Telnet dead at 35 ..
Doug Mentohl
first internet-age Windows release to omit an important vestige of
networking history -- Telnet, which turns 35 tomorrow'
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/04/telnet_dead_at_.html
Kelsey Bjarnason
Frankly, I'd rather have 'em include a decent ssh package - though telnet
is useful in diagnosing things.
Larry Qualig
Here you go - (and it's free too)
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/interopmigration/unix/sfu/sfu35int.mspx
People who actually need telnet and ssh are more than capable of
clicking on a link and downloading the software. The 95% majority of
home users and PC users have no idea what telnet and ssh is so there's
little point in providing them with one by default.
ed
"Larry Qualig" <lqu...@uku.co.uk> wrote:
as an ex ISP tech support, i'd REALLY REALLY like them to keep telnet
as part of the default. but what the fuck, they can just carry on
making it hard for the rest of the world to make money can't they.
telnet is seriously useful when trying to figure out why the end user
cant do something as it's often a LOT easier to see what greeting they
get when trying to reach a certain host on a certain port, such as
25/80 being the most commonly desired.
--
The Teletype machine to www.evilrobot.org is screaming like Bryan Bird
because of the newbie thinking 'halt' means 'exit'. AOL is playing
counter-strike
Larry Qualig
Telnet still exists in Vista. It's there. It's just not installed by
default. You have to go to Control Panel -> Add Remove Programs to
install it on the local machine.
Large companies use customized installation scripts so they can change
the defaults if they want to. I'm also certain that this can be
configured at a domain controller to make sure that settings and/or
utilities are available on all machines in the domain.
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
>
> as an ex ISP tech support, i'd REALLY REALLY like them to keep telnet
> as part of the default. but what the fuck, they can just carry on
> making it hard for the rest of the world to make money can't they.
>
> telnet is seriously useful when trying to figure out why the end user
> cant do something as it's often a LOT easier to see what greeting they
> get when trying to reach a certain host on a certain port, such as
> 25/80 being the most commonly desired.
Agreed, I've had plenty of occasions that telnet came in handy
for troubleshooting a network problem.
BTW, your random sig is a riot. Did you script that up yourself
or is that feature of some app I've never used?
Later,
Thad
Larry Qualig
BTW - What time zone are you in? You're system clock isn't off by 1-
hour, it seems to be off by about 42 minutes.,
![[H]omer's profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjWMQWyYwHeIwxhG3nGUeGWmLQD0R8TeZrvdWDiv5-2S_z3rHg=s40-c)
[H]omer
And support for NFS too, something sorely lacking in Windows, and likely
to remain so. AFAIK they've abandoned SFU, which is probably just as
well, since it was horribly broken ... pretty much like everything else
they do.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "Future archaeologists will be able to identify a 'Vista Upgrade
| Layer' when they go through our landfill sites" - Sian Berry, the
| Green Party.
`----
Fedora Core release 5 (Bordeaux) on sky, running kernel 2.6.20-1.2307.fc5
21:59:39 up 2:07, 2 users, load average: 0.15, 0.07, 0.02
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
>
> BTW - What time zone are you in? You're system clock isn't off by 1-
> hour, it seems to be off by about 42 minutes.,
I'm in the north american central time zone, but I expect the skewed
time is a result of the news server I post through, which I don't
really have any control over and I'm not even sure where it is
hosted (not at my ISP... I know all the servers there and they don't
run their own news server).
Later,
Thad
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 11:14:01 -0700, Larry Qualig wrote:
>> >http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/04/telnet_dead_at_.html
>>
>> Frankly, I'd rather have 'em include a decent ssh package - though telnet
>> is useful in diagnosing things.
>
> Here you go - (and it's free too)
I guess the word "include" makes it too difficult for you to grasp what's
being discussed.
Back to the idiot file where you belong.
Larry Qualig
> [snips]
>
> On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 11:14:01 -0700, Larry Qualig wrote:
> >> >http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/04/telnet_dead_at_.html
>
> >> Frankly, I'd rather have 'em include a decent ssh package - though telnet
> >> is useful in diagnosing things.
>
> > Here you go - (and it's free too)
>
> I guess the word "include" makes it too difficult for you to grasp what's
> being discussed.
Kelsey... the typical COLA advocate. When confronted with a fact that
doesn't match his warped sense of reality he sticks his head in the
sand and runs.
> Back to the idiot file where you belong.
But not before making his typical ad hominem attack. How pathetic.
Linonut
> ed <e...@noreply.com> wrote:
>>
>> as an ex ISP tech support, i'd REALLY REALLY like them to keep telnet
>> as part of the default. but what the fuck, they can just carry on
>> making it hard for the rest of the world to make money can't they.
>>
>> telnet is seriously useful when trying to figure out why the end user
>> cant do something as it's often a LOT easier to see what greeting they
>> get when trying to reach a certain host on a certain port, such as
>> 25/80 being the most commonly desired.
>
> Agreed, I've had plenty of occasions that telnet came in handy
> for troubleshooting a network problem.
Telnet is useful in accessing the config pages of network video devices,
serial-port converters, and network switches.
Even if they also have a web interface.
--
Convert your Billy-box to a Linus-box today!
Hadron Quark
Yet its ok to have to "install" such via rpm or aptitude in a Linux
system yet ....
Can you spell Hypocrite?
For some reason whenever you get corrected (ie most of the time) you
jump up and down and get your pig tails in a knot.
Hadron Quark
Something as potentially dangerous as telnet should never be
included. The people who need it can install it.
yttrx
Windows administrators dont diagnose things. They smack the keyboard with
their knuckles until it registers in their tiny brains that they have a
telephone, then they call microsoft support, who then bangs their knuckles
on their keyboards, at the end of which declaring (yeah, we're coming out
with a patch for that)
-----yttrx
The Ghost In The Machine
<yt...@yttrx.net>
wrote
on Wed, 04 Apr 2007 19:49:07 GMT
<TiTQh.5955$Yy1....@textfe.usenetserver.com>:
Knuckles? How do they hit the Three Magic Keys with their knuckles? :-)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #7878218:
class C { private: virtual void stupid() = 0; };
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
ed
"Larry Qualig" <lqu...@uku.co.uk> wrote:
> Telnet still exists in Vista. It's there. It's just not installed by
> default. You have to go to Control Panel -> Add Remove Programs to
> install it on the local machine.
>
> Large companies use customized installation scripts so they can change
> the defaults if they want to. I'm also certain that this can be
> configured at a domain controller to make sure that settings and/or
> utilities are available on all machines in the domain.
i'm not talking about companies, i'm talking about the average users at
home who don't know where the install disks are, if indeed they
received them at all.
--
The T3 to www.humanclock.com is bullshitting like Bob Grant because of
Bernard Shifman threatening to sue. Teleport is deathmatching
ed
it's a perl script that i wrote, sylpheed allows a program to run to
output something that it uses in the sig.
here it is if you want it: http://www.s5h.net/code/signature
--
The SCSI Controller to the XF86 Server is dying a slow death because of
a power outage. Network Appliance is sleeping
ed
dangerous? are you a moron? it's a debugging tool, i never mentioned
telnetd.
--
The CAT5 to the Netapp is smelling funky because of the doj break up of
microsoft. Teleport is gibbin, laws yes
Hadron Quark
So, you have never heard of people using telnet to send cleartext
passwords to servers? You need to be careful when calling people morons
in case, like now, it backfires.
,----
| Experts in computer security, such as SANS Institute, and the members of
| the comp.os.linux.security newsgroup recommend that the use of TELNET
| for remote logins should be discontinued under all normal circumstances,
| for the following reasons:
`----
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TELNET#Security
Linonut
> Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjar...@ncoldns.com> writes:
>
>> I guess the word "include" makes it too difficult for you to grasp what's
>> being discussed.
>>
>> Back to the idiot file where you belong.
>
> Yet its ok to have to "install" such via rpm or aptitude in a Linux
> system yet ....
>
> Can you spell Hypocrite?
Nah, telnet's pretty much a default everywhere, even on pre-vista
windows.
--
"Don't be evil." -- Google
"We don't agree with that." -- Bill Gates
Linonut
>> telnet is seriously useful when trying to figure out why the end user
>> cant do something as it's often a LOT easier to see what greeting they
>> get when trying to reach a certain host on a certain port, such as
>> 25/80 being the most commonly desired.
