Re: (OS) The thing I *hate* most about Microsoft Windows.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> "[H]omer" <sp...@uce.gov> wrote in message
> news:s1u5u3-...@sky.matrix...
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>> __/ [ Heidi van Wong ] on Tuesday 19 September 2006 18:46 \__
>>
>>>>
>>>> Will Vista deliver this?
>>
>>> You must be thinking about an augmented environment that exploits,
>>> e.g. the notion of virtual desktops.
>>
>> MS could start by fixing their b0rken HAL and driver framework first.
>
> Wish granted:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista#Drivers
The trouble with closed-source systems is that fixing broken APIs often
makes the problem worse. The reason is that they still have to support the
old APIs as well as the new ones, which adds to this ever-increasing load
of backward-compatibility baggage that the system has to carry around
forever after.
Greg Kroah-Hartman mentions the example of USB driver APIs. Both Linux and
Windows (up to XP) had rewritten their USB APIs 3 times. The difference was
that Windows still had to keep the other two obsolete versions around,
whereas Linux could get rid of that cruft.
With Linux, the driver developers could update their source code to keep up
with current APIs. With Windows, often the source code isn't available any
more, so you're stuck with old, obsolete drivers running on top of an old,
obsolete architecture.
Mike
news:eetihh$sg0$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> In message <SwYPg.19380$KA6.14359@clgrps12>, Oliver Wong wrote:
>
>> "[H]omer" <sp...@uce.gov> wrote in message
> Windows (up to XP) had rewritten their USB APIs 3 times. The difference
> was
> that Windows still had to keep the other two obsolete versions around,
> whereas Linux could get rid of that cruft.
Yeah, that's what happens when you have actual users. Linux has none, so
it's easy to change things - no one notices.
Mike
Linonut
You are Scott Nudds without the coprolalia.
--
What Intel giveth, Microsoft taketh away.
Mike
news:qKOdnR12iNuCIY_Y...@comcast.com...
>> Yeah, that's what happens when you have actual users. Linux has none,
>> so
>> it's easy to change things - no one notices.
>
> You are Scott Nudds without the coprolalia.
Wow - what a witty comeback. Who is "Scott Nudds"?
You couldn't refute my point, so you resort to (what you presume to be) a
personal attack.
Oh well. Personal attacks - the last refuge of a losing argument.
Mike
The Ghost In The Machine
<n...@where.man>
wrote
on Thu, 21 Sep 2006 12:50:30 -0400
<12h5gml...@news.supernews.com>:
> "Linonut" <lin...@bone.com> wrote in message
> news:qKOdnR12iNuCIY_Y...@comcast.com...
>>> Yeah, that's what happens when you have actual users. Linux has none,
>>> so
>>> it's easy to change things - no one notices.
>>
>> You are Scott Nudds without the coprolalia.
>
> Wow - what a witty comeback. Who is "Scott Nudds"?
A Winvocate who thinks C programmers should have their
throats slit and Linux is a shit stick. That should
be enough for starters. :-)
>
> You couldn't refute my point, so you resort to (what you presume to be) a
> personal attack.
>
> Oh well. Personal attacks - the last refuge of a losing argument.
Correct, to some extent. Linux has few users, although
the reasons as to the dearth are many.
>
> Mike
>
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
Mike
news:qnvau3-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
> A Winvocate who thinks C programmers should have their
> throats slit and Linux is a shit stick. That should
> be enough for starters. :-)
Well, he's half right.
> Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
Linux. Even though we can't even *give* it away, it's great. Trust us.
Mike
Linonut
> "Linonut" <lin...@bone.com> wrote in message
No personal attack involved. *You* presume it to be one; I do not.
It is simply my assesment of your posting history.
In essense, you post grossly incorrect statements in a manner intended
to insult.
As to not refuting your point, you had none to refute.
--
Apple executive Peter Hoddie asked Microsoft officials, "'Are you asking us
to kill playback? Are you asking us to knife the baby?'" He said Microsoft
official Christopher Phillips responded, "'Yes, we want you to knife the baby.'
