[News] Microsoft's Most Respectable Shills and FUDMeisters
Roy Schestowitz
http://i.n.com.com/i/ne/p/2006/1.CIMG1795_550x574.jpg
These are the two people who told the world that Firefox is a mess, only
later to admit it was a joke. I have just read somewhere that another fake
Wi-Fi=related flaw in the Mac (another baseless FUD) came from that very
same Microsoft-funded 'conference'. What is going on in this world?!?!?!
Microsoft shills could be sued for slander. The damage to the reputation of
Firefox has been done and someone could be held accountable.
Claimed security hole in Firefox "just a joke"
http://www.heise-security.co.uk/news/78970
Firefox flaw overrated
,----[ Quote ]
| I do not have 30 undisclosed Firefox vulnerabilities, nor did I
| ever make this claim. I have no undisclosed Firefox
| vulnerabilities. The person who was speaking with me made this
| claim, and I honestly have no idea if he has them or not.
|
| I apologize to everyone involved, and I hope I have made
| everything as clear as possible.
`----
ToorCon ("Firefox security is a mess") sponsored by Microsoft
,----[ Quote ]
| Lately, I read the headline: "Open Source browser Firefox is so
| critically flawed that it is impossible to fix, according to two
| hackers." Further on, in the ZDNet article I read: "The hackers claim
| they know of about 30 unpatched Firefox flaws. They don't plan to
| disclose them, instead holding onto the bugs."
|
| Since that sounds suspicious, I decided to start searching for
| connections with MS. Easy enough, here it is...
`----
Peter Hayes
> You have got to see this!
>
> http://i.n.com.com/i/ne/p/2006/1.CIMG1795_550x574.jpg
>
> These are the two people who told the world that Firefox is a mess,
> only later to admit it was a joke. I have just read somewhere that
> another fake Wi-Fi=related flaw in the Mac (another baseless FUD) came
> from that very same Microsoft-funded 'conference'. What is going on in
> this world?!?!?!
What I don't understand is just why Microsoft needs to get involved in
this sort of nonsense, assuming of course they're behind this latest
double-FUD.
The AARD code, Go Corp, Mozaic, Halloween, letters from the dead, just a
few of a whole litany of dirty tricks, yet Microsoft's control of the
desktop has been solid ever since Windows 3.x that they've no need to
stoop to these tactics.
Peter
Richard Rasker
They're just like other totalitarian regimes: they feel that in order to
remain at the top, they need to exert absolute control, ruthless
suppression of anything even remotely resembling (upcoming) competition,
an army of astroturfers, and of course a well-oiled propaganda machine.
Losing out on even the smallest deal or admitting the superiority of
anything but their own products isn't merely undesirable - it's
unthinkable. Facts to the contrary are ignored, reasoned away using
logic and calculations which would make any mathematician slit his own
throat rather than swallow them, or massaged into some simile of reality
which, when examined closely, nevertheless is as palatable as a concrete
meringue.
For example, just look at how ardently Erik keeps using all kinds of
sophisms and "binary" answers to support his "facts", in order to deny the
generally accepted fact that that in real life, Linux is vastly more
secure than Windows.
It's quite pathetic, really.
Richard Rasker
--
Linetec Translation and Technology Services
DFS
> ...the generally accepted fact that that in real life, Linux is
> vastly more secure than Windows.
But it's not:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2004-11-29-honeypot_x.htm
Sean Inglis
This link (to a 2 year old article) doesn't seem to support your
contention. What am I missing?
Peter Köhlmann
Nothing. DumbFullShit is unable to read
--
Windows - How do you want to be exploited today?
Roy Schestowitz
> Sean Inglis wrote:
>
>>
>> DFS wrote:
>>> Richard Rasker wrote:
>>>
>>> > ...the generally accepted fact that that in real life, Linux is
>>> > vastly more secure than Windows.
>>>
>>> But it's not:
>>>
>>>
>
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2004-11-29-honeypot_x.htm
>>
>> This link (to a 2 year old article) doesn't seem to support your
>> contention. What am I missing?
>
> Nothing. DumbFullShit is unable to read
Oh, dear. Check out the formal submission from the folks who shrewdly
discovered 'flaws' in Firefox.
http://toorcon.org/2006/cfp/revmischa.html
How the heck did any reporter take these guys seriously in the first place?
Is the media insane or did it simply decide to cash in by trolling with
unfounded 'humour' (or MS FUD). We should be filled with amazement over
this...
The Ghost In The Machine
<nospam@dfs_.com>
wrote
on Wed, 4 Oct 2006 10:13:10 -0400
<vhPUg.17014$vi3....@bignews3.bellsouth.net>:
The table tells part of the tale:
Platform Total attacks Attacks / day Attacks / hour
XP SP1 139,024 8,177 341
OS X 138,647 8,155 339
Win SBS 25,222 1,400 61
XP SP2 1,386 82 3.4
XP with ZoneAlarm 848 50 2.1
Linspire 795 46 1.9
though I'll admit I'm not sure what a successful attack is in this
venue. All this tells me is that Linux-specific attacks are fewer; one
can draw no conclusions as to how well Linux repels them without
some additional information.
gives a better picture, but still over 75% of attacks are marked as
"other" on the world map.
http://isc.sans.org/port_report.php
suggests that the top port this cycle is port 1434
(after table sort). /etc/services identifies this
prt as "ms-sql-m". The next two are 1026 and 1433.
1026 is not identified in /etc/services for some reason
(http://www.linklogger.com/UDP1026.htm says it's a Calendar
Access Protocol). 1433 is "ms-sql-s".
1434 - ms-sql-m, 861378 reports
1026 - cap, 437951
1433 - ms-sql-s, 388023
445 - microsoft-ds, 316390
1027 - DCOM-related?, 313327
139 - netbios-ssn, 233179
135 - epmap, 224698
25 - snmp, 174777
137 - netbios-ns, 170065
32804 - unknown, maybe LDAP, 166704 (only 4 targets)
That's maybe 4 MS related, 2 Netbios/MS related, 3 unknown,
and 1 shared. (I don't know if Calendar Access Protocol
is Microsoft or Solaris. Epmap is somewhere. 32804 is
probably a brute-force attack against a specific target.
Given this information *alone*, I can't tell if the port
25 attacks are specifically targeted at an implementation
such as Sendmail, Qmail, or (most likely, IMO) Exchange.)
Again, no indications on how well Linux repels such
attacks, though since Linux doesn't actually *use* 1434,
1026, 1433, and 445, it's far safer than systems that do
against those particular, specific attacks. That's 74%
of the top 10 right there; I don't know how much of the
total, though.
(139 *is* used by Linux if one uses SAMBA.)
So, now which OS appears safer? I still don't really
*know* here, but I'm leaning towards Linux just on this
info alone, if only because it is actually processing fewer
attempts (a packet towards a closed port gets dropped on
the cyberfloor, absent issues such as IP fragmentation
attacks, in either system).
However, one can't guarantee the house if the door's left
open, and sloppy sysadmin work can bring down any system.
In any event, AFAIK my system's not been compromised, but
it's certainly been attacked -- and I even have local logs
that can show evidence of such, if necessary. (Somebody
in Japan needs a real good talking to. :-) Probably a
bored student.)