>
> Something as potentially dangerous as telnet should never be
> included. The people who need it can install it.
The people who know about it know when they can use it safely.
--
"Spock, you're nothing but a damn computer!"
"Why, thank you, Doctor!"
Linonut
> ed <e...@noreply.com> writes:
>
>>> Something as potentially dangerous as telnet should never be
>>> included. The people who need it can install it.
>>
>> dangerous? are you a moron? it's a debugging tool, i never mentioned
>> telnetd.
>
> So, you have never heard of people using telnet to send cleartext
> passwords to servers? You need to be careful when calling people morons
> in case, like now, it backfires.
>
> ,----
> | Experts in computer security, such as SANS Institute, and the members of
> | the comp.os.linux.security newsgroup recommend that the use of TELNET
> | for remote logins should be discontinued under all normal circumstances,
> | for the following reasons:
> `----
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TELNET#Security
In your haste to be a contrarian, you're confusing remote logins with
other safe uses of telnet.
--
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me
than a frontal lobotomy.
Hadron Quark
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Hadron Quark belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>>> telnet is seriously useful when trying to figure out why the end user
>>> cant do something as it's often a LOT easier to see what greeting they
>>> get when trying to reach a certain host on a certain port, such as
>>> 25/80 being the most commonly desired.
>>
>> Something as potentially dangerous as telnet should never be
>> included. The people who need it can install it.
>
> The people who know about it know when they can use it safely.
That's kind of what I meant. ...
--
They are most deceived that trusteth most in themselves.
Hadron Quark
No I am not.
I am saying that NOT using Telnet or installing it is a good idea in a
lot of remote access cased. If someone really needs it install it - they
know what they are doing. How many of the % of windows users use
Telnet. And one could argue, being Linux advocates and all that, that if
they are stupid enough to use Windows then they are stupid enough to use
Telnet over the net with cleartext passwords.
Linonut
> Linonut <lin...@bone.com> writes:
>
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Hadron Quark belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>>> telnet is seriously useful when trying to figure out why the end user
>>>> cant do something as it's often a LOT easier to see what greeting they
>>>> get when trying to reach a certain host on a certain port, such as
>>>> 25/80 being the most commonly desired.
>>>
>>> Something as potentially dangerous as telnet should never be
>>> included. The people who need it can install it.
>>
>> The people who know about it know when they can use it safely.
>
> That's kind of what I meant. ...
Only "kind of".
--
The Microsoft Solution -- Apply money liberally. Re-apply as necessary.
Linonut
> I am saying that NOT using Telnet or installing it is a good idea in a
> lot of remote access cased. If someone really needs it install it - they
> know what they are doing. How many of the % of windows users use
> Telnet. And one could argue, being Linux advocates and all that, that if
> they are stupid enough to use Windows then they are stupid enough to use
> Telnet over the net with cleartext passwords.
Actually, I would argue that they would be too -- as *you* put it --
"stupid" to know of telnet.
You you.... XP you!
--
Windows XP. The operating system with a load in its pants.
The Ghost In The Machine
<lin...@bone.com>
wrote
on Thu, 05 Apr 2007 06:29:03 -0500
<o4qdnUXyff7iQInb...@comcast.com>:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Hadron Quark belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjar...@ncoldns.com> writes:
>>
>>> I guess the word "include" makes it too difficult for you to grasp what's
>>> being discussed.
>>>
>>> Back to the idiot file where you belong.
>>
>> Yet its ok to have to "install" such via rpm or aptitude in a Linux
>> system yet ....
>>
>> Can you spell Hypocrite?
>
> Nah, telnet's pretty much a default everywhere, even on pre-vista
> windows.
>
Eh?
For its part Gentoo says telnet and in.telnetd are part
of net-misc/telnet-bsd, which suggests it's a separately
installable package and one gets both.
Fedora also apparently installed both by default, though
in.telnetd is disabled in /etc/xinet.d .
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows. When it absolutely, positively, has to crash.
The Ghost In The Machine
<4pKdnZ6KZPKSv4jb...@comcast.com>:
I'm getting a little confused here. In any event, telnet/telnetd is
still useful for those of us who know how to communicate with, among
other things, News servers, Email servers, and (yes!) IRC servers.
Of course one would only want to use it for testing purposes.
telnetd is probably undergoing a switchover to default to TLS/SSL
capability; I for one don't know. I would hope so.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Linux. Because vaporware only goes so far.
ed
Hadron Quark <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
how is that a backfire? that's no backfire. a backfire would be stating
that telnetd is secure. you're still a moron for thinking the telnet
client is dangerous.
--
The dual T1 to www.brokenmachine.com is dying a slow death because of a
faulty regex. Pac Bell is gasing up the marketing hype machine
ed
Hadron Quark <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No I am not.
>
> I am saying that NOT using Telnet or installing it is a good idea in a
> lot of remote access cased. If someone really needs it install it -
> they know what they are doing. How many of the % of windows users use
> Telnet. And one could argue, being Linux advocates and all that, that
> if they are stupid enough to use Windows then they are stupid enough
> to use Telnet over the net with cleartext passwords.
then by your logic, all comms should be over SSL, and no program should
communicate otherwise.
--
The frame relay to the DVD player is screaming like Bryan Bird because
of binary language of moisture vaporators. Apu is merging w/ Verizon
Hadron Quark
> On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 13:40:27 +0200
> Hadron Quark <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> No I am not.
>>
>> I am saying that NOT using Telnet or installing it is a good idea in a
>> lot of remote access cased. If someone really needs it install it -
>> they know what they are doing. How many of the % of windows users use
>> Telnet. And one could argue, being Linux advocates and all that, that
>> if they are stupid enough to use Windows then they are stupid enough
>> to use Telnet over the net with cleartext passwords.
>
> then by your logic, all comms should be over SSL, and no program should
> communicate otherwise.
No. By your logic. We are not talking "all comms", we are talking not
making a legendarily insecure system like telnet a default
install. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Anyone who sends clear text passwords over any part of the net is
risking trouble. Why? Because a lot of people tend to use the same
passwords to access their non important stuff as they do their important
stuff.
Surely this is not so hard to understand?
Before you trouble to reply, read again what I said above. Not what you
think I said.
ed
Hadron Quark <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
you still reach the same end result. i guess you would have to do some
sort of ISP job before you realise the hindrance that you cause to
the general user when telnet is not there. removing telnet from one's
computer is a REALLY bad thing to do. it's like removing a debugger
from an IDE. it's still there, those who know what they're doing should
install it if they need it.
not everything needs a password in order for telnet to work by the way.
i think you see telnet as being both the telnet client and the telnetd
server, it's not. telnet is the client that's all. telnetd is something
else.
unless one is going to use httpauth i dont see what the problem is of
using telnet to debug why a webserver isn't work.
going off on a bender about how it's insecure is neither here nor
there. that's a can of worms for people who LEAVE insecure services
running, not the client side of things.
i personally think that other, less useful things should be removed
first, wordpad, notepad - someone who really needs an editor can get
gVim.
--
The 28.8 frame relay to headquarters is bitching like Perrin because of
All your base are belong to us. Pac Bell is practising their rocket jump
Hadron Quark
It can be downloaded and installed. By savvy people. What is tricky
here? I never said it should be banned completely. Is today "make things
up day" in COLA?
ed
Hadron Quark <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
wtf? that's the whole point. having worked at a DSL ISP i can say with
certainty that instructing clients to get the telnet program is perhaps
harder than than telling them how to use it so that you can work out
what's wrong with their link. how the figging hell can someone download
telnet if they can't get their browser to work? you're clueless.
removing telnet from the install is going to make windows even LESS of
a networkable OS.
you haven't a clue how important telnet is.
--
The Ether to the Death Star is blown because of Somebody set up us the
bomb. The Network Admin is hacking aquarium.org
Hadron Quark
You're making it up as you go along.
Give me an example please of how "telnet" gets their browser working? Go
on. Keeping in mind we are talking about the great majority. Also
keeping in mind the security warnings I linked to before. Keeping in
mind that a lot of distro's do NOT install it by default. Keeping in
mind that its use is totally banned in a lot of networking
situations. Just because you were a tech support nOOb at one time and
learnt about telnet, it certainly does NOT make it indispensable.
>
> removing telnet from the install is going to make windows even LESS of
> a networkable OS.
WTF is a "networkable" OS? or "even less of one" even?
