems, why is there no support for it in 2k??? The
> replacement 21040 is even older and that one still has support!
> BTW the 21040 cost me about 7$ 3 years ago, so the cost of the product
> doesn't say anything about how it works, the 3com 595 was more expensive
> (it's an 100Mbps NIC).
You know, I have no idea. Ask 3COM. Unless you somehow feel it's Microsoft's
responsibility to write drivers for other vendor's old out dated and not
supported or even manufactured hardware?? weird...
>
> > And, gee, does linux
> > (the kernel) support your dualhead g400 in the base distrubution?
Support
> > acceleration and dual-head mode?
> > Without downloading a single thing other
> > than the base linux product? Didn't think so.
>
> Yep, that's what the framebufferdriver does. But windows doesn't support
> it in the base distrobution. So why do you want to compare Windows with
> add-on drivers to Linux without downloading extra stuff? Sounds unfair
> to me.
No, see my previous replies - you confirmed what I meant in your comments
too.
<yadda yadda>
> >Hercules support? Who gives a
> > shit. My dual head is a Geforce2MX - I don't go for 70s crap.
>
> I do, I don't throw anything away if it's still usefull. Just like the
> NIC which workes perfect with win9x, NT4 and Linux.
you know, eventually I sell my car with 100,000 miles on it even if it is
running. I care about performance. AND as I wrote above, why blame MS if
3COM doesn't write drivers for a card it no longer makes or supports??
>
> > <snip>
>
> Hey, what happend to my description of my installation problems....
> Don't you have any comment on them? It can't be that I have cheap
> hardware. The p2b-ds was the top of the line for the bx chipsets. Hey it
> even costs more money now then it did then (2.5 years ago it cost me
> about 500$, now the average price is about 650 to 700$ at the local
> dealers).
>
Yes, the asus had a hardware malfunction - how that is a MS problem I cannot
fathom, i felt it totally unreleated to this thread. I too had threee
P2B-ds's and had to send them all in for the fix by asus for free. Yea, that
can happen. Can happen to any OS. Switching from ACPI to non-acpi is a
backwards step, when is the last time you downgraded your system when
changing it - think in those terms and you'll see why it's not a high
priority. Who'd want to run a non-acpi system these days? Oh wait, you still
hang on to $3 throw-away bin NICs.
------------------------------
From: "Martigan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft "INNOVATES" again!
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:29:49 GMT
Only the clouded ones believe to news!
"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:94pfqf$en6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Lloyd Llewellyn wrote:
> >
> >This is a joke, right? How is this an "innovation?" X window managers
have been
> >doing this for years.
> >
> When anybody else copies M$ refers to it as "piracy."
>
> When M$ copies it is "innovation."
>
> Didn't you get your official "Microsoft Redefinition of Terms" ?
>
> --
> FYI. When you do type "make" on the Windows NT source tree, it takes
almost
> 38 hours for it to complete on a 4-way 400 Mhz PII System, as opposed to
> about 5 minutes on Linux. Linux is not Doomed!!!!!! -- Jeff Merkey
> http://boudicca.tux.org/hypermail/linux-kernel/1999/1999week26/0787.html
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4
Date: 25 Jan 2001 16:31:19 -0600
"Martin Eden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Wp0c6.7702$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Heh. Microsoft shot itself in the foot with Windows 2000.
I wish I could shoot myself in the foot this succesfully.
According to IDC (in last weeks Infoworld magazine) MS has exceeded every
single one of IDCs predictions for sales.
>
> I got the chance to see the much lauded "Whistler Professional" in action
> last night. What a worthless piece of shit. I thought WinME was crap, but
> this sets a whole new standard in worthlessness. It was slow as molasses
on
> a 700mhz Pentium III. There were a lot of very stupid and useless add ons
in
> it too, including some bizarre theme manager that will make your desktop
> look marginally like Aqua (MacOS X).
So, the themes you didn't like. Gee, nice criteria. Slow as molasses? Given
that I run Whistler on a PIII500 and have noticed it runs as fast as W2K on
my PIII800 - what can I do but mark your comment to the great unknown. YMMV
applies here... It's certainly not the comment the beta testers I talk with
in the newsgroups have to say about it.
>
> I have had Windows 2000 running on 4 different machines non-stop since
last
> spring. I have never had one lockup, one blue screen, one slowdown, nor
any
> major problem in all that time. It's probably the best all-purpose OS I
have
> ever run. I know a great many other people who feel the exact same way. It
> doesn't inspire much desire to wipe out what works in a gamble for
something
> "better".
>
> Maybe I am being a little harsh. Early Win2000 betas were slow too, but
from
> what I saw there is no reason on Earth why any intelligent person would
> "upgrade" from Win2K to Whistler. I'd bet it might go over with those
> running WinME, but I doubt many people who run Win2K will waste their time
> and money on it.
