Re: [SLUG] A valid analogy.
This better On Mon, 2004-03-15 at 11:13, Mike MacCana wrote: On Sun, 14 Mar 2004, Richard Neal wrote: GPLG GPLGPLGP GPLGPLGPLGP GPLGP GPL MIKE GPLGP GPLGPLGPLGP GPLGPLGPL GPLGPL No offence, but your sig is retarded ;^). Mike -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] A valid analogy.
Mike MacCana wrote: On Sun, 14 Mar 2004, Richard Neal wrote: GPLG GPLGPLGP GPLGPLGPLGP GPLGP GPL MICROSOFT GPLGP GPLGPLGPLGP GPLGPLGPL GPLGPL No offence, but your sig is retarded ;^). I don't know about that, but it's certainly a bit inscrutable. I can only interpret it as an ASCII homage to Pac-Man. If that is the intention, I don't see how you can achieve the desired effect without going completely OTT thus: | S || F| | || | | || | | C || U| | || | | || | | O || D| __| || |_ GPLGPL GPLGPL GPL M I C R O S O F T GPLGPL GPLGPL P L A Y E R : G N U S C O R E : 1 9 8 3 2 1 H I G H S C O R E ! -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] A valid analogy
Were windows has a forced evolutionary development based on what sells software. Much as I hate to admit it, it's worked pretty well in respect of that goal. It could be argued that its evolution has been quite successful to date. Fact is that soon, taking a similar analogy, we might be saying: There must be something right in what the terrorists are demanding otherwise they would not be so widespread! That wasn't quite my intention. I was obliquely pointing out that success depends on what you were aiming at. To be explicit: If the goal is taken to be high-quality software, Microsoft have infamously underachieved. If the goal is to make money, though, they've done very well indeed. If even the terrorists themselves don't think what they're demanding is right, either it's a distraction while they work on their real goals, or they have very antisocial ways of passing time. Also, non-terrorists might think that what they're demanding is right, regardless of whether they agree with terrorist methods. Using a similar analogy as you suggest, though, I'll point out that just as Mr Gates keeps doing what he does because it achieves his intentions, terrorism is used here and there because it sometimes achieves its intentions. Whether a given person thinks the demands are right is a separate issue. Just because you had no choice on what was thrown at your face when you first faced a computer does not mean it was right. The first computer I used was a Commodore PET. I didn't know any different. The second was a Sinclair ZX81. I didn't think it was entirely right, mainly because of the extremely frustrating input system. The more I used Windows, the more horribly wrong it seemed. Cheers, James -- ...so there I am at ten thousand feet with a power drill in one hand, a takeaway menu in the other, no parachute and a _very_ suprised expression... pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] A valid analogy.
Ben Donohue wrote: Sorry Richard but I disagree with this analogy. Evolution theory is based on getting better from NON intelligence. Intelligence is NOT in the equation. Oh no. So you're a creationist then? Linux and other free software is based on the collective intelligence of a whole lot of very smart people. If I was a programmer I would be a bit insulted if someone said my work, hard thought and know-how was in fact based on random input. I'd object and say that I don't just type in random characters into the keyboard along with a zillion other programmers and there happens to be the odd one that makes a good program. AND then some other RANDOM process figures out which is the best working program and includes that in the Linux kernel without any testing or whatever. NO. It was mostly your choice of language that tipped me off, but this ridiculous statement shows that you have no clue about what you're arguing against. Evolution by natural selection can be defined as the non-random survival of imperfectly replicating enities. Notice the *non-random* bit? Look at it this way: Say many people decide to fork XFree86, and the choices they make about what to put into their new forks are fairly random. The forks will obviously not end up identical to the 'parent' project: imperfect replication. Over time, some will gain more widespread use than others: non-random survival. Therefore, XFree86 has 'evolved'. Linux changes and gets better and better over time as bit like modern car design or jet aircraft from biplane over time. It's refinement over time but it's NEVER random. How can something get better without intelligence behind it? Linux is MADE to be virus resistant by design. And design means a designer. And a designer means intelligence. Linux people are intelligent people. THAT'S why we don't get viruses. We use our intelligence. Try reading up about things such as the theory of evolution, emergent behaviour, genetic programming or biology in general. I don't think SLUG is the place for proselytising either, thanks very much. Felix Richard Neal wrote: The nearest single analogy I can come across that explains Linux security is Linux is based on an evolutionary development platform were the fittest and most diverse survive. Were windows has a forced evolutionary development based on what sells software. As anyone who has studied evolutionary science can attest the more diverse and random your genetic makeup, the higher the probability of survival in the natural ever on going virus arms race. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] A valid analogy.