It was very clear."
Linonut
> Correct, to some extent. Linux has few users, although
> the reasons as to the dearth are many.
Few users? Half the people I work with use it.
--
Real programmers don't use Visual Basic.
Linonut
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
Give it away? Naw, they sell it:
http://business.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/11/28/1829244&tid=20&tid=68
You're silly.
--
[ X ] Check here to always trust content from Linonut.
Mike
> After takin' a swig o' grog, The Ghost In The Machine belched out this bit
> o' wisdom:
>
>> Correct, to some extent. Linux has few users, although
>> the reasons as to the dearth are many.
>
> Few users? Half the people I work with use it.
20 people is "few".
Mike
Mike
But correct. No one is using it even though you can get it for free.
Mike
Mike
> No personal attack involved. *You* presume it to be one; I do not.
> It is simply my assesment of your posting history.
>
So it was a compliment? OK, thanks!
Mike
The Ghost In The Machine
<lin...@bone.com>
wrote
on Thu, 21 Sep 2006 15:50:44 -0500
<ReadnY-zcLe5Zo_Y...@comcast.com>:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, The Ghost In The Machine belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Correct, to some extent. Linux has few users, although
>> the reasons as to the dearth are many.
>
> Few users? Half the people I work with use it.
>
[1] OK, how many do you work with?
[2] Are they using it on their desktops, or simply logging
in remotely using putty or Cygnus ssh into a Linux server?
[3] Which half? :-)
There's a certain inertia in the marketplace; we're not using, say,
hydrogen fueled autos for similar reasons. It takes time.
The only other comparison, which is admittedly not all that useful:
MSFT: market cap $268.19B
RHAT: market cap $4.75B
Over a 2 year period, RedHat has grown over 80% in market
cap, according to a very rough reading on Yahoo! Finance.
Microsoft is at 0% but only because it had a nice run up
from June to now, after a drop in late April or early May.
RedHat actually got up to 140% in early May, but has kinda
drifted downward since then.
So maybe there is hope after all, but at this rate RedHat won't
surpass Microsoft until 2017 or so. :-)
Google isn't being all that helpful regarding comparisons at this point;
it did cough up
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-236732.html?legacy=cnet
but that's over 5 years old.
Gregory Shearman
> But correct. No one is using it even though you can get it for free.
Sigh!
That's why the internet is weighed down by spamming winbots.
There's no end to human stupidity.
--
Regards,
Gregory.
"Ding-a-ding-dang,My Dang-a-long ling-long"
Mike
news:IcPQg.13757$b6.1...@nasal.pacific.net.au...
>
> That's why the internet is weighed down by spamming winbots.
Sure it is. Source?
> There's no end to human stupidity.
Of course there is. The fact that Linux is going nowhere proves that there
is a limit to human stupidity. Very few people are dumb enough to try to
use it.
Mike
William Poaster
09:13:19 -0400, Mike wrote:
> "Gregory Shearman" <ZekeG...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:IcPQg.13757$b6.1...@nasal.pacific.net.au...
>>
>> That's why the internet is weighed down by spamming winbots.
>
> Sure it is. Source?
>
>> There's no end to human stupidity.
>
> Of course there is.
You've just proved there isn't.
> The fact that Linux is going nowhere proves that there
> is a limit to human stupidity. Very few people are dumb enough to
> try to use it.
Another idiot wintroll.
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy added to filters.
--
Linux is not a desktop OS for people
whose VCRs are still flashing "12:00".
That eliminates a lot of wintrolls then.
Mike
news:pan.2006.09.22....@suseoss101.eu...
> This message was posted on Usenet, NOT JLAforums, & on Fri, 22 Sep 2006
> 09:13:19 -0400, Mike wrote:
>
>> "Gregory Shearman" <ZekeG...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>> news:IcPQg.13757$b6.1...@nasal.pacific.net.au...
>>>
>>> That's why the internet is weighed down by spamming winbots.
>>
>> Sure it is. Source?