This is not about WinME, never was and never will be. I dont' like ME but I
understand it's reason. I dont' like W98 either but NT4 workstation didn't
cut it for the gamer in me. W2K just does it all. I cannot wait for whistler
cause I see it as more of a good thing.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Server Saga
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:32:16 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Which was probably your intention all along - then again, surely
> > you see it's questionable whether you ever actually installed Linux.
>
> Why would I lie about what I did? Why is it you guys immediately think
> someone is lying when they admit the like Windows? This sounds like
> dogma to me.
Nobody thinks you're lying because you say you like windows.
Who ever said that? You're twisting things again Pete.
After all, my dear wife likes windows.
No, this whole business of mysterious network problems,
ignoring the attempts to help, then your triumphant declaration
that it was too late, you'd already destroyed the server and
installed windows on the hardware - the possibility of deception
does occur - after all, if the intent is to poison the newsgroup
and wear out the Linux users, it would be more efficient to
merely say you had the problems, rather than actually having
the problems, eh?
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Server Saga
Date: 25 Jan 2001 22:34:35 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> I don't really care whether Linux is popular among the computer
:> illiterate, they won't be able to contribute anything anyway. Let
:> them suffer the trashy software in the monopolistic market they have
:> created for themselves, or turn to Steve Jobs (or, for that matter,
:> Mandrake) with their hope he will somehow make things better.
:> </rant>
: So screw Joe Pulic huh? Don't they deserve better?
In my opinion, they do deserve much better.
However, they already have the option of getting something better, IF
they're willing to invest some time to learn something new.
I'm all in favor of efforts to make installing, learning, and using
Linux easier. I think all current GUIs, including Windows, are more
complex than they need to be for the average computer novice.
However, I don't ever believe that it will be possible to make the
most efficient or productive use of any PC or PC-like device without
being willing to learn something about the tools one is using.
Time is valuable, and good tools, properly used, multiply the
productivity and hence the value of one's time. It pays to choose and
learn the best tools, whether one is in the IT field or not. Usually,
the cost of learning an appropriate tool - even if it is higher than
it could or should be - is trivial compared to the benefits that tool
can provide. Thus, I don't tend to have a huge amount of sympathy for
those who are unwilling, even in principle, to do so. In the end,
they are cheating themselves out of time, the very stuff of which life
is made. OTOH, those who do make the effort to learn, but are hindered
by things that are *needlessly* complex or confusing or poorly
documented, do have my understanding and support. Those are the folks
that I most want to help, and, from what I've seen, the KDE and Gnome
folks seem to agree.
Joe
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:37:22 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Edward Rosten in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 25 Jan 2001
> [...]
>>I remember using a version of WP in about 1994 (or 3?) for Win3.11. It
>>was one of the best word processors I have ever used. I'll still stick
>>by that comment, even when its compared to Word 2000.
>
> Well, I have to say that's an uphill battle, even assuming one is a
> WordPerfect fan. WordPerfect was, of course, 'king of the hill' at DOS
> wordprocessing (and Unix, too, in fact) but the 'hidden codes' mechanism
> was never as useful in a WYSIWYG GUI package as it was on the
> no-graphics text screen.
Really? The earliest version I used was a Win3.11 version. That had a
reveal codes function which was very useful.
> Personally, I'm a huge fan of WordPerfect, but
> I don't really like the Windows version much. Nor did the Macintosh
I liked the Win3.11 version a lot. I processed a 30-40 (can't remember
which) page report on that. As I remember, it was extremely good at
handling diagrams. That was the first big bit of wordprocessing I had
ever done and I was very disappointed with everything I've used since
except LaTeX.
> version ever get anywhere.
>
>>> StarOffice isn't free. StarOffice is a commercial prodcut.
>>> StarOffice
>>
>>Star office is free. It's now also open office, and open source as well
>>as free.
>
> My OEM charged $5 to include StarOffice on my system (I chose not to.)
If you don't have a broadband connection its probably worth it, unless
you don't mind waiting :-)
> It was probably just an 'install charge'. But that's the way free
> software is. Just because its downloadable doesn't mean nobody pays for
> it.
>>> is a terrible product, on any platform.
>>
>>Not the best, but by no means terrible.
>
> Definitely not my cup of tea, but I hear they're changing it from an
I need a spreadsheet once in a while. It's functional enough to make me
not bother to seek out other alternatives.
> integrated package (yuk) to a suite, so that'll be nice.
Thank god for that! Hopefully, they'll make it interpolate much better
with other things. It is impossible to use the draing package (at
present) to export .eps files. Printing to .ps files really doesn't work
well.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:37:24 -0000
On 25 Jan 2001 16:20:20 -0600, Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On 25 Jan 2001 13:42:21 -0600, Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >
>> >"Philip Van Hoof" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Conrad Rutherford wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > OK, lesse...
>> >> >
>> >> > W2K:
>> >>
>> >> Get yourself a Pentium 3 @ 800 Mhz minimum and a cdrom and a licence (a
>> >> few hundred dollars)
>> >
>> >You don't already have a $600 computer? You can't spring $80 for the OS?