Here here I was about to reply when I saw this...very nice. Only thing I want to add is why do we have so many varying car models and aeroplanes... because of evolutionary diversity in the design. On Sun, 2004-03-14 at 19:15, Felix Sheldon wrote: Ben Donohue wrote: Sorry Richard but I disagree with this analogy. Evolution theory is based on getting better from NON intelligence. Intelligence is NOT in the equation. Oh no. So you're a creationist then? Linux and other free software is based on the collective intelligence of a whole lot of very smart people. If I was a programmer I would be a bit insulted if someone said my work, hard thought and know-how was in fact based on random input. I'd object and say that I don't just type in random characters into the keyboard along with a zillion other programmers and there happens to be the odd one that makes a good program. AND then some other RANDOM process figures out which is the best working program and includes that in the Linux kernel without any testing or whatever. NO. It was mostly your choice of language that tipped me off, but this ridiculous statement shows that you have no clue about what you're arguing against. Evolution by natural selection can be defined as the non-random survival of imperfectly replicating enities. Notice the *non-random* bit? Look at it this way: Say many people decide to fork XFree86, and the choices they make about what to put into their new forks are fairly random. The forks will obviously not end up identical to the 'parent' project: imperfect replication. Over time, some will gain more widespread use than others: non-random survival. Therefore, XFree86 has 'evolved'. Linux changes and gets better and better over time as bit like modern car design or jet aircraft from biplane over time. It's refinement over time but it's NEVER random. How can something get better without intelligence behind it? Linux is MADE to be virus resistant by design. And design means a designer. And a designer means intelligence. Linux people are intelligent people. THAT'S why we don't get viruses. We use our intelligence. Try reading up about things such as the theory of evolution, emergent behaviour, genetic programming or biology in general. I don't think SLUG is the place for proselytising either, thanks very much. Felix Richard Neal wrote: The nearest single analogy I can come across that explains Linux security is Linux is based on an evolutionary development platform were the fittest and most diverse survive. Were windows has a forced evolutionary development based on what sells software. As anyone who has studied evolutionary science can attest the more diverse and random your genetic makeup, the higher the probability of survival in the natural ever on going virus arms race. -- GPLG GPLGPLGP GPLGPLGPLGP GPLGP GPL MICROSOFT GPLGP GPLGPLGPLGP GPLGPLGPL GPLGPL Richard Neal [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] A valid analogy.
Richard Neal wrote: Here here I was about to reply when I saw this...very nice. Only thing I want to add is why do we have so many varying car models and aeroplanes... because of evolutionary diversity in the design. Yet all these thing are created by intelligence... And these 'varying' models are all really very much the same. Brad -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] A valid analogy.
Evolution theory is based on getting better from NON intelligence. Intelligence is NOT in the equation. Oh no. So you're a creationist then? This isn't necessarily implied. It looks to me like he's just distinguishing between biological evolution (as in the Origin of Species etc.) and the process that's producing Linux et al. The key difference is that the biological model assumes almost purely random input, whereas the variations in software evolution are the product of intention; they're targeted. Where the important similarity in the patterns of variation lies is that the software process involves many changes by people with greatly varying intentions - and, let's face it, degrees of skill. It's been a while since I've done any statistical work in anger, but I'm pretty sure that the variation to be found in software evolution, if looked at without regard to its origins, would look very much like noise. That is, close to random, at least over short time-scales. The defining common factor for me, though, is that the key mechanism for both systems is that improvements _tend_ to be retained, and unhelpful aspects _tend_ to be removed. were the fittest and most diverse survive. pedantic Typo aside, the latter assertion is an exaggeration. Too much diversity in software results in incompatibility; too much in a living species results in the inability to breed. The result in both cases is that the population is divided into more than one incompatible sub-groups. Either that or they die out. /pedantic Were windows has a forced evolutionary development based on what sells software. Much as I hate to admit it, it's worked pretty well in respect of that goal. It could be argued that its evolution has been quite successful to date. Whether it can handle what looks like a coming ice-age is probably a subject for slug-chat. Cheers, James -- ...so there I am at ten thousand feet with a power drill in one hand, a takeaway menu in the other, no parachute and a _very_ suprised expression... pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] A valid analogy.
Felix Sheldon wrote: Oh no. So you're a creationist then? Linux was created. A very bright young man created the Linux operating system using his intelligence and since then many others have helped him make it better by using their intelligence. There was no BSOD and then Linux v1.0 sitting there with the cursor flashing. Oh no. So you're an evolutionist then? (It was mostly your choice of language that tipped me off, but this ridiculous statement shows that you have no clue about what you're arguing against.) Evolution has no creator and no intelligence. Linux has a creator and intelligence. My point was that IMHO the evolution analogy applied to how Linux is pretty immune to viruses does not fit. Try reading up about things such as creation, 2nd Law of thermodynamics, geophysics or archaeology in general. (I don't think SLUG is the place for YOUR proselytising either, thanks very much.) Ben -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] A valid analogy.
Ben Donohue wrote:
Evolution has no creator and no intelligence.
Linux has a creator and intelligence.
Linux is an evolution, not a creation.
Unix, then Minix, then Linux.
