-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of HaywireMac
Sent: Tuesday, 19 August 2003 11:51 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [newbie] Linux saves MS's butt.
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 23:17:45 -0400
Brant Fitzsimmons [EMAIL PROTECTED] uttered:
We can
On Mon, 2003-08-18 at 23:51, HaywireMac wrote:
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 23:17:45 -0400
Brant Fitzsimmons [EMAIL PROTECTED] uttered:
We can only speculate what was in the mind of the worm's author(s).
But if the 200,000 instances of this worm had chosen to target
On 19 Aug 2003 07:33:03 -0400
ed tharp [EMAIL PROTECTED] uttered:
unless I borrow a copy, I might not ever get to use XP.
bet yer real busted up about that!
I do have the VLE if you want tho, ;-)
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
On Tue, 2003-08-19 at 08:06, HaywireMac wrote:
On 19 Aug 2003 07:33:03 -0400
ed tharp [EMAIL PROTECTED] uttered:
unless I borrow a copy, I might not ever get to use XP.
bet yer real busted up about that!
I do have the VLE if you want tho, ;-)
is it in ISO format?
On 19 Aug 2003 08:12:00 -0400
ed tharp [EMAIL PROTECTED] uttered:
is it in ISO format?
could be, if you wanted...
loong download tho, my upstream is capped at 128.
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
On Mon, 2003-08-18 at 23:51, HaywireMac wrote:
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 23:17:45 -0400
Brant Fitzsimmons [EMAIL PROTECTED] uttered:
We can only speculate what was in the mind of the worm's author(s).
But if the 200,000 instances of this worm had chosen to target
On Mon, 2003-08-18 at 07:44, Frankie wrote:
Bill Gates didn't make people idiots, God did. Hate the user, not the
developer.
Next...
Brandon Vanderberg
www.clueless.m$killedmydoggy.andi'mgonnacry.whaaa.com
Linux User #34.5 | Linux machine
Bill Gates didn't make people idiots, God did. Hate the user, not the
developer.
Next...
Brandon Vanderberg
www.clueless.m$killedmydoggy.andi'mgonnacry.whaaa.com
Linux User #34.5 | Linux machine
123amicoolyet472notyet340now?987NO!needlongersig05789
Kernel
On Sat, 2003-08-16 at 10:59, Tom Brinkman wrote:
On Friday August 15 2003 05:02 pm, Charles A Edwards wrote:
On 16 Aug 2003 07:49:28 +1000
Stephen Kuhn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wonder if they're going to change their official stance on
linux and OSS now that they've had to resort to
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Stephen Kuhn
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 10:22 PM
To: Mandrake Newbie
Subject: Re: [newbie] Linux saves MS's butt.
On Sat, 2003-08-16 at 08:44, Erylon Hines wrote:
Looks like that's whats been done. Any
On Sat, 2003-08-16 at 15:27, Sridhar Dhanapalan wrote:
Which is why we need to get the word out as widely as possible. Allow me to
demonstrate:
http://www.pclinuxonline.com/modules.php?name=Newsfile=articlesid=7498
Enough said :)
Has anyone submitted this to Slashdot and Newsforge yet?
Joe Six Pack here,
Just to say that the hammer has fallen! I don't care how you say it, slice it
or dice it LINUX IS SAVING WINDOWS!! ALL WHO AGREE SAY I!!
Sincerely,
J6P
touring Japan!
On Saturday 16 August 2003 7:08 am, Stephen Kuhn wrote:
On Sat, 2003-08-16 at 04:58,
On Sat, 2003-08-16 at 10:26, Brandon Vanderberg wrote:
Anyone dumb enough to leave a PC wide open with no protection, and got hit
by this worm deserves it - Just as much as someone who runs linux with no
security deserves to have their box owned.
Bill Gates didn't make people idiots, God
On Sat, 2003-08-16 at 03:26, Brandon Vanderberg wrote:
Brandon, as I see it tho, M$ built a system designed to require
expensive maintenance, as a business model. linus builds a system to
'work right' as an Operation system, as an Computer Operation System
model.