Various automated nasties, many on the ports above,
are perambulating around; some of them make their way
to my firewall -- which, BTW, is *not* a Linux box, for
accuracy's sake. (Nor is it Windows, of course. I may
be longwinded but I'm not totally brain-dead.)
Just for the sake of curiosity: port 631 (CUPS) got 15,779 reports,
which is about 1.8% of the 861378 reports on port 1434. Because
of the way ISC pages through ports I'm not going to bother with 2049.
It'll be interesting, in a slightly sick sort of way, to see how
Microsoft Windows Vista(tm) will fix this situation.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #992398129:
unsigned u; if(u < 0) ...
Linonut
> They're just like other totalitarian regimes: they feel that in order to
> remain at the top, they need to exert absolute control, ruthless
> suppression of anything even remotely resembling (upcoming) competition,
> an army of astroturfers, and of course a well-oiled propaganda machine.
That's going into my tagline file, unless you have a strong objection.
--
"When we do a new version we put in lots of new things that people (ask) for.
And so, in no sense, is stability a reason to move to a new version. It's
never a reason." -- Bill Gates, FOCUS interview
http://www.cantrip.org/nobugs.html
B Gruff
>
> The table tells part of the tale:
>
> Platform Total attacks Attacks / day
> Attacks / hour
> XP SP1 139,024 8,177 341
> OS X 138,647 8,155 339
> Win SBS 25,222 1,400 61
> XP SP2 1,386 82 3.4
> XP with ZoneAlarm 848 50 2.1
> Linspire 795 46 1.9
>
> though I'll admit I'm not sure what a successful attack is in this
> venue. All this tells me is that Linux-specific attacks are fewer; one
> can draw no conclusions as to how well Linux repels them without
> some additional information.
Is that saying "You are 100 times better off with a S/W firewall than
without one?
Peter Hayes
wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, DFS
> <nospam@dfs_.com>
> wrote
> on Wed, 4 Oct 2006 10:13:10 -0400
> <vhPUg.17014$vi3....@bignews3.bellsouth.net>:
>> Richard Rasker wrote:
>>
>>> ...the generally accepted fact that that in real life, Linux is
>>> vastly more secure than Windows.
>>
>> But it's not:
>>
>> http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2004-11-29-
>> honeypot_x.htm
It's not obvious how this link supports your claim.
> The table tells part of the tale:
>
> Platform Total attacks Attacks / day Attacks / hour
> XP SP1 139,024 8,177 341
> OS X 138,647 8,155 339
> Win SBS 25,222 1,400 61
> XP SP2 1,386 82 3.4
> XP with ZoneAlarm 848 50 2.1
> Linspire 795 46 1.9
Why did they run the Mac with the firewall disabled when a default
install comes with the firewall enabled?
--
Peter
William Poaster
> Sean Inglis wrote:
>
>>
>> DFS wrote:
>>> Richard Rasker wrote:
>>>
>>> > ...the generally accepted fact that that in real life, Linux is
>>> > vastly more secure than Windows.
>>>
>>> But it's not:
>>>
>>>
> http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2004-11-29-honeypot_x.htm
>>
>> This link (to a 2 year old article) doesn't seem to support your
>> contention. What am I missing?
>
> Nothing. DumbFullShit is unable to read
Nothing new there, he never could.
This is from 2005, & stated *quite* clearly that "Unpatched Linux Systems
Last Longer than Windows"
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1752343,00.asp
The Honeypot Project: http://project.honeynet.org/
--
Never argue with a wintroll, they drag
you *down* to their level of stupidity,
then beat you with their experience.
-- Paraphrased, with acknowledgement to Dilbert --
The Ghost In The Machine
<bbg...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote
on Wed, 04 Oct 2006 17:51:10 +0100
<4oi73fF...@individual.net>:
Hard to say. Certainly 82 versus 8155 is interesting
evidence, but I don't know what an "attack" is in this
context. I tend to equate it with incoming packets,
as opposed to successful incoming packets.
Perhaps the latter is in fact meant. If so, Linspire has
some security problems -- though 1.9 versus 341 suggests
they are far fewer than unfirewalled XP, and a bit less
than with firewalled XP.
Not immune by any means, but not all that vulnerable, either.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Linux makes one use one's mind.
Windows just messes with one's head.
Richard Rasker
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Richard Rasker belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> They're just like other totalitarian regimes: they feel that in order to
>> remain at the top, they need to exert absolute control, ruthless
>> suppression of anything even remotely resembling (upcoming) competition,
>> an army of astroturfers, and of course a well-oiled propaganda machine.
>
> That's going into my tagline file, unless you have a strong objection.
Be my guest.
Larry Qualig
William Poaster wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 16:31:52 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
> > Sean Inglis wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> DFS wrote:
> >>> Richard Rasker wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > ...the generally accepted fact that that in real life, Linux is
> >>> > vastly more secure than Windows.
> >>>
> >>> But it's not:
> >>>
> >>>
> > http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2004-11-29-honeypot_x.htm
> >>
> >> This link (to a 2 year old article) doesn't seem to support your
> >> contention. What am I missing?
> >
> > Nothing. DumbFullShit is unable to read
>
> Nothing new there, he never could.
> This is from 2005, & stated *quite* clearly that "Unpatched Linux Systems
> Last Longer than Windows"
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1752343,00.asp
The closing paragraph in this article reads:
<quote>
Finally, the researchers believe that "based purely on economies of
scale, attackers are targeting Win32-based systems and their users, as
this demographic represents the largest percentage of install base."
</quote>
I guess that pretty much shoots down the theories in "The biggest
target paradigm" thread where several have claimed that the large
install base has nothing to do with why hackers target a particular
system.
Hadron Quark
> William Poaster wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 16:31:52 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>
>> > Sean Inglis wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> DFS wrote:
>> >>> Richard Rasker wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> > ...the generally accepted fact that that in real life, Linux is
>> >>> > vastly more secure than Windows.
>> >>>
>> >>> But it's not:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> > http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2004-11-29-honeypot_x.htm
>> >>
>> >> This link (to a 2 year old article) doesn't seem to support your
>> >> contention. What am I missing?
>> >
>> > Nothing. DumbFullShit is unable to read
>>
>> Nothing new there, he never could.
>> This is from 2005, & stated *quite* clearly that "Unpatched Linux Systems
>> Last Longer than Windows"
>> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1752343,00.asp
>
> The closing paragraph in this article reads:
>
> <quote>
> Finally, the researchers believe that "based purely on economies of
> scale, attackers are targeting Win32-based systems and their users, as
> this demographic represents the largest percentage of install base."
> </quote>
And this is fairly obvious to any of us with common sense who
know how most viruses are contracted in Windows - by social engineering
and manipulation. If you convince someone he has to execute something :
he will. In this respect Linux is *LESS* secure - all it needs is some
malicious bash script in those run under "sudo" scripts out there for
installing NVidia drivers etc. It's truly scary how Linux can put the
nOOb at risk like that........
>
>
> I guess that pretty much shoots down the theories in "The biggest
> target paradigm" thread where several have claimed that the large
> install base has nothing to do with why hackers target a particular
> system.