>
> you haven't a clue how important telnet is.
Yes I do. What makes you think I don't?
Because I don't think it should be installed by default? People who
*need* telnet can simply install it. How fucking difficult do you think
that is?
ed
Hadron Quark <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
this is just classic of you not having a clue. if the user cannot get
on the net with their browser the first thing you ask the user to do is
connect to the site using telnet on port 80 to see if their firewall
has in someway cut them off.
its perhaps the most basic of things.
> > removing telnet from the install is going to make windows even LESS
> > of a networkable OS.
>
> WTF is a "networkable" OS? or "even less of one" even?
any os that has squat for network tools.
> >
> > you haven't a clue how important telnet is.
>
> Yes I do. What makes you think I don't?
your comments
> Because I don't think it should be installed by default? People who
> *need* telnet can simply install it. How fucking difficult do you
> think that is?
its very difficult if their browser does not work.
--
The dual T1 to Arrakis, Dune, desert planet is sending all zeros
because of the death of dot com companies. Verizon is playing Grand
Theft Auto 3
486box
> Keeping in mind that a lot of distro's do NOT install it by default.
A lot of distros are single or double floppy distros and have no room.
Almost all of the rest include it.
Hadron Quark
Or you could just inspect the firewall settings. Most users do not use
telnet. Period. Or ping. Or .....
>
> its perhaps the most basic of things.
Yes. But the fact is that 99.99% of people never need this. Do you not
understand that?
>
>> > removing telnet from the install is going to make windows even LESS
>> > of a networkable OS.
>>
>> WTF is a "networkable" OS? or "even less of one" even?
>
> any os that has squat for network tools.
99.99999% never need these tools. It just works. I cant think of a
single mainstream router or firewall package for example which would
block outward initiated port 80 access for the home user.
>
>> >
>> > you haven't a clue how important telnet is.
>>
>> Yes I do. What makes you think I don't?
>
> your comments
>
>> Because I don't think it should be installed by default? People who
>> *need* telnet can simply install it. How fucking difficult do you
>> think that is?
>
> its very difficult if their browser does not work.
--
Kelsey Bjarnason
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Hadron Quark belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>>> telnet is seriously useful when trying to figure out why the end user
>>> cant do something as it's often a LOT easier to see what greeting they
>>> get when trying to reach a certain host on a certain port, such as
>>> 25/80 being the most commonly desired.
>>
>> Something as potentially dangerous as telnet should never be
>> included. The people who need it can install it.
>
> The people who know about it know when they can use it safely.
'Course, by his logic, Windows should never be installed, as it is wildly
dangerous without a lot of reasonably technical hand-holding.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 10:59:34 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>> Nah, telnet's pretty much a default everywhere, even on pre-vista
>> windows.
>>
>
> Eh?
>
> For its part Gentoo says telnet and in.telnetd are part
> of net-misc/telnet-bsd, which suggests it's a separately
> installable package and one gets both.
>
> Fedora also apparently installed both by default, though
> in.telnetd is disabled in /etc/xinet.d .
The telnet daemon is generally disabled, as it's less secure than ssh and
there's little real reason to run a telnet daemon anymore. The telnet
_client_, however, has been installed by default on every Linux box I've
ever used - and it's a damned useful thing to have.
Hadron Quark
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 14:07:04 +0000, ed wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 15:55:55 +0200
> Hadron Quark <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Give me an example please of how "telnet" gets their browser working?
> this is just classic of you not having a clue. if the user cannot get
> on the net with their browser the first thing you ask the user to do is
> connect to the site using telnet on port 80 to see if their firewall
> has in someway cut them off.
Exactly. He can't really be this clueless, can he?
> its perhaps the most basic of things.
It's number one on the hit parade for me. Mailer not responding? Fire up
telnet to port 110/25 and see what's going on. Aha, mailer's responding,
must be a client-side problem; the location of the problem has been
determined in about 4.2 seconds. Can't beat that. Better yet, it's easy
enough to do to talk a customer through it over the phone.
Hmm. Easy, quick testing tools, so of course Hadron thinks they're a bad
idea and can't grasp their utility for troubleshooting. Isn't he the
"kernel hacker"?
>> Because I don't think it should be installed by default? People who
>> *need* telnet can simply install it. How fucking difficult do you think
>> that is?
>
> its very difficult if their browser does not work.
One suspects Hadron is losing it entirely here. He's complaining about
Telnet being dangerous, right? Okay, let's assume it is... but dangerous
*to whom*?
Virtually nobody runs an actual telnet server anymore, so it's not a
server problem - and your desktop user isn't using telnet as a server, but
a client, so any potential server issues don't affect them.
So it's a client-side problem. Okay, great, now quick, find three users -
not geeks who actually know what they're doing, just general users - who
have ever used telnet other than at the behest of someone doing support.
Oh, right, no can do - because nothing the user is likely to encounter
actually uses telnet. Most users are completely unaware it even exists,
and if they're not using it, it isn't a security risk.
So, he's arguing in favor of the removal of a tool which poses absolutely
no risk whatsoever to virtually anybody, yet provides a significant
benefit in troubleshooting wayward connections.
That's Hadron, all right.
Hadron Quark
> [snips]
>
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 14:07:04 +0000, ed wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 15:55:55 +0200
>> Hadron Quark <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Give me an example please of how "telnet" gets their browser working?
>
>> this is just classic of you not having a clue. if the user cannot get
>> on the net with their browser the first thing you ask the user to do is
>> connect to the site using telnet on port 80 to see if their firewall
>> has in someway cut them off.
>
> Exactly. He can't really be this clueless, can he?
>
>> its perhaps the most basic of things.
>
> It's number one on the hit parade for me. Mailer not responding? Fire up
> telnet to port 110/25 and see what's going on. Aha, mailer's responding,
> must be a client-side problem; the location of the problem has been
> determined in about 4.2 seconds. Can't beat that. Better yet, it's easy
> enough to do to talk a customer through it over the phone.
>
> Hmm. Easy, quick testing tools, so of course Hadron thinks they're a bad
> idea and can't grasp their utility for troubleshooting. Isn't he the
> "kernel hacker"?
Fuckaduck you guys are clueless. We are talking about the vast
majority. Not you geeks. I've been in IT for donkeys years and never,
ever had to use telnet to do anything. You just love your toys dont you.
Telnet is frowned upon for most users because they send cleartext
passwords.
It really IS that simple.
>
>>> Because I don't think it should be installed by default? People who
>>> *need* telnet can simply install it. How fucking difficult do you think
>>> that is?
>>
>> its very difficult if their browser does not work.
>
> One suspects Hadron is losing it entirely here. He's complaining about
> Telnet being dangerous, right? Okay, let's assume it is... but dangerous
> *to whom*?
>
> Virtually nobody runs an actual telnet server anymore, so it's not a
> server problem - and your desktop user isn't using telnet as a server, but
> a client, so any potential server issues don't affect them.
>
> So it's a client-side problem. Okay, great, now quick, find three users -
> not geeks who actually know what they're doing, just general users - who
> have ever used telnet other than at the behest of someone doing support.
>
> Oh, right, no can do - because nothing the user is likely to encounter
> actually uses telnet. Most users are completely unaware it even exists,
> and if they're not using it, it isn't a security risk.
>
> So, he's arguing in favor of the removal of a tool which poses absolutely
> no risk whatsoever to virtually anybody, yet provides a significant
> benefit in troubleshooting wayward connections.
>
> That's Hadron, all right.
>
>
You are either off your meds or being childish again. I said that telnet
was NOT a "must have" on a default install for 99.9% of desktop
users. But god are you dense.
chrisv
>>
>> Something as potentially dangerous as telnet should never be
>> included. The people who need it can install it.
It's remarkable how you are ALWAYS on the M$ side of the issue. How
would it be "dangerous" to those who would not use it?
Idiot.
Hadron Quark
Would you leave sharp knives around in the presence of children?
ed
Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjar...@ncoldns.com> wrote:
> [snips]
>
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 14:07:04 +0000, ed wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 15:55:55 +0200
> > Hadron Quark <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Give me an example please of how "telnet" gets their browser
> >> working?
>
> > this is just classic of you not having a clue. if the user cannot
> > get on the net with their browser the first thing you ask the user
> > to do is connect to the site using telnet on port 80 to see if
> > their firewall has in someway cut them off.