Let's see do I want an
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3154117
has the headline 'Internet worm 'thwarted''
and says that MS 'implemented a series of counter-measures'
'However, a flaw in the worm may have enabled Microsoft to fend off its
worst effects.
The worm instructed computers to call up
On Sat, 2003-08-16 at 21:47, Paul wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3154117
has the headline 'Internet worm 'thwarted''
and says that MS 'implemented a series of counter-measures'
'However, a flaw in the worm may have enabled Microsoft to fend off its
worst effects.
The
Still think Dyson is the best though
ed tharp wrote:
On Sat, 2003-08-16 at 03:26, Brandon Vanderberg wrote:
Brandon, as I see it tho, M$ built a system designed to require
expensive maintenance, as a business model. linus builds a system to
'work right' as an Operation system, as an Computer
On Sat, 2003-08-16 at 08:01, Michael Lothian wrote:
Still think Dyson is the best though
sure,,, in _your_ (the real) world...
ed tharp wrote:
On Sat, 2003-08-16 at 03:26, Brandon Vanderberg wrote:
Brandon, as I see it tho, M$ built a system designed to require
expensive maintenance, as
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 00:26:47 -0700
Brandon Vanderberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] uttered:
Anyone dumb enough to leave a PC wide open with no protection, and got
hit by this worm deserves it - Just as much as someone who runs linux
with no security deserves to have their box owned.
Operating systems,
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Sevatio
Sent: Saturday, 16 August 2003 10:02 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [newbie] Linux saves MS's butt.
No, this is for real and unbelievable as it is. Look up
www.microsoft.com or microsoft.com and you'll see
On Sat, 2003-08-16 at 10:26, Brandon Vanderberg wrote:
Anyone dumb enough to leave a PC wide open with no protection,
and got hit
by this worm deserves it - Just as much as someone who runs
linux with no
security deserves to have their box owned.
Bill Gates didn't make people
Stirred up a hornet's nest didn't I? ;)
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 00:26:47 -0700
Brandon Vanderberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] uttered:
Anyone dumb enough to leave a PC wide open with no protection, and got
hit by this worm deserves it - Just as much as someone who runs linux
with no security deserves
On Sat, 2003-08-16 at 13:53, Brandon Vanderberg wrote:
Stirred up a hornet's nest didn't I? ;)
Not really.
Not arrogant and certainly not l33t (whatever it means).
And taking a jab at Stephen's sig is not blasting you or anyone else.
He can take it, so cowboy up.
Troll on, troller.
Hello,
It seems to me that this is an insolubale problem. The 'Joe six pack' crowd
will never be able to outhack someone who is au currant and deals with
networking day in and day out, even if they understand the need for
protection. As they say, 'where there's a will there's a way.'
On Sat, 2003-08-16 at 05:25, James Henry Maiewski wrote:
Hello,
It seems to me that this is an insolubale problem. The 'Joe six pack' crowd
will never be able to outhack someone who is au currant and deals with
networking day in and day out, even if they understand the need for
Feel you're being a bit harsh here.
Don't forget that the vast majority of computer users/car drivers/TV
watchers have no idea what goes on under the hood only realise this
when things go wrong. Ms has been sold on it's ease of use - and people
have believed the salesmen (it's also
On Sat, 2003-08-16 at 07:11, Brant Fitzsimmons wrote:
For those who don't know--MS has changed around a lot of their Windows
Update network to try and handle the expected onslaught of hits from
computers commandeered by the MSBlast worm. Guess who they put at the
the front line of their
On 16 Aug 2003 07:49:28 +1000
Stephen Kuhn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wonder if they're going to change their official stance on linux and
OSS now that they've had to resort to linux to save their ass?
No, once it has passed, they'll probably just fire the tech who set it
up and disavow any
Yesand no. What I see is a cache server (akamai) running Linux. The MS
site is an IIS server. It is a way for MS to use a third party to lighten
the bandwidth load--having akamai serve up a cached copy of the Windows
Update site.
e.