>
--
Balls' Law:
The angle of the dangle is directly proportional to the heat
of the meat provided that the thrusts of the busts are constant.
Hadron Quark
> And this is fairly obvious to any of us with common sense who
> know how most viruses are contracted in Windows - by social engineering
> and manipulation. If you convince someone he has to execute something :
> he will. In this respect Linux is *LESS* secure - all it needs is some
> malicious bash script in those run under "sudo" scripts out there for
> installing NVidia drivers etc. It's truly scary how Linux can put the
> nOOb at risk like that........
On that subject:
,----
| http://www.getdigital.de/index/0xcd/lng/1
|
| "Social Engineering Specialist - because there is no patch for human
| stupidity"."
`----
Larry Qualig
In all fairness social engineering is a big part of it but Windows does
make it extremely easy for users to "screw it up" compared to other
OS's. Things like hiding file extensions, click to run a downloaded app
or email attachment, not encouraging non-Admin accounts and not using
the NTFS "Execute" file permissions simply make it easier for n00bs to
shoot themselves in the foot.
Look at the first post in the "Sometimes Microsoft users get on my
nerves" thread. The guy writes that some people don't know the
difference between a screen and a computer. I don't know how many times
people have looked at my Sony monitor and said... "So you have a Sony
computer." Most typical computer users are clueless and they will
always be targets for social engineering exploits.
Although Windows makes it easy for users to screw things up... much of
this is for historical and "backward compatibility" reasons. Windows
became mainstream with the release of Windows 3.0 which was released in
early 1990. For all practical purposes there was no internet at the
time. There were no email viruses or any of the crap we have today.
With an install base of 100's of millions of users (thing about how
large that number is for a moment) they couldn't simply change the
fundemental usage model of Windows, break backward compatibility with
apps because the 100's of millions of users (most of which aren't very
computer savvy) would no longer be able to use their computers and
their apps. So yes... I think that there's a lot that could be improved
with the Windows usage model but there's a legitimate reason why many
of these things are the way they are.
Ron House
So let me get this straight: the vanilla linux machine had 0.5% of the
attacks as the vanilla doze machine, and still marginally fewer attacks
than the doze machine hyped up with a professional (non-ms) firewall
(you know, the kind of thing that you won't be able to get for vista).
That's your definition of "but it's not" more secure than windows?
With you on the payroll, bill doesn't need enemies, does he?
--
Ron House ho...@usq.edu.au
http://www.sci.usq.edu.au/staff/house
Ethics website: http://www.sci.usq.edu.au/staff/house/goodness
DFS
> DFS wrote:
>> Richard Rasker wrote:
>>
>>
>>> ...the generally accepted fact that that in real life, Linux is
>>> vastly more secure than Windows.
>>
>>
>> But it's not:
>>
>> http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2004-11-29-honeypot_x.htm
>
> So let me get this straight: the vanilla linux machine had 0.5% of the
> attacks as the vanilla doze machine, and still marginally fewer
> attacks than the doze machine hyped up with a professional (non-ms)
> firewall (you know, the kind of thing that you won't be able to get
> for vista). That's your definition of "but it's not" more secure than
> windows?
> With you on the payroll, bill doesn't need enemies, does he?
Take another look at the data, and read the results, and try to understand
the salient point: attacks does not equal breached.
Gregory Shearman
gregory@lappy ~ $ eix app-admin/sudo
* app-admin/sudo
Available versions: 1.6.8_p9 1.6.8_p9-r2 ~1.6.8_p11 ~1.6.8_p12
~1.6.8_p12-r1
Installed: none
Homepage: http://www.sudo.ws/
Description: Allows users or groups to run commands as other
users
=======
Ooh Looky! I don't have sudo installed on ANY of my machines!
Just shot you down in flames, eh?
--
Regards,
Gregory.
"Ding-a-ding-dang,My Dang-a-long ling-long"
Hadron Quark
It didn't take a huge leap in intelligence to realise that "sudo" is not
the point. It is an example. The point is that having to execute any
script in root mode could open a can of worms : sudo or budo or tango -
whatever.
Gregory Shearman
> It didn't take a huge leap in intelligence to realise that "sudo" is not
> the point. It is an example. The point is that having to execute any
> script in root mode could open a can of worms : sudo or budo or tango -
> whatever.
Ooooh! I just executed rm -rf / in root mode.... how do I get my files
back???
Hadron Quark
> Hadron Quark wrote:
>
>> It didn't take a huge leap in intelligence to realise that "sudo" is not
>> the point. It is an example. The point is that having to execute any
>> script in root mode could open a can of worms : sudo or budo or tango -
>> whatever.
>
> Ooooh! I just executed rm -rf / in root mode.... how do I get my files
> back???
You cant. Thanks for reinforcing my point.
Most nOObs wont spot that elusive "rm -rf" or "find" equivalent hidden
in the "how to" bash script.
Phew, for a minute I though you were blind to the dangers. Good to see
you're not as blind as the COLA gang to the potential of "howto" misuse.
The knobs you assure us you dont need the command shell are living in
cloud cuckoo land as any google of Linux forums will show you.
Gregory Shearman
> Gregory Shearman <ZekeG...@netscape.net> writes:
>
>> Hadron Quark wrote:
>>
>>> It didn't take a huge leap in intelligence to realise that "sudo" is not
>>> the point. It is an example. The point is that having to execute any
>>> script in root mode could open a can of worms : sudo or budo or tango -
>>> whatever.
>>
>> Ooooh! I just executed rm -rf / in root mode.... how do I get my files
>> back???
>
> You cant. Thanks for reinforcing my point.
You have no point...
Unless your point is that it is dangerous to use commands as root WHEN YOU
DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING!!!!
> Most nOObs wont spot that elusive "rm -rf" or "find" equivalent hidden
> in the "how to" bash script.
WTF???
If you don't know what you are doing, and the "howto" tells you to execute a
command as "root" THEN DON'T DO IT!!!!
keeeriiiist!
Hadron tells us:
"Gee, you can wreck your linux computer if you are a newbie and you throw it
against a wall."
Thanks for that, Sherlock.
> Phew, for a minute I though you were blind to the dangers. Good to see
> you're not as blind as the COLA gang to the potential of "howto" misuse.
Howtos?
If you don't understand what you are doing, THEN DON'T DO IT!!!
I use them, but I usually know what I'm doing.
> The knobs you assure us you dont need the command shell are living in
> cloud cuckoo land as any google of Linux forums will show you.
If they assure us that they don't use the command shell then perhaps they
don't.
My lady doesn't use it, not ever... and she uses linux....
Hadron Quark
> Hadron Quark wrote:
>
>> Gregory Shearman <ZekeG...@netscape.net> writes:
>>
>>> Hadron Quark wrote:
>>>
>>>> It didn't take a huge leap in intelligence to realise that "sudo" is not
>>>> the point. It is an example. The point is that having to execute any
>>>> script in root mode could open a can of worms : sudo or budo or tango -
>>>> whatever.
>>>
>>> Ooooh! I just executed rm -rf / in root mode.... how do I get my files
>>> back???
>>
>> You cant. Thanks for reinforcing my point.
>
> You have no point...
>
> Unless your point is that it is dangerous to use commands as root WHEN YOU
> DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING!!!!