--
Terry Collins {:-)}}} email: terryc at woa.com.au www:
http://www.woa.com.au
Wombat Outdoor Adventures Bicycles, Computers, GIS, Printing,
Publishing
People without trees are like fish without clean water
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] A valid analogy
Were windows has a forced evolutionary development based on what sells software. Much as I hate to admit it, it's worked pretty well in respect of that goal. It could be argued that its evolution has been quite successful to date. Whether it can handle what looks like a coming ice-age is probably a subject for slug-chat. This is probably the reason why linux has not been as widespread yet as expected. Each of us seem to have a tiny thought at the back of our minds which is nagging us saying: Could it be that the MS style is finally correct? And we tend to apologize and somehow admit to justification that there *has* to be something right about MS to have grown so much. Fact is that soon, taking a similar analogy, we might be saying: There must be something right in what the terrorists are demanding otherwise they would not be so widespread! Does a thousand (millions here) lies make a truth?? Most of us seem to think so. Just because you had no choice on what was thrown at your face when you first faced a computer does not mean it was right. -- Kanwar Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] A valid analogy.
Terry Collins wrote: Linux is an evolution, not a creation. Unix, then Minix, then Linux. Wouldn't that be more 'inspired creation'? -Mike -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] A valid analogy.
On Sun, 14 Mar 2004, Richard Neal wrote: GPLG GPLGPLGP GPLGPLGPLGP GPLGP GPL MICROSOFT GPLGP GPLGPLGPLGP GPLGPLGPL GPLGPL No offence, but your sig is retarded ;^). Mike -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] A valid analogy.
On Sun, 14 Mar 2004, Richard Neal wrote: GPLG GPLGPLGP GPLGPLGPLGP GPLGP GPL MICROSOFT GPLGP GPLGPLGPLGP GPLGPLGPL GPLGPL No offence, but your sig is retarded ;^). hrmm bit harsh :) -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] A valid analogy.
From: Terry Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] Evolution has no creator and no intelligence. Linux has a creator and intelligence. Not necessarily. It is commonly assumed that theories of evolution negates a controlling intelligence, and therefore an intelligent creator. Life had to begin somewhere. Who's to say that it's creator, didn't intentionally given it the tenancy to replicate imperfectly, just enough. Not too much. Not too little. It's a more chaotic solution than never ending control, but a great way to give it a better chance of survival against unforeseen environmental conditions? Some microbiologists argue that conditions on Earth encourage the start of the very beginnings of life and that it is just plain inevitable. This has been simulated in labs and is so easy, in conditions that are so common all over the planet, it's most probable that life is continually being created all over the world. Even if this where true, who's to say all this wasn't the intention at the very beginnings of the universe. This may not necessarily mean that evolution isn't controlled a lot more than we think, just because we don't see any means of control * I digress * This is probably for another thread, on another list. Anyway, with all that said... As the evolution of Linux has been controlled (fix/improve as you go), it probably doesn't quite compare with life-on-earth's more chaotic(???) evolution. Edd. _ Get Extra Storage in 10MB, 25MB, 50MB and 100MB options now! Go to http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-aupage=hotmail/es2 -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] A valid analogy.
On Mon, 15 Mar 2004, Eddie F wrote: necessarily mean that evolution isn't controlled a lot more than we think, just because we don't see any means of control * I digress * This is probably for another thread, on another list. You certainly do. But then again, so do I ... Anyway, with all that said... As the evolution of Linux has been controlled (fix/improve as you go), it probably doesn't quite compare with life-on-earth's more chaotic(???) evolution. Two words: natural selection. Nothing chaotic about it. The most fit variations in each generation survive and reproduce. I do not see such a process at work with Linux. cheers rickw _ Rick Welykochy || Praxis Services Simply stated, it is sagacious to eschew obfuscation -- Norman Augustine -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] A valid analogy.
4: Windows viruses are mostly Outlook viruses True. I always tell any Windows user to start by throwing away Outlook. That solves most of the problems. Eudora seems to work ok, although of course you can still get viruses if you do the wrong thing. My general rule could be quarranteen windows executable files on the mail server. If a client says they are waiting for the file you shoot it across to them after a probation. 7: Are you SURE you don't get viruses? When you've been chronically sick for 10 years, it's hard to remember what it was like to be healthy. I just tell them no, I never get viruses. I have said that a number of times and ppl look at you in disbelief. Usually their question is So what is anti-virus do you use? I tell them Linux ;-) - This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] A valid analogy.