>
> Exactly. He can't really be this clueless, can he?
he clearly has centre of the universe syndrome too. this opinion being
the only true one, despite the arguments stacked against his favour.
> > its perhaps the most basic of things.
>
> It's number one on the hit parade for me. Mailer not responding?
> Fire up telnet to port 110/25 and see what's going on. Aha, mailer's
> responding, must be a client-side problem; the location of the
> problem has been determined in about 4.2 seconds. Can't beat that.
> Better yet, it's easy enough to do to talk a customer through it over
> the phone.
>
> Hmm. Easy, quick testing tools, so of course Hadron thinks they're a
> bad idea and can't grasp their utility for troubleshooting. Isn't he
> the "kernel hacker"?
i dont think he's a proper hacker. he might have done some self
contained work, but i dont think he is key to any operation. if he were
then he would not idle his time away here.
> >> Because I don't think it should be installed by default? People who
> >> *need* telnet can simply install it. How fucking difficult do you
> >> think that is?
> >
> > its very difficult if their browser does not work.
>
> One suspects Hadron is losing it entirely here. He's complaining
> about Telnet being dangerous, right? Okay, let's assume it is... but
> dangerous *to whom*?
>
> Virtually nobody runs an actual telnet server anymore, so it's not a
> server problem - and your desktop user isn't using telnet as a
> server, but a client, so any potential server issues don't affect
> them.
>
> So it's a client-side problem. Okay, great, now quick, find three
> users - not geeks who actually know what they're doing, just general
> users - who have ever used telnet other than at the behest of someone
> doing support.
>
> Oh, right, no can do - because nothing the user is likely to encounter
> actually uses telnet. Most users are completely unaware it even
> exists, and if they're not using it, it isn't a security risk.
>
> So, he's arguing in favor of the removal of a tool which poses
> absolutely no risk whatsoever to virtually anybody, yet provides a
> significant benefit in troubleshooting wayward connections.
>
> That's Hadron, all right.
i cant see one good argument for leaving a tiny, but incredibly useful
program out of the install. telnet/nslookup/traceroute and ping
are perhaps the most important debugging tools a network computer
needs. without these basics it's damned hard for anyone to figure out
what a problem is. especially when connectivity is unavailable.
--
The dirt trail to headquarters is spiking because of an invasion from a
parallel universe. The Rebel Alliance is planning a christmas party
ed
Hadron Quark <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
no, it's not that simple. your donkeys years are pathetic if you've
never used telnet. that means you probably didnt work on a tcp/ip
network.
on what basis does minesweeper become of more value? with all this
clever logic i guess windows is not meant to be a workable network os.
i guess it's real intention is to be a hyped up etch-a-sketch.
--
The cup and string to the trailer park is screaming like Bryan Bird
because of the death of dot com companies. The T1000 is practising
their rocket jump
ed
amen to that.
i for one welcome our new telnet overlords.
--
The 14.4 dialup to Arrakis, Dune, desert planet is going off like a car
alarm because of a crappy FE1 & CE2 engine. The Sys Admin is reading
userfriendly.org
Hadron Quark
Sorry? No. I am not a sysadmin. But then neither are 99.9% of desktop
users. What *are* you talking about?
Again, from the Wiki:
,----
| These security-related shortcomings have seen the usage of the TELNET
| protocol drop rapidly, especially on the public Internet, in favor of a
| more secure and functional protocol called SSH, first released in
| 1995. SSH provides all functionality of telnet, with the addition of
| strong encryption to prevent sensitive data such as passwords from being
| intercepted, and public key authentication, to ensure that the remote
| computer is actually who it claims to be.
`----
I don't know why you are so in love with it. Really. But even if you
are, good on you! But most users dont need it and it is NOT an essential
install for desktop users.
The Ghost In The Machine
<hadro...@gmail.com>
wrote
on Fri, 06 Apr 2007 19:39:29 +0200
<87abxlv...@gmail.com>:
And occasionally as a troubleshooter in various software
which opens a server socket or two.
But never mind that; obviously it's no longer useful,
so Microsoft no longer includes it. :-) Remote Desktop
is now the "standard" here.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Is it cheaper to learn Linux, or to hire someone
to fix your Windows problems?
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 18:44:42 +0000, ed wrote:
>> Telnet is frowned upon for most users because they send cleartext
>> passwords.
>>
>> It really IS that simple.
>
> no, it's not that simple. your donkeys years are pathetic if you've
> never used telnet. that means you probably didnt work on a tcp/ip
> network.
No kidding. Quick: exactly how many users ever use telnet *at all*,
except as requested by a support person? Right; virtually none. Now,
how many of _those_ types (i.e. support personnel) are going to use telnet
to have the user send cleartext passwords? Right, virtually none.
So, he's _still_ going on about a problem which simply *does not exist*
for the vast majority, and supporting the "solution" of removing one of
the most useful testing tools to avoid this virtually non-existent risk.
Dumber than a sack of hammers.
>> You are either off your meds or being childish again. I said that
>> telnet was NOT a "must have" on a default install for 99.9% of desktop
>> users. But god are you dense.
>
> on what basis does minesweeper become of more value? with all this
> clever logic i guess windows is not meant to be a workable network os.
> i guess it's real intention is to be a hyped up etch-a-sketch.
Indeed. Must have minesweeper and solitaire, but an actually useful
testing tool, well, we *must* get rid of that because of the virtually
non-existent security risk.
ed
i agree, all the junk that is upsold is probably going to be a bigger
risk than the telnet program.
if it were removed, i can guarantee a hundred other 'unknown' versions
of telnet will come onto the market, and the will be the security risk
as they're the can of unknowns.
--
The 14.4 dialup to Redback1 is reporting a faulty control module
because of burned out dilithium crystals. Barbarella is woofing down a
plate of peas
The Ghost In The Machine
<kbjar...@ncoldns.com>
wrote
on Fri, 06 Apr 2007 10:29:39 -0700
<pan.2007.04.06....@ncoldns.com>:
Which of course exists as a secondary market. Small wonder
Windows is hard to eradicate:
[1] It works. Barely. But it *does* work.
[2] Shoring up its deficiencies allows for additional
revenue, either for Microsoft or for third parties.
Either one hires consultants or purchases additional
software. On the flip side, the malware generators
can now count on a fair number of zombies to push
products from pills to sofas through Slightly Suspect
But Highly Profitable(tm) direct email marketing.
Linux would heavily damage that market, though ideally
it would move to more legitimate servers. (Of course,
everyone would then simply block those servers, so
they'd probably keep moving the damned things around.)
[3] As Microsoft is the monopolistic supplier, everyone
learns to love Big Brother. After all, what else is
there? GEM? Oops, squishy. DRDOS? Crunch. Amiga?
Oh darn, they're dead now; guess it's because the PC
was such a poor game machine compared to them that
businesses took the PC more seriously. Can't have
workers playing games at work, now, can we? NeXT?
Overpriced. BeBox/BeOS? Whoops. Linux? Well,
we'll see; I'm hopeful, and there *are* games on
Linux...
[4] Blue screens and crashes are now part of our
expectations with a computer system, despite more
reliable systems being out there such as Unix, IBM
mainframes, and other such. But never mind that;
the system's down, just live with it or reboot.
That'll fix everything. Pavlov couldn't have dreamed
how well we learn.
[5] It's shiny. It's beautiful. It's got the best
GUI marketing money can come up with. Don't
look too deep into the ghastly innards; just
look at the pretty GUI...deep into the GUI...we
will now discuss mesmerizing details of the GUI...
you will buy Microsoft Office...you will buy
our next rev of vaporware...you will buy OneCare(tm)...
you will be happy...and if you're not happy,
we'll patch it for you. Eventually.
[6] Oh, look, Microsoft is patching again. Oh, look,
Microsoft has released yet another patch. Oh,
look, Microsoft is exposing itself again. Look!
Another patch from Microsoft is being covered by the
news organs. Oh my, another virus/worm on computers,
which by default have Microsoft software (but don't
mention that, as it would look bad for the company).
Oh gosh, look at the silly ad campaign from Microsoft.
Oh, look, Microsoft, Microsoft, Microsoft, Microsoft,
Microsoft. Microsoft here. Microsoft there.