Err, yes. That is my point.
>
>> Most nOObs wont spot that elusive "rm -rf" or "find" equivalent hidden
>> in the "how to" bash script.
>
> WTF???
>
> If you don't know what you are doing, and the "howto" tells you to execute a
> command as "root" THEN DON'T DO IT!!!!
You really are that deaf dumb and blind to the real world aren't you?
The whole issue of this "social engineering" has gone whistling right
over your head.
>
> keeeriiiist!
Indeed.
>
> Hadron tells us:
>
> "Gee, you can wreck your linux computer if you are a newbie and you throw it
> against a wall."
>
> Thanks for that, Sherlock.
Err, we know all that. Its the entire point. Are you purposely missing
it? Its as big as a barn door you know.
>
>> Phew, for a minute I though you were blind to the dangers. Good to see
>> you're not as blind as the COLA gang to the potential of "howto" misuse.
>
> Howtos?
>
> If you don't understand what you are doing, THEN DON'T DO IT!!!
>
You can hear the "whooshing" noise.
Do you not understand this simple thing? Look, I'll give you a simple
example.
nOObs who cant get their sound card working get frustrated. They head
off to "how to" land where Roy Loonix assures everyone he has a "perfect
how to". nOOb follows his scripts using cut and paste. nOOb doesnt really
know what "ls" does never mind "dd" : and considering so many of you
tell us YOU never use the command line, this is not too surprising is
it? Is it?
Result : hacked web page scripts corrupts nOObs pc.
This "dont do it if you dont understand it" defence is elitist
bullshit. Do you know what happens when you run your favourite news
client? Do you really? Do you check every source line? No. So grow up
and recognise potential pitfalls when they are slapping you in the face
with a giant haddock.
> I use them, but I usually know what I'm doing.
>
>> The knobs you assure us you dont need the command shell are living in
>> cloud cuckoo land as any google of Linux forums will show you.
>
> If they assure us that they don't use the command shell then perhaps they
> don't.
Most do. Its inevitable.
>
> My lady doesn't use it, not ever... and she uses linux....
Which you install for her. Remember?
--
Dijkstra probably hates me
(Linus Torvalds, in kernel/sched.c)
Gregory Shearman
>> Unless your point is that it is dangerous to use commands as root WHEN
>> YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING!!!!
>
> Err, yes. That is my point.
No it is not. You have no point.
>> If you don't know what you are doing, and the "howto" tells you to
>> execute a command as "root" THEN DON'T DO IT!!!!
>
> You really are that deaf dumb and blind to the real world aren't you?
Not at all. I simply believe that if you don't know what you are doing, you
don't touch it. If people are silly enough to ignore such advice then they
deserve the trouble they get.
> The whole issue of this "social engineering" has gone whistling right
> over your head.
Social engineering... a stupid description for plain old gullibility. Think
of it as Darwin in action.
> Err, we know all that. Its the entire point. Are you purposely missing
> it? Its as big as a barn door you know.
You have no point.
>> Howtos?
>>
>> If you don't understand what you are doing, THEN DON'T DO IT!!!
>>
>
> You can hear the "whooshing" noise.
Yeah... That's my argument going over your head.
>
> Do you not understand this simple thing? Look, I'll give you a simple
> example.
>
> nOObs who cant get their sound card working get frustrated. They head
> off to "how to" land where Roy Loonix assures everyone he has a "perfect
> how to". nOOb follows his scripts using cut and paste. nOOb doesnt really
> know what "ls" does never mind "dd" : and considering so many of you
> tell us YOU never use the command line, this is not too surprising is
> it? Is it?
Think of it as Darwin in Action.
I was a "noob" when linux was young. Don't give me shit about those so
stupid they shouldn't be let loose on the world. Linux today is a piece of
piss to install and run compared with what we used to deal with. If YOU
can't deal with it then YOU go back to windows too.
> Result : hacked web page scripts corrupts nOObs pc.
>
> This "dont do it if you dont understand it" defence is elitist
> bullshit. Do you know what happens when you run your favourite news
> client? Do you really? Do you check every source line? No. So grow up
> and recognise potential pitfalls when they are slapping you in the face
> with a giant haddock.
Don't give me that shit... I've built fucking news clients.
Have a read of rfc977 it's a shit easy protocol to understand. The hard part
is threading the posts for reading...... but not THAT hard.
Grow up? Who's the one whinging about linux in a linux advocacy group.
>> If they assure us that they don't use the command shell then perhaps they
>> don't.
>
> Most do. Its inevitable.
Who cares if they do or they don't.. whatever floats your boat.
>> My lady doesn't use it, not ever... and she uses linux....
>
> Which you install for her. Remember?
Who'd expect a "noob" to run a gentoo system? It's a powerful tool that will
cut you if you don't know what you are doing.
So? I'll install it and configure it for anyone who asks. It's not hard to
run.
flatfish+++
> Gregory Shearman <ZekeG...@netscape.net> writes:
>
>
> You really are that deaf dumb and blind to the real world aren't you?
> The whole issue of this "social engineering" has gone whistling right
> over your head.
Evidently.
He keeps shouting at you.
> Err, we know all that. Its the entire point. Are you purposely missing
> it? Its as big as a barn door you know.
He has to remove his Linux Nutsack Rose Colored Glasses before he can see
it.
> Do you not understand this simple thing? Look, I'll give you a simple
> example.
>
> nOObs who cant get their sound card working get frustrated. They head
> off to "how to" land where Roy Loonix assures everyone he has a "perfect
> how to". nOOb follows his scripts using cut and paste. nOOb doesnt really
> know what "ls" does never mind "dd" : and considering so many of you
> tell us YOU never use the command line, this is not too surprising is
> it? Is it?
>
> Result : hacked web page scripts corrupts nOObs pc.
That is correct.
> This "dont do it if you dont understand it" defence is elitist
> bullshit. Do you know what happens when you run your favourite news
> client? Do you really? Do you check every source line? No. So grow up
> and recognise potential pitfalls when they are slapping you in the face
> with a giant haddock.
Haddock?
Some of my best friends are haddock.
They are a passive group.
>> My lady doesn't use it, not ever... and she uses linux....
>
> Which you install for her. Remember?
Even Peter Kohlmann's sister uses Windows.
flatfish+++
You're a real geek!
You expect noobs to read RFC977?
Understand protocols?
Wade through pages of How-Tos?
Hell all they did with Windows was open the box up, hook up the wires and
plug it in.
You need to get out of the cave once in a while and see how the rest of
the world operates.
You might be surprised.
But then again, you might not.
Gregory Shearman
Why thank you!
> You expect noobs to read RFC977?
Why not? It's OS agnostic... relevant to anyone who wants to find out what's
under the "hood".
> Understand protocols?
Yep..
> Wade through pages of How-Tos?
If they wish to do something with their machines, yes.
> Hell all they did with Windows was open the box up, hook up the wires and
> plug it in.
Really? Perhaps that's because the OEM did ALL THE HARD FUCKING WORK FOR
THEM WHEN THEY INSTALLED THE FUCKING OPERATING SYSTEM.
> You need to get out of the cave once in a while and see how the rest of
> the world operates.
The world comes to me... in the form of spam generated by winbots... I KNOW
how the internet world operates... it's becoming clogged with winbot spam.