To be honest for a while I was looking for a similar answer until I stumbled across some well written articles on this exact question. The answer is in two parts. 1. Unix/Linux community doesn't promote bad social computer engineering so as to sell more software, ie a user would just click on anything like in windows and infect their whole machine and have the default user running in such an open environment, that he/she can trash the whole system install and/or lay waste to the INTERNET with spam. 2. Windows promotes heavily a mono-culture when it comes to software, so a virus writer often just needs to create a virus for one application they are pretty much guaranteed to infect 90% of Windows users ( can anyone say outlook). Where with Unix/Linux they promote lots of different variations of applications with varying degree's of features for the same job.. Just ask what MTA you use when a group of Linux users get together and chances are you will get a plethora of answers, some using a plethora of MTA's too, you know who you are. :-) The nearest single analogy I can come across that explains Linux security is Linux is based on an evolutionary development platform were the fittest and most diverse survive. Were windows has a forced evolutionary development based on what sells software. As anyone who has studied evolutionary science can attest the more diverse and random your genetic makeup, the higher the probability of survival in the natural ever on going virus arms race. Hope this helps GPLG GPLGPLGP GPLGPLGPLGP GPLGP GPL MICROSOFT GPLGP GPLGPLGPLGP GPLGPLGPL GPLGPL Richard Neal [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 17:24, Bill Bennett wrote: It's a peculiar request, so please bear with me. I had been asked why Linux was immune to the wave of viruses that have been pillaging Microsoft-oriented machines. To be honest, I didn't have a ready reply. The best I could do was Well, Linux is differently organised. Feeble, I know, but the enquirer was not a nurd and, if it comes to that, neither am I. So I thought about the matter. I wanted a good analogy. This was the best that came to mind: Assume someone has put something in your petrol that rots piston heads and only piston heads. Eventually the engine will fail. *However* it's not going to affect me if my engine is a Wenkel. As I say, the best I could do. Can anyone do better? The issue *must* have surfaced in the past and valid analogies must have been drawn for the non-technical. My reason for wanting this is that, occasionally I'm asked why I will not even look at, or consider going back to MS. Blinding people with technicalia generally gets you nowhere. Bill Bennett. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] A valid analogy.
Sorry Richard but I disagree with this analogy. Evolution theory is based on getting better from NON intelligence. Intelligence is NOT in the equation. Linux and other free software is based on the collective intelligence of a whole lot of very smart people. If I was a programmer I would be a bit insulted if someone said my work, hard thought and know-how was in fact based on random input. I'd object and say that I don't just type in random characters into the keyboard along with a zillion other programmers and there happens to be the odd one that makes a good program. AND then some other RANDOM process figures out which is the best working program and includes that in the Linux kernel without any testing or whatever. NO. Linux changes and gets better and better over time as bit like modern car design or jet aircraft from biplane over time. It's refinement over time but it's NEVER random. How can something get better without intelligence behind it? Linux is MADE to be virus resistant by design. And design means a designer. And a designer means intelligence. Linux people are intelligent people. THAT'S why we don't get viruses. We use our intelligence. Ben. Richard Neal wrote: The nearest single analogy I can come across that explains Linux security is Linux is based on an evolutionary development platform were the fittest and most diverse survive. Were windows has a forced evolutionary development based on what sells software. As anyone who has studied evolutionary science can attest the more diverse and random your genetic makeup, the higher the probability of survival in the natural ever on going virus arms race. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] A valid analogy.
On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 19:44, Sean Cohen wrote: Conversely, Linux gives you the choice of a thousand different customised cars, tough as a tank, with a full set of manuals, free access to spare parts for the rest of your life, The number of choices of Linux is a good thing? Personally I think that we should be standing behind a few. I am glad that IBM did not roll their own because it would not have helped but confused things further. The spare parts are free but you have to read a manual in Swahili to use them. I think it was ESR that raised this recently about cups configuration. -- Thanks KenF OpenOffice.org developer -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] A valid analogy.
By far the biggest problem is not Windows as such, but the default settings in Outlook and Outlook Express. I'm always amazed that MS has done such an amazing job of having the media report A New Computer Virus! when it's actually A New Microsoft Outlook Virus! Sticking with your approach, I'd exxagerate the analogy a little. Tell them that Windows is a Kia, but it's hermetically sealed and is impossible to crack open and fix. Ever. And they only sell one model. Conversely, Linux gives you the choice of a thousand different customised cars, tough as a tank, with a full set of manuals, free access to spare parts for the rest of your life, the dashboard of a batmobile, and they can fly. And they run on air instead of petrol, so those nasty, petrol-borne problems don't even touch you. There are, however, some air viruses, but they are few and far between, and only affect some particular tanks, not all of them. And the Windows/Kia leaves the doors unlocked by default, whereas your Linux Tank is surrounded by armed guards by default. On top of all that, you can strip your tank down to a skateboard, or hot it up to a 747. Bill Bennett wrote: It's a peculiar request, so please bear with me. I had been asked why Linux was immune to the wave of viruses that have been pillaging Microsoft-oriented machines. To be honest, I didn't have a ready reply. The best I could do was Well, Linux is differently organised. Feeble, I know, but the enquirer was not a nurd and, if it comes to that, neither am I. So I thought about the matter. I wanted a good analogy. This was the best that came to mind: Assume someone has put something in your petrol that rots piston heads and only piston heads. Eventually the engine will fail. *However* it's not going to affect me if my engine is a Wenkel. As I say, the best I could do. Can anyone do better? The issue *must* have surfaced in the past and valid analogies must have been drawn for the non-technical. My reason for wanting this is that, occasionally I'm asked why I will not even look at, or consider going back to MS. Blinding people with technicalia generally gets you nowhere. Bill Bennett. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] A valid analogy.