On Friday 15 August 2003 05:11 pm, Brant Fitzsimmons
Frankie wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Brant Fitzsimmons
For those who don't know--MS has changed around a lot of their Windows
Update network to try and handle the expected onslaught of hits from
computers commandeered by the MSBlast
If that was the address that the attack was pointed at won't it make
sence for MS to disable it?
Mike
Brant Fitzsimmons wrote:
Frankie wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Brant Fitzsimmons
For those who don't know--MS has changed
http://www.iht.com/articles/106638.html
Michael Lothian wrote:
If that was the address that the attack was pointed at won't it make
sence for MS to disable it?
Mike
Brant Fitzsimmons wrote:
Frankie wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
snip
Looks like they've decided to drop it or something:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/952935.asp?vts=081520031730
Michael
--
Michael Viron
Core Systems Group
Simple End User Linux
You are absolutely correct. www.windowsupdate.com is not coming up. I
do know, however, that it does indeed
On Friday August 15 2003 05:02 pm, Charles A Edwards wrote:
On 16 Aug 2003 07:49:28 +1000
Stephen Kuhn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wonder if they're going to change their official stance on
linux and OSS now that they've had to resort to linux to save
their ass?
No, once it has passed,
On Friday August 15 2003 01:58 pm, Erylon Hines wrote:
Yesand no. What I see is a cache server (akamai) running
Linux. The MS site is an IIS server. It is a way for MS to use
a third party to lighten the bandwidth load--having akamai serve
up a cached copy of the Windows Update site.
On Friday 15 August 2003 06:49 pm, Frankie wrote:
snipped
I don't know if I understand it..
I thought the urls for m$ updates were:
http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com/
which goes though to:
http://v4.windowsupdate.microsoft.com/en/default.asp
The site v4.windowsupdate.microsoft.com
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 19:59:30 -0500, Tom Brinkman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well someone please tell me how you'd run Microsoft-IIS/6.0 on
Linux ?? ... or is the server just spoofed?
Neither. It's an IIS server _behind_ a Linux server.
From netcraft:
Webservers that operate behind a
On Friday 15 August 2003 08:59 pm, Tom Brinkman wrote:
On Friday August 15 2003 05:02 pm, Charles A Edwards wrote:
On 16 Aug 2003 07:49:28 +1000
Stephen Kuhn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wonder if they're going to change their official stance on
linux and OSS now that they've had to
Looks like that's whats been done. Any errors trying to access will have a
lot to do with DNS updates not showing up on our servers for 24 hours or so
(just guessing, but I've seen it before).
However, their solution is pretty half-assed, and I can see all kinds of holes
in their thinking.
No, this is for real and unbelievable as it is. Look up
www.microsoft.com or microsoft.com and you'll see linux. So yes this is
happened.
Brant Fitzsimmons wrote:
Frankie wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Brant Fitzsimmons
For
For those who don't know--MS has changed around a lot of their Windows
Update network to try and handle the expected onslaught of hits from
:)
Anyhow, I hope SCO gets their $1300 fee per machine from MS. ;)
*Sweet Justice*
Brant Fitzsimmons
Erylon Hines wrote:
Looks like that's whats been done. Any errors trying to access will have a
lot to do with DNS updates not showing up on our servers for 24 hours or so
(just guessing, but I've seen it before).
However, their solution is pretty half-assed, and I can see all kinds of holes
On Sat, 2003-08-16 at 08:44, Erylon Hines wrote:
Looks like that's whats been done. Any errors trying to access will have a
lot to do with DNS updates not showing up on our servers for 24 hours or so
(just guessing, but I've seen it before).
However, their solution is pretty half-assed,
On Sat, 2003-08-16 at 10:24, Michael Lothian wrote:
http://www.iht.com/articles/106638.html
I just find this all so personally comical; doesn't matter that the
worms would cause damage - Microsoft is causing their own damage to
themselves.
I'm sure the writer(s) of the bug foresaw this
On 16 Aug 2003 15:21:45 +1000, Stephen Kuhn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 2003-08-16 at 08:44, Erylon Hines wrote:
Looks like that's whats been done. Any errors trying to access will have a
lot to do with DNS updates not showing up on our servers for 24 hours or so
(just guessing, but
45 matches
Mail list logo