When is Microsoft going to design a secure OS?
Hadron Quark
> On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 23:35:06 +1000, Gregory Shearman wrote:
>> Don't give me that shit... I've built fucking news clients.
We are all so impressed!
Hadron Quark
I think someone is getting a little too excited here.
>
>> You need to get out of the cave once in a while and see how the rest of
>> the world operates.
>
> The world comes to me... in the form of spam generated by winbots... I KNOW
> how the internet world operates... it's becoming clogged with winbot spam.
> When is Microsoft going to design a secure OS?
LOL. And you appeared sane at first. But then you switched into the
"wife who uses Linux" nutball mode.
RFC's for the average desktop user. With advocates likes you, its no
surprise Linux fails to attract the average user.
flatfish+++
>> You're a real geek!
>
> Why thank you!
You're welcome and BTW I don't use the word geek as a derogatory term.
I'm a geek to some degree as well.
>> You expect noobs to read RFC977?
>
> Why not? It's OS agnostic... relevant to anyone who wants to find out what's
> under the "hood".
But the majority of people simply don't care.
My doctor is a top eye surgeon and he uses computers all the time.
He hasn't a clue how it all works and doesn't care to.
He is too busy USING the computers to repair eyeballs.
>> Understand protocols?
>
> Yep..
For what reason other than personal interest.
Most people use a microwave and could care less how it works.
>> Wade through pages of How-Tos?
>
> If they wish to do something with their machines, yes.
Only with Linux or commercial operating systems like zOS etc.
I'm talking about grandma jones here.
>> Hell all they did with Windows was open the box up, hook up the wires and
>> plug it in.
>
> Really? Perhaps that's because the OEM did ALL THE HARD FUCKING WORK FOR
> THEM WHEN THEY INSTALLED THE FUCKING OPERATING SYSTEM.
But this is the audience you have to convince to use Linux.
This is your crowd, potential Linux user, whatever.
It's up to the Linux community and Linux itself to convince these people
to switch and from what I have seen it's not working.
>> You need to get out of the cave once in a while and see how the rest of
>> the world operates.
>
> The world comes to me... in the form of spam generated by winbots... I
> KNOW how the internet world operates... it's becoming clogged with
> winbot spam. When is Microsoft going to design a secure OS?
I often wonder how fast the Internet would be without all the SPAM and
nasties running around but most of this stuff is due to ignorant people.
Yes, having Outlook launch *.exe automatically was idiotic and yes MS has
it's security problems, I will not deny that, however if Linux ever makes
a dent in the desktop these same home users, ignorant ones, will be
destorying their Linux systems as root just like they do to their Windows
systems.
flatfish+++
> RFC's for the average desktop user. With advocates likes you, its no
> surprise Linux fails to attract the average user.
Exactly.
The RTFM, CLI, Who needs help systems,point and click sucks etc
contingent of Linux users (IOW the fossils) are doing a dandy job of
keeping Linux hidden from the masses.
Linonut
> On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 14:31:52 +1000, Gregory Shearman wrote:
>
>
>>> You're a real geek!
>>
>> Why thank you!
>
> You're welcome and BTW I don't use the word geek as a derogatory term.
> I'm a geek to some degree as well.
>
>>> You expect noobs to read RFC977?
>>
>> Why not? It's OS agnostic... relevant to anyone who wants to find out what's
>> under the "hood".
>
> But the majority of people simply don't care.
> My doctor is a top eye surgeon and he uses computers all the time.
> He hasn't a clue how it all works and doesn't care to.
> He is too busy USING the computers to repair eyeballs.
Uh, you let him fix your eyeball with Windows-driven devices?
--
Refactor Windows.
Gregory Shearman
Stating facts. Windows was installed on all my boxes, except the NSLU2
Linksys.
The OEM does all the hard work of making sure the OS is installed and the
hardware is running.
Linux has to be installed.
>> The world comes to me... in the form of spam generated by winbots... I
>> KNOW how the internet world operates... it's becoming clogged with winbot
>> spam. When is Microsoft going to design a secure OS?
>
> LOL. And you appeared sane at first. But then you switched into the
> "wife who uses Linux" nutball mode.
Huh? My lady uses Linux every day... what's nutball about that?
> RFC's for the average desktop user. With advocates likes you, its no
> surprise Linux fails to attract the average user.
Why not? The NNTP protocol is all plain text and damn easy to understand.
Gregory Shearman
> On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 14:31:52 +1000, Gregory Shearman wrote:
>
>
>>> You're a real geek!
>>
>> Why thank you!
>
> You're welcome and BTW I don't use the word geek as a derogatory term.
> I'm a geek to some degree as well.
>
>>> You expect noobs to read RFC977?
>>
>> Why not? It's OS agnostic... relevant to anyone who wants to find out
>> what's under the "hood".
>
> But the majority of people simply don't care.
Fine by me.
> My doctor is a top eye surgeon and he uses computers all the time.
> He hasn't a clue how it all works and doesn't care to.
> He is too busy USING the computers to repair eyeballs.
So??
>>> Understand protocols?
>>
>> Yep..
>
> For what reason other than personal interest.
> Most people use a microwave and could care less how it works.
Yeah.. that's why they end up sparking them up...
>>> Wade through pages of How-Tos?
>>
>> If they wish to do something with their machines, yes.
>
> Only with Linux or commercial operating systems like zOS etc.
> I'm talking about grandma jones here.
Grandma Jones still needs to know how to operate a computer. Howtos help
them do things.
>>> Hell all they did with Windows was open the box up, hook up the wires
>>> and plug it in.
>>
>> Really? Perhaps that's because the OEM did ALL THE HARD FUCKING WORK FOR
>> THEM WHEN THEY INSTALLED THE FUCKING OPERATING SYSTEM.
>
> But this is the audience you have to convince to use Linux.
I don't care about convincing anyone to use Linux. Using microsoft Windows
is enough to convince them.
> This is your crowd, potential Linux user, whatever.
Who cares?
> It's up to the Linux community and Linux itself to convince these people
> to switch and from what I have seen it's not working.
No it isn't.
I wasn't convinced to use Linux. I just got sick of Windows blue-screening
me.
>> The world comes to me... in the form of spam generated by winbots... I
>> KNOW how the internet world operates... it's becoming clogged with
>> winbot spam. When is Microsoft going to design a secure OS?
>
> I often wonder how fast the Internet would be without all the SPAM and
> nasties running around but most of this stuff is due to ignorant people.
> Yes, having Outlook launch *.exe automatically was idiotic and yes MS has
> it's security problems, I will not deny that, however if Linux ever makes
> a dent in the desktop these same home users, ignorant ones, will be
> destorying their Linux systems as root just like they do to their Windows
> systems.
No doubt there are idiots who shouldn't own a computer.
Hadron Quark
>
> Why not? The NNTP protocol is all plain text and damn easy to
> understand.
This one statement should bar you from any usability discussions
whatsoever.
You know your stuff and are a decent skin no doubt, but the fact that
you even think for one minute that people could & should understand a
protocol is just way out there in geekville.
--
Check it out, send me comments, and dance joyously in the streets,
-- Linus Torvalds announcing 2.0.27
Hadron Quark
> I don't care about convincing anyone to use Linux. Using microsoft Windows
> is enough to convince them.