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 06:11:34PM +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] spake thusly: =+- Same thing; it's a Wankel rotary engine. Yes, it is. The point is that the engine runs without pistons. My reason for using this analogy was simply that one cannot damage a pistonless engine by putting something in the petrol that rots piston heads. Uh, considering the way the thread is going, perhaps I'd better enlarge somewhat on the subject. Firstly, those who asked me about Linux were not tech-heads/nurds/etc. Their definition of a virus would be anything that stops/hinders the computer. Very simplistic, I know, but there are many such people out there. They are not subscribers to SLUG, or, I imagine, any other common interest computer group. Secondly, any analogy (I'd still like one) will probably have to use a basic difference between Linux and MS-oriented machines. Some of the people I spoke to had been visited by the blaster (and other similar viruses); these were not E-mail borne. Yet Linux was immune to them. Thirdly, it now appears that I was wrong when I said Viruses don't affect Linux. So I'll amend it to If a virus *was* let loose on Linux, it would be stopped quicktime. In the past, when I've posted a query (vim/LaTeX/others) I've been amazed at the response time (in some cases minutes) *and* the responses from disinterested people who have seen it before/have given the matter some thought/discussed it with a colleague and taken the time to post a response. And I imagine that viruses (no matter *how* they're defined) would fall into the same category. There's something else I should add that's drawn from my experience, although I don't want to start a flame war. If a solution/patch to any virus was posted and found to be defective (as happened with MS), an alternative/improved version would also make its appearance quicktime. (Generally with derisive commentary, but we don't live in an ideal world.) So, I like the burglar analogy so far: the situation with Linux and viruses/suchlike is analogous to turning up with an assortment of keys/bits of wire to burgle a house and finding yourself staring at a keypad. Regards, Bill Bennett. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] A valid analogy.
Ken Foskey wrote: On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 19:44, Sean Cohen wrote: Conversely, Linux gives you the choice of a thousand different customised cars, tough as a tank, with a full set of manuals, free access to spare parts for the rest of your life, The number of choices of Linux is a good thing? Personally I think that we should be standing behind a few. I am glad that IBM did not roll their own because it would not have helped but confused things further. The spare parts are free but you have to read a manual in Swahili to use them. I think it was ESR that raised this recently about cups configuration. This is an argument I always hear, and I always disagree with. There are so many distributions simply /because/ of the nature of open source. If someone has an idea, they fork a project, or start a new one. The fit survive, and the rest die out. In terms of evolution, there are constantly hundreds of new mutations, but only the fit survive. Witness the success of gentoo, and the stuttered development of (say) sourcerer. It's also how innovation happens, if someone can't get their idea incorporated into an existing project then they can just start their own. If they are successful then they'll either succeed or be reincorporated into something more mainstream. Think back to the gcc vs egcs debacle. Back then it was a big controversy, but in hindsight we can easily see it as a necessary step to push forward a halted project. There will always be a few big distros for the masses (suitable for Aunt Tillie, as ESR loves to say) and they will always walk the straight and narrow, stabilising themselves for the long term. But the real innovation - As with Linux itself - will come from the sidelines, and will become mainstream based on their success. The Big Three/Four/Whatever distros will make sure everything works together. Also, what ESR failed to note in that analysis of CUPS was that he was setting it up on a Fedora Core 1 system. FC1 - from its RHL roots - has a corporate desktop heritage, and as such is supposed to administrated by qualified personnel. Had he tested a Mandrake, Xandros, Lindows, etc. system then the results would have been quite different. Remember, there are three responsibilities of a distribution: 1) Installation, 2) Default Settings, and 3) Configuration. and it was points (2) and (3) that were relevant to what ESR was trying to do. It wasn't easy on a FC1 system because it's not designed for easy desktop administration. Anyway, rant over. I'm tired. Have a good weekend. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] A valid analogy.
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 19:57:13 +1100 Ken Foskey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The number of choices of Linux is a good thing? It's a good thing to avoid a virus plague. It's not necessarily a good thing for linux's popularity. Matt -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] A valid analogy.
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004, Bill Bennett wrote: I had been asked why Linux was immune to the wave of viruses that have been pillaging Microsoft-oriented machines. To be honest, I didn't have a ready reply. My opinion is that it's not. It's immune to those particular viruses, just like humans are largely immune to whatever nasty epidemics are plagueing the fish world at the moment. But it is not in principle immune to the type of viruses plaguing Windows machines at the moment. As best I can tell, the usual Linux-virus argument goes Linux users don't normally login with privileges that would let a virus ruin their machine! The trouble is, most well-known Windows viruses these days don't ruin machines either. They abuse network resources, and your bog-standard unprivileged Linux user normally also has enough privileges to abuse network resources. The current set of viruses require: 1) privileges to read your web cache and address book 2) privileges to send email 3) privileges to install Well, most Linux users could give a virus 1 and 2, should it infect their machine. At present 3 would require user intervention on most mail clients, but there's no in principle problem with installing programs as a regular user. People do it all the time, for perfectly legitmate reasons. And some Windows viruses still also require user intervention for 3, although they avoid it if they can, but that doesn't mean those viruses don't spread. In practice, it may be that user-level Free Software tools that normally run on Linux machines are designed with a little more caution (OK, let's assume that someone wanted to wrek havoc using this software and this nifty new feature -- what could they do? rather than the let's assume that a benevolent person wants maximum flexibility -- what do they want?). However, I can't honestly see an argument that Linux is actually *immune* to the type of network resource-abusing viruses that are the common and costly ones around today. Particular software may or may not be more or less vulnerable. -Mary -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] A valid analogy.