Microsoft everywhere. Microsoft vaporware. Microsoft
speculation. Microsoft "innovation". Microsoft,
the target too big to ignore, and it *is* a target,
so everyone's and their cameraman's interviewing
specialists who specialize in three-syllable company
names -- but by it a certain corporation gets lots of
free, if slightly vicious, press, and the news organs
profit as everyone tunes in, much like people can't
tear their eyes away from a road collision.
And amidst all this noise, the Linux advance continues,
but far more quietly; some might even say stealthily.
Were Linux (or perhaps MacOSX or FreeBSD) top dog,
would there be anything to report, really, aside from
the occasional Paris Hilton misstep, the frequent
Presidential flub, UK royalty, and some guy over there
in the Middle East threatening some other guy over
there in the Middle East? ;-)
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 12:09:12 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>> The telnet daemon is generally disabled, as it's less secure than ssh and
>>> there's little real reason to run a telnet daemon anymore. The telnet
>>> _client_, however, has been installed by default on every Linux box I've
>>> ever used - and it's a damned useful thing to have.
>>>
>>
>> For you as a sys admin. Yes.
>
> And occasionally as a troubleshooter in various software
> which opens a server socket or two.
>
> But never mind that; obviously it's no longer useful,
> so Microsoft no longer includes it. :-) Remote Desktop
> is now the "standard" here.
Hmm. Let's see...
rdesktop server:80
All I get is "ERROR: expected CC, got 0x0". With telnet, however, I get a
proper web server response.
Once again, hadron is arguing in favor of the abolition of a perfectly
useful tool, for the reason that "it's insecure" because "it uses
plaintext passwords", despite the fact that virtually nobody ever uses it
_at all_ except for testing, and even then, generally without using
passwords of any sort.
We'd better eliminate the Internet, then. After all, someone, somewhere,
might send plaintext passwords through it, even if that is not the norm.
The Ghost In The Machine
on Fri, 06 Apr 2007 13:05:43 -0700
<pan.2007.04.06....@ncoldns.com>:
> [snips]
>
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 12:09:12 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
>>>> The telnet daemon is generally disabled, as it's less secure than ssh and
>>>> there's little real reason to run a telnet daemon anymore. The telnet
>>>> _client_, however, has been installed by default on every Linux box I've
>>>> ever used - and it's a damned useful thing to have.
>>>>
>>>
>>> For you as a sys admin. Yes.
>>
>> And occasionally as a troubleshooter in various software
>> which opens a server socket or two.
>>
>> But never mind that; obviously it's no longer useful,
>> so Microsoft no longer includes it. :-) Remote Desktop
>> is now the "standard" here.
>
> Hmm. Let's see...
>
> rdesktop server:80
Heh!
>
> All I get is "ERROR: expected CC, got 0x0". With telnet, however, I get a
> proper web server response.
Only after typing in a proper web server request. :-)
>
> Once again, hadron is arguing in favor of the abolition of a perfectly
> useful tool, for the reason that "it's insecure" because "it uses
> plaintext passwords", despite the fact that virtually nobody ever uses it
> _at all_ except for testing, and even then, generally without using
> passwords of any sort.
>
> We'd better eliminate the Internet, then. After all, someone, somewhere,
> might send plaintext passwords through it, even if that is not the norm.
>
And we should get rid of screwdrivers, bottles, and light bulbs too.
They might, after all, be used to injure someone.
:-)
Microsoft. What did you want to make "non-standard" today?
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows. Because it's not a question of if.
It's a question of when.
ed
Hadron Quark <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry? No. I am not a sysadmin. But then neither are 99.9% of desktop
> users. What *are* you talking about?
i dont know where you get your figures, but i think *youre* the one
making things up.
--
The frame relay to the SMTP Machines is sending all zeros because of
the newbie thinking 'halt' means 'exit'. Netscape is woofing down a
plate of peas
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
I don't know if you are being deliberately obtuse, or if it just comes
naturally to you.
"we" aren't talking about telnet as a daemon, or the protocol. We are
talking about using the client, as a trouble shooting aid, because it
can connect to an arbitrary port, and allow an admin to talk a user
through some simple tests that can segment a problem easily, and
quickly.
and that's a bad thing somehow?
(personally, I use nc for this these days, but then, MS doesn't ship
that either.)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGFuxNd90bcYOAWPYRAuLNAKCfFIvS4uk7wkmWsG+5Z+xABJgJ5ACgvB27
nWucfrn85OHPDkUOU+q/53o=
=PWza
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
One man's religion is another man's belly laugh.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 15:55:55 +0200,
like what "lot of distros"? bear in mind you are claiming to talk about
joe clueless, so if your "lots of distros" not installing telnet include
say, trinux, or tomsrtbt...
> mind that its use is totally banned in a lot of networking
the daemo, yes, not the client. Which is what we are discussing here.
We aren't talking about the daemon.
> situations. Just because you were a tech support nOOb at one time and
> learnt about telnet, it certainly does NOT make it indispensable.
>
>>
>> removing telnet from the install is going to make windows even LESS of
>> a networkable OS.
>
> WTF is a "networkable" OS? or "even less of one" even?
>
>>
>> you haven't a clue how important telnet is.
>
> Yes I do. What makes you think I don't?
>
> Because I don't think it should be installed by default? People who
> *need* telnet can simply install it. How fucking difficult do you think
> that is?
Easy with most linux distros. Especially since most of them install the
client by default. At least the ones joe clueless is likely to be using.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGFu1Hd90bcYOAWPYRAtIpAKDvqahj25kW67Q7KWjWfXe6cI++LQCcDhGp
3y64/3XVLPru9iw0pLo4YX4=
=wtH2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
I am a figment of my own imagination.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 20:39:03 +0200,
Hadron Quark <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> writes:
>
>>>Hadron Quark trolled:
>>>>
>>>> Something as potentially dangerous as telnet should never be
>>>> included. The people who need it can install it.
>>
>> It's remarkable how you are ALWAYS on the M$ side of the issue. How
>> would it be "dangerous" to those who would not use it?
>>
>> Idiot.
>>
>
> Would you leave sharp knives around in the presence of children?
>
How is the telnet client "dangerous"?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGFu2Bd90bcYOAWPYRAmJmAJ9jj5IJDqTS69M5SVcn1ChbUMt8gQCfV69h
BPY8qq/T4cxJuCsHeGtG/P4=
=6Gjn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
One man's 'magic' is another man's engineering. 'Supernatural' is a null
word.
-- Lazarus Long
p500...@gmail.com
>
> Fuckaduck you guys are clueless. We are talking about the vast
> majority. Not you geeks. I've been in IT for donkeys years and never,
> ever had to use telnet to do anything. You just love your toys dont you.
>
> Telnet is frowned upon for most users because they send cleartext
> passwords.
>
> It really IS that simple.
You really should stop showing your utter ignorance of using a telnet
client as a primitive, but useful, network debugging tool. No one but
you in this thread is talking about the telnet client connecting to a
telnet daemon. They are talking about using the telnet client's
ability to connect to any TCP port. This can be very useful to show
that network connectivity is working. It can also be used with ASCII
protocols such as SMTP to manually check that the server has been
configured correctly. That is obviously not meant for your average
user of course.
The biggest plus for using telnet is its ease of use to check that at
least network connectivity is established. Here's a link for you. Note
this is a list of security tools and guess what is at #13 out of 100?
Read the comment carefully.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 13:47:53 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>> But never mind that; obviously it's no longer useful,
>>> so Microsoft no longer includes it. :-) Remote Desktop
>>> is now the "standard" here.
>>
>> Hmm. Let's see...
>>
>> rdesktop server:80
>
> Heh!
>
>>
>> All I get is "ERROR: expected CC, got 0x0". With telnet, however, I get a
>> proper web server response.
>
> Only after typing in a proper web server request. :-)
Picky, picky. At least with telnet I _can_ get a proper response - and
know the server's working (or not) as a result. Try that with rdesktop.
Or even ssh.
>> We'd better eliminate the Internet, then. After all, someone,
>> somewhere, might send plaintext passwords through it, even if that is
>> not the norm.
>>
>>
> And we should get rid of screwdrivers, bottles, and light bulbs too.
> They might, after all, be used to injure someone.
>
> :-)
>
> Microsoft. What did you want to make "non-standard" today?
"I'll take ASCII text for 100, Alex..."
ed
Jim Richardson <war...@eskimo.com> wrote:
> I don't know if you are being deliberately obtuse, or if it just comes
> naturally to you.
i cant work out if hes trolling or what. the arguments against having
telnet installed by default seem so very flawed to me.