You do know what % use Linux don't you? Why don't you try and be a little
more accommodating to new users and computer illiterates? That way more
& more will adopt & use Linux. The more people use it, the more it will
develop.
--
May not be reproduced, in whole or in part, by any means, mechanical or
electronic, except for brief excerpts for the purpose of inclusion in reviews.
Gregory Shearman
> Gregory Shearman <ZekeG...@netscape.net> writes:
>
>> I don't care about convincing anyone to use Linux. Using microsoft
>> Windows is enough to convince them.
>
> You do know what % use Linux don't you? Why don't you try and be a little
> more accommodating to new users and computer illiterates? That way more
> & more will adopt & use Linux. The more people use it, the more it will
> develop.
I am accommodating to new linux users. I help them in various newsgroups.
I don't care if more people use it, and I find it quite developed for my
needs.
I don't think Linux needs to attract more users than at its current rate. I
especially don't want to see it taken up by idiots.
Gregory Shearman
> Gregory Shearman <ZekeG...@netscape.net> writes:
>
>>
>> Why not? The NNTP protocol is all plain text and damn easy to
>> understand.
>
> This one statement should bar you from any usability discussions
> whatsoever.
WTF??
> You know your stuff and are a decent skin no doubt, but the fact that
> you even think for one minute that people could & should understand a
> protocol is just way out there in geekville.
Have you read rfc977?
I don't think so, otherwise you wouldn't be going on with this crap.
Ever used telnet to talk to a news server? Plain text commands, simple
syntax... dead easy!
==========================================
gregory@lappy ~ $ telnet news.pacific.net.au 119
Trying 61.8.0.29...
Connected to news.pacific.net.au.
Escape character is '^]'.
200 Pacific Internet News Server -- Powered by Typhoon (Typhoon v1.2.3)
group comp.os.linux.advocacy
211 60088 1100801 1300632 comp.os.linux.advocacy
See? Dead easy command structure using plain english commands.
It tells you that there's over sixty thousand articles, from 1100801 to
1300632
You can read them by using HEAD <number>, BODY <number> or ARTICLE <number>
What's so hard about that?
flatfish+++
> I don't care about convincing anyone to use Linux. Using microsoft Windows
> is enough to convince them.
Evidently not with Linux hovering around 0.2 percent in usage statistics.
Hadron Quark
I thought it wouldn't take long for your ego to let the cat out of the
bag.
So you aren't an advocate at all : you want to keep it all to
yourself. This is very typical of a lot of COLA posters.
Strange.
--
"MSDOS didn't get as bad as it is overnight -- it took over ten years
of careful development."
(By dmeg...@aix1.uottawa.ca)
Hadron Quark
> Hadron Quark wrote:
>
>> Gregory Shearman <ZekeG...@netscape.net> writes:
>>
>>>
>>> Why not? The NNTP protocol is all plain text and damn easy to
>>> understand.
>>
>> This one statement should bar you from any usability discussions
>> whatsoever.
>
> WTF??
>
Simple enough for anyone to understand.
>> You know your stuff and are a decent skin no doubt, but the fact that
>> you even think for one minute that people could & should understand a
>> protocol is just way out there in geekville.
>
> Have you read rfc977?
>
No. I use newsreaders and let them talk nntp. Simple really.
> I don't think so, otherwise you wouldn't be going on with this crap.
>
What crap? That you're an idiot who thinks the average user should
understand nntp? Please tell you are joking? I simply can not believe
that you mean this ... you think its fine for the average user to
understand protocols? Blimey.
> Ever used telnet to talk to a news server? Plain text commands, simple
> syntax... dead easy!
Yes. Lots of time. But you, nor I, are everyone.
>
> ==========================================
>
> gregory@lappy ~ $ telnet news.pacific.net.au 119
> Trying 61.8.0.29...
> Connected to news.pacific.net.au.
> Escape character is '^]'.
> 200 Pacific Internet News Server -- Powered by Typhoon (Typhoon v1.2.3)
> group comp.os.linux.advocacy
> 211 60088 1100801 1300632 comp.os.linux.advocacy
Err, very impressive. So what?
>
> See? Dead easy command structure using plain english commands.
>
Looks like unnecessary shit to me : I let my newsreader do it .....
> It tells you that there's over sixty thousand articles, from 1100801 to
> 1300632
>
Well done. How nice. My newsreader tells me that. That and leafnode. YOu
should try it : saves ages of messing around in telnet....
> You can read them by using HEAD <number>, BODY <number> or ARTICLE <number>
>
> What's so hard about that?
Nothing is hard : but its long winded and, well, unnecessary.
As I said : you should never be let near any usability project. You are
clearly either incredibly clever or incredibly insane :-;
John A. Bailo
> So you aren't an advocate at all : you want to keep it all to
> yourself. This is very typical of a lot of COLA posters.
>
> Strange.
Not really. Since Linux provides an advantage, why would you want everyone
to have that advantage (assuming your competitive).
--
Texeme Construct
http://texeme.com
Camping Pics: http://www.texeme.com/Deschutes.html
Hadron Quark
> Hadron Quark wrote:
>
>
>> So you aren't an advocate at all : you want to keep it all to
>> yourself. This is very typical of a lot of COLA posters.
>>
>> Strange.
>
> Not really. Since Linux provides an advantage, why would you want everyone
> to have that advantage (assuming your competitive).
Then why join a NG called "advocacy". Unless it is to do what they do
very well - to put other users off by being rude to anyone who mentions
how Windows does it?
Linonut
> On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 22:30:22 +1000, Gregory Shearman wrote:
Correction: In browser usage statistics on sites that pre-select
themselves by paying for counter usage.
--
"Developers! Developers! Developers!" -- Steve Ballmer, CEO Microsoft
Gregory Shearman
Who cares? I don't. I don't even care about your phoney usage statistics.
Gregory Shearman
> Gregory Shearman <ZekeG...@netscape.net> writes:
>> I don't think Linux needs to attract more users than at its current rate.
>> I especially don't want to see it taken up by idiots.
>
> I thought it wouldn't take long for your ego to let the cat out of the
> bag.
No ego necessary. The takeup rate is fine. I don't want to see the bandwagon
jumpers doing the jump.. I like a steady takeup by dedicated individuals.
Not a bunch of screaming kids who want it NOW!
> So you aren't an advocate at all : you want to keep it all to
> yourself. This is very typical of a lot of COLA posters.
You are so very wrong.
I advocate Linux all the time. What I don't want is people who don't read
manuals, don't prepare themselves and can't be bothered learning something
new.
> Strange.
Fairly normal. You've seen what the influx of idiots has done to the
internet.
Gregory Shearman
>> Not really. Since Linux provides an advantage, why would you want
>> everyone to have that advantage (assuming your competitive).
>
> Then why join a NG called "advocacy". Unless it is to do what they do
> very well - to put other users off by being rude to anyone who mentions
> how Windows does it?
Advocating Linux doesn't mean advocating it as foolproof. It's not. It
requires a bit of intelligence to maintain a secure, uptodate system. If
you don't have the smarts or the application then get someone else to do it
for you, or stick with windows.