Mary Gardiner wrote: Well, most Linux users could give a virus 1 and 2, should it infect their machine. At present 3 would require user intervention on most mail clients, but there's no in principle problem with installing programs as a regular user. People do it all the time, for perfectly legitmate reasons. And some Windows viruses still also require user intervention for 3, although they avoid it if they can, but that doesn't mean those viruses don't spread. I agree with you entirely Mary. Also note that for some of these recent Bagle and netsky variants, the user has to read the email, open the zip file, enter the password from the body of the message in the zip file, then double click the exe file inside the zip file! it really only proves people are pretty dumb. I reckon if I wrote a virus that attached a password protected zip file with the subject hey check out this virus I wrote, people would still open it! dave -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] A valid analogy.
One mistake: its a wank (el) not a wenk. On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 01:24 am, Bill Bennett wrote: It's a peculiar request, so please bear with me. I had been asked why Linux was immune to the wave of viruses that have been pillaging Microsoft-oriented machines. To be honest, I didn't have a ready reply. The best I could do was Well, Linux is differently organised. Feeble, I know, but the enquirer was not a nurd and, if it comes to that, neither am I. So I thought about the matter. I wanted a good analogy. This was the best that came to mind: Assume someone has put something in your petrol that rots piston heads and only piston heads. Eventually the engine will fail. *However* it's not going to affect me if my engine is a Wenkel. As I say, the best I could do. Can anyone do better? The issue *must* have surfaced in the past and valid analogies must have been drawn for the non-technical. My reason for wanting this is that, occasionally I'm asked why I will not even look at, or consider going back to MS. Blinding people with technicalia generally gets you nowhere. Bill Bennett. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] A valid analogy.
On another list I made the analogy of using W$ being like driving a Ferrari, and parking it in Harlem with the keys left in it... Doug On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 02:35 am, Grant Parnell wrote: How about this one... It's like entering a house through the door: Windows OS has key locks, most virii use some variation of a lock picker. Unix/Linux OS have numeric key pads, a lock picker is completely useless, you have to use something else to break in. In both cases you can still stand in front of the door and not let people in or out. Or simply walk in if somebody leaves the door open. With Unix/Linux, once you're in you find other doors locked in various ways depending on importance. On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Bill Bennett wrote: It's a peculiar request, so please bear with me. I had been asked why Linux was immune to the wave of viruses that have been pillaging Microsoft-oriented machines. To be honest, I didn't have a ready reply. The best I could do was Well, Linux is differently organised. Feeble, I know, but the enquirer was not a nurd and, if it comes to that, neither am I. So I thought about the matter. I wanted a good analogy. This was the best that came to mind: Assume someone has put something in your petrol that rots piston heads and only piston heads. Eventually the engine will fail. *However* it's not going to affect me if my engine is a Wenkel. As I say, the best I could do. Can anyone do better? The issue *must* have surfaced in the past and valid analogies must have been drawn for the non-technical. My reason for wanting this is that, occasionally I'm asked why I will not even look at, or consider going back to MS. Blinding people with technicalia generally gets you nowhere. Bill Bennett. -- ---GRiP--- Electronic Hobbyist, Former Arcadia BBS nut, Occasional nudist, Linux Guru, SLUG/AUUG/Linux Australia member, Sydney Flashmobber, BMX rider, Walker, Raver rave music lover, Big kid that refuses to grow up. I'd make a good family pet, take me home today! Do people actually read these things? -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] A valid analogy.