> "we" aren't talking about telnet as a daemon, or the protocol. We are
> talking about using the client, as a trouble shooting aid, because it
> can connect to an arbitrary port, and allow an admin to talk a user
> through some simple tests that can segment a problem easily, and
> quickly.
>
>
> and that's a bad thing somehow?
>
> (personally, I use nc for this these days, but then, MS doesn't ship
> that either.)
nc is good, i've not used it for a while these days i just use
IO::Socket::INET in perl to do what i need. nc is a good tool though,
i'm not sure if it's part of the default install on obsd though.
[H]omer
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 20:39:03 +0200, Hadron Quark
> <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> writes:
>>>> Hadron Quark trolled:
>>>>> Something as potentially dangerous as telnet should never be
>>>>> included. The people who need it can install it.
>>> It's remarkable how you are ALWAYS on the M$ side of the issue.
>>> How would it be "dangerous" to those who would not use it?
>>>
>>> Idiot.
>> Would you leave sharp knives around in the presence of children?
> How is the telnet client "dangerous"?
For that matter, how are all Netizens "children"?
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| I found [Vista] to be a dangerously unstable operating system,
| which has caused me to lose data ... unfortunately this product
| is unfit for any user. - [H]ardOCP, <http://tinyurl.com/3bpfs2>
`----
Fedora Core release 5 (Bordeaux) on sky, running kernel 2.6.20-1.2307.fc5
03:20:29 up 1:12, 2 users, load average: 0.06, 0.06, 0.12
Kelsey Bjarnason
>
>
> Verily I say unto thee, that Jim Richardson spake thusly:
>> On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 20:39:03 +0200, Hadron Quark
>> <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> writes:
>>>>> Hadron Quark trolled:
>
>>>>>> Something as potentially dangerous as telnet should never be
>>>>>> included. The people who need it can install it.
>
>>>> It's remarkable how you are ALWAYS on the M$ side of the issue.
>>>> How would it be "dangerous" to those who would not use it?
>>>>
>>>> Idiot.
>
>>> Would you leave sharp knives around in the presence of children?
>
>> How is the telnet client "dangerous"?
>
> For that matter, how are all Netizens "children"?
Indeed.
His entire argument is that a product which virtually nobody uses (or is
even aware of) is so dangerous that it should be removed, despite its
utility in troubleshooting.
He has yet to explain how, exactly, it is dangerous, other than to whinge
on about plaintext passwords, something which simply isn't relevant to
anything the average person does and not even relevant to most support
uses of the tool.
Apparently it is dangerous only in the weird little universe of his mind,
yet we should all, of course, immediately rush out to get rid of it as a
result of his bizarre delusions.
The mind boggles.
Kelsey Bjarnason
> On Apr 6, 7:52 pm, Hadron Quark <hadronqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Fuckaduck you guys are clueless. We are talking about the vast
>> majority. Not you geeks. I've been in IT for donkeys years and never,
>> ever had to use telnet to do anything. You just love your toys dont you.
>>
>> Telnet is frowned upon for most users because they send cleartext
>> passwords.
>>
>> It really IS that simple.
>
> You really should stop showing your utter ignorance of using a telnet
> client as a primitive, but useful, network debugging tool. No one but
> you in this thread is talking about the telnet client connecting to a
> telnet daemon.
Indeed. For the most part, nobody but us geeks even knows it exists.
They certainly don't _use_ it on a regular basis. So a tool which is
rarely used, used in a non-risky manner when it is actually used, and is
wildly useful in troubleshooting, must be eradicated because Hadron's not
smart enough to use it safely.
Erik Funkenbusch
>> You really should stop showing your utter ignorance of using a telnet
>> client as a primitive, but useful, network debugging tool. No one but
>> you in this thread is talking about the telnet client connecting to a
>> telnet daemon.
>
> Indeed. For the most part, nobody but us geeks even knows it exists.
> They certainly don't _use_ it on a regular basis. So a tool which is
> rarely used, used in a non-risky manner when it is actually used, and is
> wildly useful in troubleshooting, must be eradicated because Hadron's not
> smart enough to use it safely.
Umm.. you really should learn to research for yourself.
Telnet has not been removed from Vista, it's just not installed by default.
It's still on the CD, just go into Programs and Features and tick the
checkbox next to the Telnet client (or server if you really want it).
Kier
>
> Telnet has not been removed from Vista, it's just not installed by default.
> It's still on the CD, just go into Programs and Features and tick the
> checkbox next to the Telnet client (or server if you really want it).
What CD? Do you know how many PCs come without an OS disc?
--
Kier
Kelsey Bjarnason
Even the ones that do, they often get misplaced:
Tech Support: "Please insert your OS CD."
Customer: "Umm... I'll call you back in a couple hours, need to find the
disc."
Yeah, good move. All to solve a problem that simply doesn't exist.
Erik Funkenbusch
In that case, the OS files are on the hard disk. Today, however, if a
computer doesn't come with a CD, it comes with a utility to make your own
CD from the files on the disk.
The Ghost In The Machine
<pan.2007.04.07....@ncoldns.com>:
> [snips]
>
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 13:47:53 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
>>>> But never mind that; obviously it's no longer useful,
>>>> so Microsoft no longer includes it. :-) Remote Desktop
>>>> is now the "standard" here.
>>>
>>> Hmm. Let's see...
>>>
>>> rdesktop server:80
>>
>> Heh!
>>
>>>
>>> All I get is "ERROR: expected CC, got 0x0". With telnet, however, I get a
>>> proper web server response.
>>
>> Only after typing in a proper web server request. :-)
>
> Picky, picky. At least with telnet I _can_ get a proper response - and
> know the server's working (or not) as a result. Try that with rdesktop.
> Or even ssh.
Hm. I wonder if 'ssh -p 80 -c none' would work?
My experimentation indicates no, which isn't good -- but
in a pinch I could cobble up a dumb ole Perl script. ;-)
But not everyone knows Perl.
>
>>> We'd better eliminate the Internet, then. After all, someone,
>>> somewhere, might send plaintext passwords through it, even if that is
>>> not the norm.
>>>
>>>
>> And we should get rid of screwdrivers, bottles, and light bulbs too.
>> They might, after all, be used to injure someone.
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> Microsoft. What did you want to make "non-standard" today?
>
> "I'll take ASCII text for 100, Alex..."
>
Hm...OK, now I'm curious. Precisely where did Microsoft
botch ASCII? Unless you're referring to the CR/LF fiasco,
which is one of the few things Microsoft actually did
*right*, annoying as it is; newline is more convenient to
be sure. :-)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #12995733:
bool f(bool g, bool h) { if(g) h = true; else h = false; return h;}
The Ghost In The Machine
<pan.2007.04.08....@ncoldns.com>:
Ah, but the problem *does* exist, though not where
one might think. The problem is embedded deep in the
commercial system (or perhaps in our psyches or we've been
indoctrinated or lied to), where individuals tend to treat
an otherwise freely-duplicable product (the cost is at most
a few million or billion electrons [*] per bit, sans encryption
and corruption) as though it were a tightly-controlled
proprietary widget thingy such as a TV set that should not
be opened because it has no user-serviceable parts inside,
and should only be sold by the original manufacturer or
an authorized distributor thereof.
Hence, hacks such as DRM, dongles, Slightly Mangled
Floppy Sectors(tm), special CD-ROM bit patterns which
can't be (legally) generated by consumer equipment, the
"copy-protect" flag mandated by Federal law, the DAT 19
kHz detection/corruption fiasco, licensing tools such as
flexlm, "breath of life", proprietary video codecs, etc.;
plus issues that raised a howl, such as Sony's botched DRM,
the Pentium III identification number, and Microsoft's
Passport (and presumably Palladium as well, though the
latter isn't a personal identification scheme; it's more
of a software verification method).
It's pervaded nVidia as well, though I'm not sure how
deeply; however, there is a DRM manager deep within Linux;
I'm not sure precisely what it does. At one point X and
frame buffer didn't like each other on my home system;
since I primarily use X I let the frame buffer go and
haven't tried to fiddle with the issue since. (At work
I use an i810 driver which doesn't have this problem.
The OpenGL is pretty crappy though -- although it does
work.)
And of course financial transactions are symbolic tokens.
A $100,000 wire might be accomplished by an encrypted
transaction between two banks.