Hadron Quark
This influx of "idiots" is what drives the Internet.
--
...and scantily clad females, of course. Who cares if it's below zero
outside.
-- Linus Torvalds
Gregory Shearman
>> Have you read rfc977?
>>
>
> No. I use newsreaders and let them talk nntp. Simple really.
I thought not. You don't know how simple it is.
>> I don't think so, otherwise you wouldn't be going on with this crap.
>>
>
> What crap? That you're an idiot who thinks the average user should
> understand nntp? Please tell you are joking? I simply can not believe
> that you mean this ... you think its fine for the average user to
> understand protocols? Blimey.
I think anyone could understand nntp. It's meant to be simple.
>> ==========================================
>>
>> gregory@lappy ~ $ telnet news.pacific.net.au 119
>> Trying 61.8.0.29...
>> Connected to news.pacific.net.au.
>> Escape character is '^]'.
>> 200 Pacific Internet News Server -- Powered by Typhoon (Typhoon v1.2.3)
>> group comp.os.linux.advocacy
>> 211 60088 1100801 1300632 comp.os.linux.advocacy
>
> Err, very impressive. So what?
>
>>
>> See? Dead easy command structure using plain english commands.
>>
>
> Looks like unnecessary shit to me : I let my newsreader do it .....
>
>> It tells you that there's over sixty thousand articles, from 1100801 to
>> 1300632
>>
>
> Well done. How nice. My newsreader tells me that. That and leafnode. YOu
> should try it : saves ages of messing around in telnet....
Leafnode... Used it.. didn't like it. Good if you want to cripple your
yourself. Used to run an INN server when still on a slow dialup. Loved the
circular buffers.... Now I just use KNode and a direct connection. Easy
peasy.
>> You can read them by using HEAD <number>, BODY <number> or ARTICLE
>> <number>
>>
>> What's so hard about that?
>
> Nothing is hard : but its long winded and, well, unnecessary.
All learning can be described as unnecessary by the ignorant and the
short-sighted.
The point I'm making is that the nntp protocol was developed to be an
extremely simple, plain English protocol.
I like looking under the hood.
When I still owned a car I used to repair it myself... a 30 year old
Nissan.... I replaced just about everything on the car... diff, engine,
brakes (cylinders, shoes etc) steering, tailshaft... repaired the gearbox,
bodywork... everything....
It's fun!
I like Linux because it allows me to do the same thing.
> As I said : you should never be let near any usability project. You are
> clearly either incredibly clever or incredibly insane :-;
Can't I be both?
Usability project? My lady is a novice computer user remember....
Hadron Quark
> Hadron Quark wrote:
>
>>> Not really. Since Linux provides an advantage, why would you want
>>> everyone to have that advantage (assuming your competitive).
>>
>> Then why join a NG called "advocacy". Unless it is to do what they do
>> very well - to put other users off by being rude to anyone who mentions
>> how Windows does it?
>
> Advocating Linux doesn't mean advocating it as foolproof. It's not. It
> requires a bit of intelligence to maintain a secure, uptodate
> system. If
Not it doesnt. It requires a few manpages and the ability not to fall asleep.
> you don't have the smarts or the application then get someone else to do it
> for you, or stick with windows.
But Windows is more tricky to secure than Linux. Remember?
--
Sigh. I like to think it's just the Linux people who want to be on
the "leading edge" so bad they walk right off the precipice.
(Craig E. Groeschel)
Hadron Quark
> Hadron Quark wrote:
>
>
>>> Have you read rfc977?
>>>
>>
>> No. I use newsreaders and let them talk nntp. Simple really.
>
> I thought not. You don't know how simple it is.
>
>>> I don't think so, otherwise you wouldn't be going on with this crap.
>>>
>>
>> What crap? That you're an idiot who thinks the average user should
>> understand nntp? Please tell you are joking? I simply can not believe
>> that you mean this ... you think its fine for the average user to
>> understand protocols? Blimey.
>
> I think anyone could understand nntp. It's meant to be simple.
>
Again you are not reading properly. I said what idiot would *want* to or
should understand nntp. Why? Its why we have programs. Do they need to
understand OSI too?
Sorry? We are talking about nntp protocol here. Not how to tie shoe
laces or learning to speak a foreign language - things that people want
and need to do.
>
> The point I'm making is that the nntp protocol was developed to be an
> extremely simple, plain English protocol.
Yes. We know. That is not the point. A binary "on off" is simple too but
most computer users want to learn de-Morgens theorem.
>
> I like looking under the hood.
>
Great. Good for you.
> When I still owned a car I used to repair it myself... a 30 year old
> Nissan.... I replaced just about everything on the car... diff, engine,
> brakes (cylinders, shoes etc) steering, tailshaft... repaired the gearbox,
> bodywork... everything....
>
> It's fun!
>
> I like Linux because it allows me to do the same thing.
>
Again, great. All to their own.
>> As I said : you should never be let near any usability project. You are
>> clearly either incredibly clever or incredibly insane :-;
>
> Can't I be both?
LOL: Yes.
>
> Usability project? My lady is a novice computer user remember....
So? You just installed Linux. Have you got her typing nntp into telnet
yet?
No? Thought not.
Gregory Shearman
> Gregory Shearman <ZekeG...@netscape.net> writes:
>> Fairly normal. You've seen what the influx of idiots has done to the
>> internet.
>
> This influx of "idiots" is what drives the Internet.
No, the influx of idiots actually clogs the internet. I've watched the
changes over the last 16 years.
Linonut
> Hadron Quark wrote:
>
>> Strange.
>
> Fairly normal. You've seen what the influx of idiots has done to the
> internet.
No, he doesn't. A fish doesn't realize he is part of a school.
Man, I think gensig reads the OPs!
--
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day;
teach him to use the Net and he won't bother you for weeks.
Hadron Quark
> Hadron Quark wrote:
>
>> Gregory Shearman <ZekeG...@netscape.net> writes:
>
>>> Fairly normal. You've seen what the influx of idiots has done to the
>>> internet.
>>
>> This influx of "idiots" is what drives the Internet.
>
> No, the influx of idiots actually clogs the internet. I've watched the
> changes over the last 16 years.
My internet is not "clogged".
The millions of interesting sites aimed at non techies dont clog it.
I am at a loss to understand your elitist attitude.
flatfish+++
> I think anyone could understand nntp. It's meant to be simple.
You should be preserved in a glass jar filled with formaldehyde for future
study of fossils that wanted to hold back progress.
> Usability project? My lady is a novice computer user remember....
I'll bring a glass jar big enough for two.
The Ghost In The Machine
<qadro...@geemail.com>
wrote
on Mon, 09 Oct 2006 15:56:18 +0200
<878xjpe...@geemail.com>:
> Gregory Shearman <ZekeG...@netscape.net> writes:
>
>> Hadron Quark wrote:
>>
>>>> Not really. Since Linux provides an advantage, why would you want
>>>> everyone to have that advantage (assuming your competitive).
>>>
>>> Then why join a NG called "advocacy". Unless it is to do what they do
>>> very well - to put other users off by being rude to anyone who mentions
>>> how Windows does it?