>Are
>> >you that broke that a sub $1000 PC is outta your reach?
>>
>> Actually, W2K is $150 OEM.
>
>
>ha! Tourist pricing... funny how I can hit pricewatch.com and find plenty at
>$96. And tell me again how OEM isn't a "real license?" ahahah
No, it isn't. It's dependent on extra conditions. Your
vendor may or may not be willing to break those
conditions. It's a grey area.
>>
>> A real licence will cost you $300.
>
>$141 on pricewatch for a "real" license.
>
>
>>
>> [deletia]
>>
>> Regardless, "real people" have better things to do with their
>> money than throw it out the window. This even goes for those
>> of us in households where the monthly income is as much or
>> more than your annual take.
>
>So, are you suggesting that the $10,000 car is better than the $15,000 car
>just cause it's cheaper?
Automobiles have a finite and significant marginal production cost.
Software does not.
>you get what you pay for, simple formula - works 99% of the time.
Too bad you just stepped into that last 1% right here.
Also, sometimes you DON'T "get what you pay for" even with
automobiles. There are plenty of things to complicate the
pricing of a corporeal product including tariffs, transport
and other things other than the production cost of the thing
in question.
OTOH, the "production" cost of OEM software is about 50 cents
if you are doing it in lots of hundreds.
Oh, and the like of Ford or BMW pay R&D costs too...
--
Section 8. The Congress shall have power...
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for
limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries;
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:38:29 GMT
Conrad Rutherford wrote:
> Gee, my scenario is how to install W2K versus how to install the 2.4
> kernel - is that a big stretch of the imagination for something someone
> might do?
It makes no sense, and appears to be an obvious attempt
to deceive. If you are going to ignore all the normal methods
of installing a new kernel and focus on how to compile a
kernel from scratch, that's fine, but what connection does
that have to your scenarios of inserting a windows CD and
starting an install - after all, you can also insert a Linux CD
and start an install just as easily.
So, for your scenario to mean anything at all, you must
compare apples to apples. That means, if you decide
to pick the topic of how to build a Linux kernel from scratch,
then the corresponding windows topic would be how to
rebuild the windows "kernel" from scratch.
Whoops, can't do that in windows, huh?
So the whole kernel building thing was a red herring.
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others
Date: 25 Jan 2001 22:38:12 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:94q17o$13p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > http://betanews.efront.com/article.php3?sid=980449212
>>
>> > Kaspersky Lab's is now reporting that the Linux-based virus 'Ramen' is
> now
>> > "in the wild." The firm sent word around the net today that several Web
>> > sites have now been defaced by the malicious code, enough to up its
> status
>> > to "in the wild". Places affected by the bug include NASA, Texas A&M,
> and
>> > Supermicro. As of right now, the worm only seems to be affecting Redhat
> 6.2
>> > and 7.0 versions of Linux.
>> > Using three known breachable security exploits in the operating system,
>> > Ramen can penetrate the system and take over root access to execute its
>> > payload.
>>
>> > One executive at Russia-based Kaspersky Labs told reporters "The
> discovery
>> > of the Ramen worm 'in-the-wild' is a very significant moment in computer
>> > history. Previously considered as an absolutely secured operating
> system,
>> > Linux now has become yet another victim to computer malware."
>>
>> No, it was never considered 'absolutely secure' by ANYONE. It is highly
>> securable. Theres a difference.
> But it can't even reach C2 level of security... NT is more "highly
> securable" the NSA says...
The NSA doesnt say that. In fact, no one says that.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:40:23 -0000
On 25 Jan 2001 16:28:26 -0600, Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Daniel Tryba" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:94q48p$o11$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> > familiar GUI up and running with all your hardware ready to rock.
>> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Only if you are used to Windows.
>> > Who hasn't?
>>
>> MacOS users for example.
>
>Yea, but it looks a lot like Windows and a whole lot not like any linux
>gui. so your point is moot.
That would actually be a boon to them. They more quickly
realize with Linux that they would have to adjust their
outlook.
[deletia]
Although, we all know that you are simply full of SHIT.
Many of us were using Macintoshes long before you were
computing in any capacity. The differences between the
real McCoy and Windows are nothing to trivialize.
--
>> Yes. And the mailer should never hand off directly to a program
>> that allows the content to take control.
>
>Well most mailers can, so I guess they all suck too.
Yup.
Candy from strangers should be treated as such.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others
Date: 25 Jan 2001 22:40:01 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Besides, if you like Linux and need to run C2 or BETTER you
> could always get Trusted Solaris or Trusted Irix. You would
> get "better than Microsoft" security and a nice migration
> path.
It never fails to amaze me that people at large see "C2" as some kind
of goal to be reached. C2 certification guarantees a nearly useless,
horribly configured machine.
=====.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