This sort of thing predated the Internet, of course -- one
might have noticed in the past the "cash value" of a coupon
is 1/20 of 1 cent, despite the savings promised thereon.
Certainly I did.
The good news: DRM is failing spectacularly from all accounts.
Peruvians and Chinese sell disks by the bushelsful.
The bad news: one wonders when the government will mandate
DRM-verified software by something along the lines of the
aforementioned Palladium, once Bill G decides it's time to
lobby a Republican Congress.
The good news: we have a Democratic Congress, at least until 2009.
(You waited too long, Mister Gates. :-) )
And of course Linux falls into the generally non-DRM
category, although it is protected by copyright law (it's
just that the licenses attached thereto -- GPL et al --
are very flexible).
[*] I'd have to look. 1 electron is 1.602 * 10^-19 Coulombs.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows. When it absolutely, positively, has to crash.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 11:32:18 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>> Picky, picky. At least with telnet I _can_ get a proper response - and
>> know the server's working (or not) as a result. Try that with rdesktop.
>> Or even ssh.
>
> Hm. I wonder if 'ssh -p 80 -c none' would work?
In a word, no.
>>> Microsoft. What did you want to make "non-standard" today?
>>
>> "I'll take ASCII text for 100, Alex..."
>>
>
> Hm...OK, now I'm curious. Precisely where did Microsoft
> botch ASCII? Unless you're referring to the CR/LF fiasco,
> which is one of the few things Microsoft actually did
> *right*, annoying as it is; newline is more convenient to
> be sure. :-)
Well, there's quotes for starters. Word, for example, is notorious for
using "smart" quotes which aren't smart at all. Actually, several common
punctuation types get messed up; quotes, single apostrophes and ellipses,
for starters. Oh, and apparently a double-dash gets converted to an
em-dash.
So, for example, if you create a document in Word - no fancy formatting,
no colors, etc, just plain old text - then copy and paste the results to
another app, the results can be complete and utter crap, because what gets
copied has absolutely no relationship to what *should* be getting copied.
Apparently - and this is kinda cute - MS came up with charset
windows-1252, the notion being to take plain ASCII and stuff some extra
gooey goodness in the bits that weren't used. Interesting quote I found,
though:
"Don't use Microsoft's non-standard character sets (such as positions
145 through 148 for the windows-1252 charset). Not only are they
nonstandard, they conflict with the standards - the specification for HTML
clearly forbids the use of character positions 128 through 159, because
Unicode and ISO 10646 reserve positions 128 to 159 as control characters."
So what's happening is people use MS tools to create pages - or content
for pages - which, when those pages actually get displayed, spew garbage,
because MS's tools not only insist on changing what you entered to what
they think you should have entered, they even get _that_ wrong and produce
crud which violates everything in sight.
And that's all just dealing with plain ASCII text... at least, that's what
it starts as.
Don't even get me started on the abortion that is the \r\n line delimiter.
Pick one; using both only makes sense if you're a typewriter.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
use netcat
nc hostname port
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGGuqld90bcYOAWPYRArsgAJ9YypvaRzrL9mCAtA8mtM4Y5jCvfACeL9SB
8KajYvfU7vves2Tzv/To2dM=
=S7+4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
when you find yourself in a hole, first thing to do, is stop digging...
The Ghost In The Machine
<pan.2007.04.10....@ncoldns.com>:
> [snips]
>
> On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 11:32:18 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
>>> Picky, picky. At least with telnet I _can_ get a proper response - and
>>> know the server's working (or not) as a result. Try that with rdesktop.
>>> Or even ssh.
>>
>> Hm. I wonder if 'ssh -p 80 -c none' would work?
>
> In a word, no.
>
>>>> Microsoft. What did you want to make "non-standard" today?
>>>
>>> "I'll take ASCII text for 100, Alex..."
>>>
>>
>> Hm...OK, now I'm curious. Precisely where did Microsoft
>> botch ASCII? Unless you're referring to the CR/LF fiasco,
>> which is one of the few things Microsoft actually did
>> *right*, annoying as it is; newline is more convenient to
>> be sure. :-)
>
> Well, there's quotes for starters. Word, for example, is notorious for
> using "smart" quotes which aren't smart at all. Actually, several common
> punctuation types get messed up; quotes, single apostrophes and ellipses,
> for starters. Oh, and apparently a double-dash gets converted to an
> em-dash.
>
> So, for example, if you create a document in Word - no fancy formatting,
> no colors, etc, just plain old text - then copy and paste the results to
> another app, the results can be complete and utter crap, because what gets
> copied has absolutely no relationship to what *should* be getting copied.
Ah....that's a good one. I've noticed that myself.
One also wonders whether Microsoft had any influence in the message
showing up in my Character Map (a little Gnome applet based on Unicode):
U+0022 QUOTATION MARK
[...]
Notes:
* neutral (vertical), used as opening or closing quotation mark
* preferred characters in English for paired quotation marks are
U+201C LEFT DOUBLE QUOTATION MARK & U+201D RIGHT DOUBLE QUOTATION MARK
For its part U+002D HYPHEN-MINUS mentions U+2013 EN DASH and
U+2022 MINUS SIGN.
For its part oowriter2 did the following:
This is a “quoted string” in oowriter2.
Now part of this might be because my copy of vi attempts
to do UTF-8/Unicode (and generally succeeds, but slrn
botches viewing such later on), but clearly it also
replaced the quotes.
>
> Apparently - and this is kinda cute - MS came up with charset
> windows-1252, the notion being to take plain ASCII and stuff some extra
> gooey goodness in the bits that weren't used. Interesting quote I found,
> though:
>
> "Don't use Microsoft's non-standard character sets (such as positions
> 145 through 148 for the windows-1252 charset). Not only are they
> nonstandard, they conflict with the standards - the specification for HTML
> clearly forbids the use of character positions 128 through 159, because
> Unicode and ISO 10646 reserve positions 128 to 159 as control characters."
Most of these are explicitly defined as well.
U+0082 = BREAK PERMITTED HERE
U+0083 = NO BREAK HERE
U+0084 = formerly known as INDEX
U+0085 = NEXT LINE (NEL)
U+0086 = START OF SELECTED AREA
U+0087 = END OF SELECTED AREA
I could go on; I have no idea why these are in there but
they're in there. None of these are printable characters.
>
> So what's happening is people use MS tools to create pages - or content
> for pages - which, when those pages actually get displayed, spew garbage,
> because MS's tools not only insist on changing what you entered to what
> they think you should have entered, they even get _that_ wrong and produce
> crud which violates everything in sight.
>
> And that's all just dealing with plain ASCII text... at least, that's what
> it starts as.
>
> Don't even get me started on the abortion that is the \r\n line delimiter.
> Pick one; using both only makes sense if you're a typewriter.
>
Well, like I said, Microsoft implemented the spec right,
but the spec isn't exactly the most favorable for
convenience -- except maybe for ASR-33, the prevalent
technology once upon a time. Unix picked newline for
a line terminator, and it's worked up to this day.
The odd thing is that U+0085 is now available for next
line, though I'm not sure if that's intended to replace
newline or not -- and I doubt anyone will bother at this
late stage, especially since UTF-8 requires U+0085 to take
two character codes anyway.
(The subject botches can be funny. One can see 1252 in
there, along with a lot of other crap. ;-) )
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. It'll Fix Everything(tm).
The Ghost In The Machine
<war...@eskimo.com>
wrote
on Mon, 9 Apr 2007 18:38:45 -0700
<5e6re4-...@dragon.myth>:
Oooh, fun. I've got three variants.
net-analyze/gnu-netcat
net-analyze/netcat
net-analyze/netcat6
:-)
I'll have to see what these can do.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. It'll Fix Everything(tm).
--
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:29:19 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> "Don't use Microsoft's non-standard character sets (such as positions
>> 145 through 148 for the windows-1252 charset). Not only are they
>> nonstandard, they conflict with the standards - the specification for HTML
>> clearly forbids the use of character positions 128 through 159, because
>> Unicode and ISO 10646 reserve positions 128 to 159 as control characters."
>
> Most of these are explicitly defined as well.
>
> U+0082 = BREAK PERMITTED HERE
> U+0083 = NO BREAK HERE
> U+0084 = formerly known as INDEX
> U+0085 = NEXT LINE (NEL)
> U+0086 = START OF SELECTED AREA
> U+0087 = END OF SELECTED AREA
>
> I could go on; I have no idea why these are in there but
> they're in there. None of these are printable characters.