>>
>> Advocating Linux doesn't mean advocating it as foolproof. It's not. It
>> requires a bit of intelligence to maintain a secure, uptodate
>> system. If
>
> Not it doesnt. It requires a few manpages and the ability not to fall asleep.
Indeed; that's part of the problem. Windows has made the
computer as easy to use as the common toaster. (Or so goes
the general notion, which as usual is only half right.)
Since it's preinstalled and ready-to-go when one takes the
computer out of the box, people don't think that there are
actually millions, if not billions, of instructions that
the computer is doing every second. (Simple instructions,
to be sure: add register #1 to register #2, fetch this
bit of memory, initiate DMA transfers, that sort of thing.)
Linux preinstalls would be one way of making the field
more level, but so far the only preinstalls I've seen
advertised are for relatively expensive options such as
RedHat Enterprise. The rest of us, at least from what
I've seen on Dell's website, get either a disc packaged
in with the system, or a preinstalled variant of FreeDOS,
which isn't that easy to initiate downloads with last time
I checked, though it may depend on what additional things
Dell has put in there.
Ideally, one would be able to, using whatever Dell put on
there, download whatever OS one wished. Fortunately, one
can get free discs from Ubuntu, though one has to know
*about* Ubuntu -- and it's still more trouble than just
plugging the computer in, turning it on, and getting
infe^H^H^H^Honline. After all, one first has to stick
the disc into the machine's face and actually read the
onscreen instructions. (With Windows, the only thing one
has to type in is a License Verification Key. A bit easier,
for the Average Joe.)
>
>> you don't have the smarts or the application then get someone else to do it
>> for you, or stick with windows.
>
> But Windows is more tricky to secure than Linux. Remember?
>
Not any more. I'm assuming Vista will come preconfigured properly.
It'll Fix Everything(tm).
(And if not, Microsoft will probably get an earful. No doubt they're
used to that by now, though. :-) )
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Linux. Because life's too short for a buggy OS.
Gregory Shearman
> Gregory Shearman <ZekeG...@netscape.net> writes:
>
>> Hadron Quark wrote:
>>
>>> Gregory Shearman <ZekeG...@netscape.net> writes:
>>
>>>> Fairly normal. You've seen what the influx of idiots has done to the
>>>> internet.
>>>
>>> This influx of "idiots" is what drives the Internet.
>>
>> No, the influx of idiots actually clogs the internet. I've watched the
>> changes over the last 16 years.
>
> My internet is not "clogged"
Yeah... most of the email sent is spam... but THAT's not clogging... even
though server capacity is DOUBLE what it needs to be because of this spam.
> The millions of interesting sites aimed at non techies dont clog it.
Gee... the internet is restricted to http now is it?
> I am at a loss to understand your elitist attitude.
Maybe you'll gain understanding if you concentrate real hard!
What appears to you as elitism may be hard to understand because perhaps it
isn't elitism.
Gregory Shearman
> On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 23:43:04 +1000, Gregory Shearman wrote:
>
>
>> I think anyone could understand nntp. It's meant to be simple.
>
> You should be preserved in a glass jar filled with formaldehyde for future
> study of fossils that wanted to hold back progress.
Please explain what I'm holding back. AFAIK I've not talked about holding
anything back. AFAIK the nntp protocol is still in use.... in fact we are
using it now.
As usual..you don't concentrate hard enough on what you are doing.. and get
only half the story. Perhaps that's why you have problems installing
linux... you aren't prepared to read instructions carefully.
The Ghost In The Machine
<ZekeG...@netscape.net>
wrote
on Tue, 10 Oct 2006 09:47:20 +1000
<xiBWg.16965$b6.1...@nasal.pacific.net.au>:
> Hadron Quark wrote:
>
>> Gregory Shearman <ZekeG...@netscape.net> writes:
>>
>>> Hadron Quark wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gregory Shearman <ZekeG...@netscape.net> writes:
>>>
>>>>> Fairly normal. You've seen what the influx of idiots has done to the
>>>>> internet.
>>>>
>>>> This influx of "idiots" is what drives the Internet.
>>>
>>> No, the influx of idiots actually clogs the internet. I've watched the
>>> changes over the last 16 years.
>>
>> My internet is not "clogged"
>
> Yeah... most of the email sent is spam... but THAT's not clogging... even
> though server capacity is DOUBLE what it needs to be because of this spam.
Only double? I thought 90%-95% of emails were spam; that's a 10x-20x
capacity requirement issue.
ObYuck: Yuck.
Of course your local internet might be seeing less because of upstream
filtration issues. I for one can't say, but I get plenty of spam;
I don't know how much Earthlink is filtering out.
>
>> The millions of interesting sites aimed at non techies dont clog it.
>
> Gee... the internet is restricted to http now is it?
Of course it is. It's all IE can handle. :-) (That, and certain
proprietary DCOM stuff.)
>
>> I am at a loss to understand your elitist attitude.
>
> Maybe you'll gain understanding if you concentrate real hard!
>
> What appears to you as elitism may be hard to understand because perhaps it
> isn't elitism.
>
He does have a point in that the Internet, like everything
else computer-related, is a tool, like a screwdriver; the
"idiots" in this case are trying to use it (and hopefully
succeeding).
Of course it would help if more people knew how to use it
properly, and didn't keep dropping it on their feet (or
allowing others to take their screwdriver then stabbing
them in the feet).
It would also help if certain software vendors didn't make
software that practically invites the script kiddies in,
as well, to sit in the parlor and make merry mischief with
the cookies placed in the library for a snack, along with
the screwdriver which was only there because the owner
wanted to disassemble a bookshelf later on.
For its part Linux at least makes sure that they
have to knock first. :-)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Linux. Because it's there and it works.
Windows. It's there, but does it work?
Gregory Shearman
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Gregory Shearman
>> Yeah... most of the email sent is spam... but THAT's not clogging... even
>> though server capacity is DOUBLE what it needs to be because of this
>> spam.
>
> Only double? I thought 90%-95% of emails were spam; that's a 10x-20x
> capacity requirement issue.
>
> ObYuck: Yuck.
Bloody pedant!
8-)
> Of course your local internet might be seeing less because of upstream
> filtration issues. I for one can't say, but I get plenty of spam;
> I don't know how much Earthlink is filtering out.
>
>>
>>> The millions of interesting sites aimed at non techies dont clog it.
>>
>> Gee... the internet is restricted to http now is it?
>
> Of course it is. It's all IE can handle. :-) (That, and certain
> proprietary DCOM stuff.)
Yeah... They don't consider all the window and door rattling that goes on..
all these bloody probe packets looking for an open port... all these bloody
useless packets clogging the net...looking for open ports on windows
machines...
Then there's the email name harvesters and the like....
The place has filled up with useless dickheads.
High Plains Thumper
> Richard Rasker wrote:
>
>> ...the generally accepted fact that that in real life,
>> Linux is vastly more secure than Windows.
>
> But it's not:
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2004-11-
> 29-honeypot_x.htm
On the contrary it is, as expressed from your referenced
article:
| While attempted break-ins never ceased, successful
| compromises were limited to nine instances on the minimally
| protected Windows XP computer and a single break-in of the
| Windows Small Business Server. There were no successful
| compromises of the Macintosh, the Linspire or the two
| Windows XPs using firewalls.
--
HPT