My take... 1: There are more WinXX exploits because there are more WinXX systems out there. This doesn't hold up. Recent figures I saw mentioned the figure of 64000 known windows exploits or viruses etc., many of which are non-trivial. On that basis there should be about 2000 Macintosh exploits etc around. In fact there are dramatically fewer than that, as any Mac user will tell you. I'm not aware of any significant, current Mac virus. I don't know how many Linux exploits/viruses are around, but again, dramatically fewer than the proportions should suggest. I've been on-line 24/7 for nearly 8 years and I've been cracked once, and that about 6 years ago. I am NOT a hard core geek. I just do basic installs. 2: Linux users are hard core geeks, that's why they don't get viruses. Doesn't hold up either. See note above about Macintosh! If any computer user is NOT a hard core geek it's a Mac user :-) 3: Windows exploits are only because of idiot windows users I'm sure GMH would be sued if it turned out the brakes required an automotive engineering degree before you could drive the car. It's perfectly reasonable to expect a system to be designed so that a typical user will not get burned. 4: Windows viruses are mostly Outlook viruses True. I always tell any Windows user to start by throwing away Outlook. That solves most of the problems. Eudora seems to work ok, although of course you can still get viruses if you do the wrong thing. 5: Windows viruses can be easily avoided by changing configuration True, but when the marketing department leads the security department around by the nose, you can be sure that disaster is close behind. If there is a choice of more secure or less secure configurations, and the default set up by the supplier is the insecure one, then I would suggest that the supplier is culpable. I'm amazed nobody has sued. It's not as if the problem is an obscure one. 6: I can't change from Windows.. everybody I know uses it. This is amazing but the most common reason I've been given for staying with Windows when viruses are discussed. I've survived perfectly well in a mixed Linux/Macintosh environment for years, despite all my customers and contacts using Windows. I just laugh when they get infected. 7: Are you SURE you don't get viruses? When you've been chronically sick for 10 years, it's hard to remember what it was like to be healthy. I just tell them no, I never get viruses. 8: The problem isn't really as bad as they say it is. I love to tail -f my logs when I have someone around saying this. It's interesting to see the look of incredulity as the various IIS or other WinXX exploits pop up on the logs in real time. I just say.. There's another one I don't have to worry about because I don't use Windows. David. On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Doug Foskey wrote: Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 22:38:07 -0500 From: Doug Foskey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Grant Parnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [SLUG] A valid analogy. On another list I made the analogy of using W$ being like driving a Ferrari, and parking it in Harlem with the keys left in it... Doug On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 02:35 am, Grant Parnell wrote: How about this one... It's like entering a house through the door: Windows OS has key locks, most virii use some variation of a lock picker. Unix/Linux OS have numeric key pads, a lock picker is completely useless, you have to use something else to break in. In both cases you can still stand in front of the door and not let people in or out. Or simply walk in if somebody leaves the door open. With Unix/Linux, once you're in you find other doors locked in various ways depending on importance. On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Bill Bennett wrote: It's a peculiar request, so please bear with me. I had been asked why Linux was immune to the wave of viruses that have been pillaging Microsoft-oriented machines. To be honest, I didn't have a ready reply. The best I could do was Well, Linux is differently organised. Feeble, I know, but the enquirer was not a nurd and, if it comes to that, neither am I. So I thought about the matter. I wanted a good analogy. This was the best that came to mind: Assume someone has put something in your petrol that rots piston heads and only piston heads. Eventually the engine will fail. *However* it's not going to affect me if my engine is a Wenkel. As I say, the best I could do. Can anyone do better? The issue *must* have surfaced in the past and valid analogies must have been drawn for the non-technical. My reason for wanting this is that, occasionally I'm asked why I will not even look at, or consider going back to MS. Blinding people with technicalia generally gets you nowhere. Bill Bennett. -- ---GRiP--- Electronic Hobbyist, Former Arcadia BBS nut, Occasional nudist, Linux Guru, SLUG/AUUG/Linux Australia member, Sydney Flashmobber, BMX
[SLUG] A valid analogy.
It's a peculiar request, so please bear with me. I had been asked why Linux was immune to the wave of viruses that have been pillaging Microsoft-oriented machines. To be honest, I didn't have a ready reply. The best I could do was Well, Linux is differently organised. Feeble, I know, but the enquirer was not a nurd and, if it comes to that, neither am I. So I thought about the matter. I wanted a good analogy. This was the best that came to mind: Assume someone has put something in your petrol that rots piston heads and only piston heads. Eventually the engine will fail. *However* it's not going to affect me if my engine is a Wenkel. As I say, the best I could do. Can anyone do better? The issue *must* have surfaced in the past and valid analogies must have been drawn for the non-technical. My reason for wanting this is that, occasionally I'm asked why I will not even look at, or consider going back to MS. Blinding people with technicalia generally gets you nowhere. Bill Bennett. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] A valid analogy.
Windows machines come configured as the initial user the system Administrator. Most users don't realize this and never change it - even though Microsoft tells you all about it in the help. When a virus / worm / trojan comes along it is analogous to having 'The fox in the chicken coop'. Any good??? Richard. On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 17:24, Bill Bennett wrote: It's a peculiar request, so please bear with me. I had been asked why Linux was immune to the wave of viruses that have been pillaging Microsoft-oriented machines. To be honest, I didn't have a ready reply. The best I could do was Well, Linux is differently organised. Feeble, I know, but the enquirer was not a nurd and, if it comes to that, neither am I. So I thought about the matter. I wanted a good analogy. This was the best that came to mind: Assume someone has put something in your petrol that rots piston heads and only piston heads. Eventually the engine will fail. *However* it's not going to affect me if my engine is a Wenkel. As I say, the best I could do. Can anyone do better? The issue *must* have surfaced in the past and valid analogies must have been drawn for the non-technical. My reason for wanting this is that, occasionally I'm asked why I will not even look at, or consider going back to MS. Blinding people with technicalia generally gets you nowhere. Bill Bennett. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] A valid analogy.