The entire block is reserved for non-printing control characters... so of
course MS decided to use them for printing, non-control characters, thus
breaking things all over the place. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
> ASR-33, the prevalent technology once upon a time. Unix picked newline
> for a line terminator, and it's worked up to this day.
And others picked carriage return, so it's \r or \n, depending on your
system. However, whichever it is, at least it's consistent, and a single
character.
> The odd thing is
> that U+0085 is now available for next line, though I'm not sure if
> that's intended to replace newline or not -- and I doubt anyone will
> bother at this late stage, especially since UTF-8 requires U+0085 to
> take two character codes anyway.
Even a two-character code would be okay, as long as it were consistent.
What we have instead is virtually every system under the sun using a
single character, and MS stuff using a two-character sequence, presumably
just to show the world how poorly conceived MS crud really is - gratuitous
incompatibility.
If everyone's using the same two-character sequence, then it's a little
less pleasant than a single character, but at least it's the _same_ two
character sequence.
The Ghost In The Machine
<pan.2007.04.10....@ncoldns.com>:
> [snips]
>
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:29:19 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
>> "Don't use Microsoft's non-standard character sets (such as positions
>>> 145 through 148 for the windows-1252 charset). Not only are they
>>> nonstandard, they conflict with the standards - the specification for HTML
>>> clearly forbids the use of character positions 128 through 159, because
>>> Unicode and ISO 10646 reserve positions 128 to 159 as control characters."
>>
>> Most of these are explicitly defined as well.
>>
>> U+0082 = BREAK PERMITTED HERE
>> U+0083 = NO BREAK HERE
>> U+0084 = formerly known as INDEX
>> U+0085 = NEXT LINE (NEL)
>> U+0086 = START OF SELECTED AREA
>> U+0087 = END OF SELECTED AREA
>>
>> I could go on; I have no idea why these are in there but
>> they're in there. None of these are printable characters.
>
> The entire block is reserved for non-printing control characters... so of
> course MS decided to use them for printing, non-control characters, thus
> breaking things all over the place. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
But so Microsoft. :-/
Of course IBM had their own issues -- the PC character
encoding presumably exists to this day, though the borders
are probably now used only by very very old BASIC games. :-)
http://jimprice.com/jim-asc.shtml
shows both IBM PC Extended ASCII and Microsoft's encodings,
about midway down. No doubt the smiley faces and card
suits and other such ended up somewhere in Unicode (black
spade in particular moved to U+2660; the white and black
smileys are at U+263A and U+263B).
Probably another It Seemed Like A Good Thought At The
Time(tm) idea.
>
>> ASR-33, the prevalent technology once upon a time. Unix picked newline
>> for a line terminator, and it's worked up to this day.
>
> And others picked carriage return, so it's \r or \n, depending on your
> system.
Only ones I'm aware of there are MacOS and Daisy MAESTRO,
which no one outside of the CAD genre's probably heard
of. :-) (It was an x86 based attempt at unseating Mentor
Graphics. It didn't quite work in unseating Mentor,
mutated into Daisy DNIX which was a horrid Unix botch
from the word go, ultimately got swallowed up by somebody
(I forget who but it was one of Mentor's competitors)
and ultimately dropped into The Great Bin.)
Another environment -- EZWriter -- used NULs. (I have no
idea why I remember that. It was a 1980-era attempt at
an editor/word processor.)
VMS had some interesting ideas of its own. Prior to
version 3.something, all VMS text files used a counted
arrangement -- basically, each record was preceded by
a shortword (in VAX order, which is identical to Intel
little-endian order) indicating its length in bytes.
3.something introduced the concepts of StreamCR and StreamLF,
which terminated records using (duh) either CR or LF.
Apollo DOMAIN went through a mutation or two of its own;
originally it went the VAX route except it used four bytes
and big-endian internally; I believe the records had a pad
byte as well if the length was odd (Apollo was originally
68000-based, which didn't like odd addresses). Later on
it introduced a new object type which used newlines to
terminate records. Sadly, it too is in The Great Bin,
along with the Amiga and Daisy's hardware (only the last
really deserved it!); the last Apollo DOMAIN node I saw
was in a store specializing in selling used and refurbished
computer hardware, and that was awhile ago.
</alt.folklore.computers :-) >
> However, whichever it is, at least it's consistent, and a single
> character.
And easy to search for.
>
>> The odd thing is
>> that U+0085 is now available for next line, though I'm not sure if
>> that's intended to replace newline or not -- and I doubt anyone will
>> bother at this late stage, especially since UTF-8 requires U+0085 to
>> take two character codes anyway.
Argh. I hate it when I do that -- I meant a two-*byte* sequence.
U+0085 = 0xC2 0x85 (or \302\205) in UTF-8, of course.
>
> Even a two-character code would be okay, as long as it were consistent.
> What we have instead is virtually every system under the sun using a
> single character, and MS stuff using a two-character sequence, presumably
> just to show the world how poorly conceived MS crud really is - gratuitous
> incompatibility.
>
> If everyone's using the same two-character sequence, then it's a little
> less pleasant than a single character, but at least it's the _same_ two
> character sequence.
>
Indeed. Of course the CRLF decision probably was a little
more complicated than you've apparently made it sound --
the CRLF decision was made way way back in the good old
DOS days (along with other lamentable decisions such
as backslash, / for options instead of -, single drive
letters, the horrid INT 10H abstractions, and the 80H
oddity in INT 13H, though the last two should probably be
blamed on/credited to IBM's BIOS engineers; there was also
the lamentable Intel decision -- which still permeates us
to this day -- to make the 8086 source-code compatible
with the 8080 or Z80, giving us paragraph selectors and
very odd machine code).
At the time, it probably made some sense to somebody.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #40490127:
for(;;) ;
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 14:31:41 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
[assorted interesting bits removed... good post...]
>> If everyone's using the same two-character sequence, then it's a little
>> less pleasant than a single character, but at least it's the _same_ two
>> character sequence.
>>
>
> Indeed. Of course the CRLF decision probably was a little
> more complicated than you've apparently made it sound --
Oh, I'm sure some committee deliberated over it for at least an hour
before making the wrong decision. :)
Yeah, there were probably arguments for it somewhere, but good goat, it's
not like there wasn't precedence for using a single character solution -
and avoiding all the insane juggling one has to do to cope with end of
line conversions.
Larry Qualig
Poor Kelsey... doesn't quite understand computers yet.
CR+LF (two chars) was used long before MS-DOS was ever created. Take
the telnet protocol (as in the subject of this thread)... the telnet
protocol states that CR LF sequence means "end of line." Telnet is 35
years old. Much older than MS-Dos unless he thinks that MS-DOS was
written in 1972.
Actually, just about every internet protocol uses the CR+LF as an end-
of-line delimiter. As did OS's from DEC (RT-11) and CP/M and OS/2 and
etc.
But damn history and FACTS. None of that ever gets in the way of
Kelsey's anti-MS rant where everything is brain-dead and a "genius"
like Kelsey always has the perfect solution.
chrisv
>> Indeed. Of course the CRLF decision probably was a little
>> more complicated than you've apparently made it sound --
>
>Oh, I'm sure some committee deliberated over it for at least an hour
>before making the wrong decision. :)
Hehe.
The Ghost In The Machine
<chr...@nospam.invalid>
wrote
on Wed, 11 Apr 2007 07:58:07 -0500
<pqmp13pnclemqll7e...@4ax.com>:
I'll admit I'm inclined to agree. :-) Of course, one
issue is that the old teletypes needed delays in order
to move the carriage around. I forget the exact formulae
but they're probably documented in 'man termios'. (And
if they're not, they're documented somewhere.)
So two characters, one with variable delay, one with fixed
delay, were probably a natural for ASR-33s -- which might have
been current in the 1960's.
Of course, DOS and the PC were developed a little later.
Say, the late 1970's. (The 5150 came out in September
1981, six years after the 5100, and about the same time
as the System/23 DataMaster.)
http://oldcomputers.net/index.html
One wonders. A Google on "MS DOS CRLF decision details"
isn't horribly enlightening as to "why", although it's
not too bad on the "what".
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #10239993:
char * f(char *p) {char *q = malloc(strlen(p)); strcpy(q,p); return q; }