one of the problems with your argument is that your windows setup could allow
someone to set up a script that after you had launched any program in say...
M$ Office, the next time your computer was left turned on at say, 3 am, it
could concievable be used to, lets say dial up a phone number in Timbuktu and
change your dialup number to look as if you are still dialing into your
regular ISP but infact are dialing to Haiti and running up a NICE bill. or
maybe they would use your computer (a little script) to launch a DDOS attack
so that the trace would be back to your 1 or 2 user home computer network.
No as i think about it... heck I would like everyone ELSE to use winders....
On Saturday 07 July 2001 18:15, Judith Miner wrote:
<snip> certainly not be downloading programs, installing anything, or
> messing with the system. That leaves one person--me--as root and user.
> "Shares" are irrelevant in this situation. So are permissions. And so is
>
> this kind of business:
> >> With linux, there is more control over who can actually see the
>
> shares--you have options to limit by IP (such that only specific
> computers on the network can even see the shares), by users (such that
> only specific users on the linux server can see the shares), by
> permission (such that only certain users or groups of users can edit the
> files, and other users or groups have read only privilege), or by a
> combination of the above (such that only certain users from certain
> computers can see the shares). <<
>
> I agree that all of this is great on a multiuser system, even one with,
> say, 10 users such as a smallish business, but on a two- or
> three-computer, one- or two-user home network, it's irrelevant and more
> of a bother than a feature.
>
> >> This also leaves out the security risks of sharing an entire hard
>
> drive to begin with, especially under windows. You are much better off
> only sharing directories on the drive, then the whole thing (with the
> wrong permissions, someone could delete the entire Windows or winnt
> directory, which would leave the computer unuseable and almost certainly
> require either a re-install, or recopying the hard drive image back to
> the PC.) <<
>
> These are all good points unless the one sharing the hard drive is ME.
> Who is going to delete the entire Windows directory? Me?? Well, as
> "root" I can do that anyway! So as a general statement, >> You are much
> better off only sharing directories on the drive << applies only in some
> small LAN situations. It most likely does not apply to home situations
> where one or two mature, responsible, computer-literate adults share
> computers on a network.
>
> Anyway, SOHO and home computers should be backed up regularly,
> regardless of what the networking situation is. Could you stand to lose
> it? Do you want to start from scratch? If the answer is "no," you must
> have a backup strategy and DO IT. It is a lot easier to keep the thing
> backed up than to fool with permissions, shares, and passwords day in
> and day out--again, in the two-user situation.
>
> >> You incorrectly state that with TCP / IP file and printer sharing,
>
> your hard drive can be viewed by the outside world. <<
>
> Are you sure that's incorrect? I was under the impression that if you
> had file sharing enabled under TCP/IP and had a cable modem, you were
> essentially on a LAN with everyone else on your cable line. It would
> seem that if they could access your machine, they could indeed share
> files with it. I am obviously no expert on networking, especially TCP/IP
> networking. The only LAN networking I have experience with is NetBEUI on
> a small two- or three-computer network, entirely self-contained in a
> home. I use TCP/IP only for Dial-Up Networking and it is not bound to
> any components and NetBios is not enabled. While this may seem to be a
> joke network to some Linuxies, it is exactly what we want and works
> perfectly for us. I dare say this is what a large number of two-computer
> households want in a network. We appreciate the value of heavy-duty
> Linux networking where it is needed, but in our situation it is overkill
> many times over.
>
> >> There are problems with NetBEUI, especially so for larger networks,
>
> but also applicable for smaller networks in that it creates a lot of
> network traffic. <<
>
> NetBEUI was never intended for large networks. In fact, I think there is
> a rather small limit on the number of computers that can be connected
> over NetBEUI. It is also peer-to-peer and cannot be anything else. It is
> not appropriate for business networks of more than a few computers, but
> is excellent for a very small home network because it is very easy to
> set up and does not communicate with the outside world. Now tell me how
> a network with two computers is going to "create a lot of network
> traffic."<g> The *only* traffic on it is when I'm transferring files
> from one machine to the other or sending data to a printer connected to
> the other computer. That's it!! Never had a collision, never could have
> a collision. There are no clients and servers, just two computers that
> can be viewed from each other, with file management possible from either
> machine and printers connected to each computer available to the other.
>
> >> A much more efficient manner is to enable virus scanning at the mail
>
> server itself -- such that mail is checked as it comes in, although that
> doesn't obviate the need for workstation level virus software as well.
> <<
>
> Here again, your bias comes through. Mail server??? Give me a break.
> There is no mail server, just two computers both of which can get
> e-mail. I agree that a corporate LAN, even a small one, is well advised
> to have virus scanning enabled where the mail comes in. But all your
> Aunt Matildas and Uncle Joes who infect their computers with Love Bugs
> and Melissas and Kak worms and Anna K viruses, and pass them on to all
> the people in their address books, do contribute to the virus/worm load
> on the Net and do so needlessly. Viruses require user action--or
> inaction. It's an educational problem. The solution is not to complicate
> up the OS to the Linux level because these folks would not adapt, they
> simply would not use a computer. The genie is out of the bottle and the
> High Priesthood had better get used to it. Clueless users are here to
> stay and you can either write them off to the machinations and
> monopolies of Microsoft or try to build user friendliness into a better
> OS.
>
> Please don't take this is an argument with what you're saying. You are
> absolutely right within your context. And I probably was not clear that
> when I talked about a "small LAN," I meant a *SMALL* LAN. So small it is
> probably below the radar for anyone who thinks of networks in terms of
> more than 6 users. But the home network is a rapidly growing segment of
> the market and needs to be accommodated if Linux is to have any chance
> of attracting nontechnical users.
> --Judy Miner