Bill Bennett wrote: It's a peculiar request, so please bear with me. I had been asked why Linux was immune to the wave of viruses that have been pillaging Microsoft-oriented machines. To be honest, I didn't have a ready reply. The best I could do was Well, Linux is differently organised. Feeble, I know, but the enquirer was not a nurd and, if it comes to that, neither am I. 1. Windows has historically either parsed or execcuted all attachments arriving in mail to thats its easy for the user if they are interested, even mildly, in the ad. 2. In Linux you have to explicitly save the attachment from the mail, set its exec permissions and then explicitly execute it as ./unknown_program So maybe its like this Lots of speciial offers arrive in the mail all the time. Saving on new roofing guards for the roof, trials of new shampoo and sales on bed linen. Gee its so hard to read over all that and decide what I want and dont want. I dont want to miss anything. It doesnt cost much for the trial offers and I can back out after the 1 month trial with no cost if I dont want the product. I know lets automatically connect the offer to my cedit card so its automatically debited as soon as a potential savings oportunity comes along. Then I wont miss anything and lots of companies will be able to send me special offers. No one would take advantage of me would they Mike -- Michael Lake Chemistry, Materials Forensic Science, UTS Ph: 9514 1724 Fx: 9514 1460 UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F DISCLAIMER This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views the University of Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] A valid analogy.
Bill Bennett wrote: It's a peculiar request, so please bear with me. I had been asked why Linux was immune to the wave of viruses that have been pillaging Microsoft-oriented machines. To be honest, I didn't have a ready reply. The best I could do was Well, Linux is differently organised. Feeble, I know, but the enquirer was not a nurd and, if it comes to that, neither am I. So I thought about the matter. I wanted a good analogy. This was the best that came to mind: Assume someone has put something in your petrol that rots piston heads and only piston heads. Eventually the engine will fail. *However* it's not going to affect me if my engine is a Wenkel. Perhaps, if they know what on earth a Wenkel is ;-) Continuing the automotive theme... Perhaps 'because you can't get a leaded petrol bowser to fit into an unleaded[1] vehicle'. The virii are designed to attack MS systems (mostly) not UNIX/Linux ones. [1] unleaded being the choice for the Linux OS as it wont cause learning disabilities, behavioral problems, and, at very high levels, seizures, coma, and even death (http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/about/about.htm) like the MS alternative :-) cheers, Brad -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] A valid analogy.
Bill Bennett wrote: You're right. I have a feeling that it may be extinct now, but a Wenkel engine did not run on pistons. Bill Bennett. =+- Brad Kowalczyk wrote: =+- Perhaps, if they know what on earth a Wenkel is ;-) Is it not (or similar to) Mazda's rotary engine? -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] A valid analogy.
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 05:43:10PM +1100, Michael Lake wrote: Bill Bennett wrote: Assume someone has put something in your petrol that rots piston heads and only piston heads. Eventually the engine will fail. *However* it's not going to affect me if my engine is a Wenkel. I actually like this analogy. The particular immunity is a sort of accidental thing, not necessarily an overall, inherent strength of design. 1. Windows has historically either parsed or execcuted all attachments arriving in mail to thats its easy for the user if they are interested, even mildly, in the ad. 2. In Linux you have to explicitly save the attachment from the mail, set its exec permissions and then explicitly execute it as ./unknown_program This is not quite true, as vim and emacs have had vulnerabilities in the past where they executed content which could be malicious. Anyone commenting on windows and unix should realise that they're like people and chimpanzees. Even though they may look quite different they share 98% of their dna. Matt -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] A valid analogy.
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 06:10:30PM +1100, Brad Kowalczyk wrote: =+- Perhaps, if they know what on earth a Wenkel is ;-) Is it not (or similar to) Mazda's rotary engine? Same thing; it's a Wankel rotary engine. Matt -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] A valid analogy.
How about this one... It's like entering a house through the door: Windows OS has key locks, most virii use some variation of a lock picker. Unix/Linux OS have numeric key pads, a lock picker is completely useless, you have to use something else to break in. In both cases you can still stand in front of the door and not let people in or out. Or simply walk in if somebody leaves the door open. With Unix/Linux, once you're in you find other doors locked in various ways depending on importance. On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Bill Bennett wrote: It's a peculiar request, so please bear with me. I had been asked why Linux was immune to the wave of viruses that have been pillaging Microsoft-oriented machines. To be honest, I didn't have a ready reply. The best I could do was Well, Linux is differently organised. Feeble, I know, but the enquirer was not a nurd and, if it comes to that, neither am I. So I thought about the matter. I wanted a good analogy. This was the best that came to mind: Assume someone has put something in your petrol that rots piston heads and only piston heads. Eventually the engine will fail. *However* it's not going to affect me if my engine is a Wenkel. As I say, the best I could do. Can anyone do better? The issue *must* have surfaced in the past and valid analogies must have been drawn for the non-technical. My reason for wanting this is that, occasionally I'm asked why I will not even look at, or consider going back to MS. Blinding people with technicalia generally gets you nowhere. Bill Bennett. -- ---GRiP--- Electronic Hobbyist, Former Arcadia BBS nut, Occasional nudist, Linux Guru, SLUG/AUUG/Linux Australia member, Sydney Flashmobber, BMX rider, Walker, Raver rave music lover, Big kid that refuses to grow up. I'd make a good family pet, take me home today! Do people actually read these things? -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