>>
>>> There's no end to human stupidity.
>>
>> Of course there is.
>
> You've just proved there isn't.
Yes, I did, because no one is using Linux!
Mike
Jim
comp.os.linux.advocacy:
> "William Poaster" <w...@suseoss101.eu> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.09.22....@suseoss101.eu...
>> This message was posted on Usenet, NOT JLAforums, & on Fri, 22 Sep 2006
>> 09:13:19 -0400, Mike wrote:
>>
>>> "Gregory Shearman" <ZekeG...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>>> news:IcPQg.13757$b6.1...@nasal.pacific.net.au...
>>>>
>>>> That's why the internet is weighed down by spamming winbots.
>>>
>>> Sure it is. Source?
>>>
Try every online news source?
>>>> There's no end to human stupidity.
>>>
>>> Of course there is.
>>
>> You've just proved there isn't.
>
> Yes, I did, because no one is using Linux!
>
> Mike
Well, shit, I better get my arse back into re-education then, because this
Linux laptop can't really exist now, can it? I mean, you just said that /no
one is using Linux/ hence this laptop is just a figment of someone's
imagination.
You fucking idiot.
--
-*-Some people are like Slinkies; they serve no specific purpose,
but they bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.
-*- Linux Desktops & Clustering Solutions -*- http://dotware.co.uk
-*- Registered Linux user #426308 -*- http://counter.li.org
-*- We now return you to your regularly scheduled broadcast.
-*- Contemplating Knife -*- Which end do the bullets go in again?
-*- I can't wait to get to heaven and meet seventy virgins - I've yet to
meet *one* on *Earth*!
-*- For sale: one (1) Fender Phantom air guitar. £500 ONO
-*- For sale: one (1) Italian WWII bolt-action rifle. .303cal, never fired,
only dropped once. Offers.
-*- That's it. No more coffee for *that* man!
Linonut
> Mike came up with this when he headbutted the keyboard a moment ago in
> comp.os.linux.advocacy:
>
>>> You've just proved there isn't.
>>
>> Yes, I did, because no one is using Linux!
>>
>> Mike
>
> Well, shit, I better get my arse back into re-education then, because this
> Linux laptop can't really exist now, can it? I mean, you just said that /no
> one is using Linux/ hence this laptop is just a figment of someone's
> imagination.
>
> You fucking idiot.
I think Mikey is laughing now.
--
IEF630I BAD MACNAM
12.32.57 SYS2 R=IEF450I COLA LINONUT TROLL-ABEND S0C7 UBR549 -
Mike
You got that right!
Mike
Mike
news:VSUQg.10182$2g5...@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
> Mike came up with this when he headbutted the keyboard a moment ago in
> comp.os.linux.advocacy:
>
>> "William Poaster" <w...@suseoss101.eu> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2006.09.22....@suseoss101.eu...
>>> This message was posted on Usenet, NOT JLAforums, & on Fri, 22 Sep 2006
>>> 09:13:19 -0400, Mike wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Gregory Shearman" <ZekeG...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:IcPQg.13757$b6.1...@nasal.pacific.net.au...
>>>>>
>>>>> That's why the internet is weighed down by spamming winbots.
>>>>
>>>> Sure it is. Source?
>>>>
>
> Try every online news source?
Then you'll have no trouble finding one will you?
> Well, shit, I better get my arse back into re-education then, because this
> Linux laptop can't really exist now, can it? I mean, you just said that
> /no
> one is using Linux/ hence this laptop is just a figment of someone's
> imagination.
Wow - Linux has one user! Stop the presses!
>
> You fucking idiot.
You fucking LinTroll.
Mike
Mike
> I think Mikey is laughing now.
Yes, laughing at the Linux Loonies!
Mike
The Ghost In The Machine
<n...@where.man>
wrote
<12h8ndd...@news.supernews.com>:
> "Jim" <ja...@the-computer-shop.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:VSUQg.10182$2g5...@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
[snippage]
>> Well, shit, I better get my arse back into re-education then,
>> because this Linux laptop can't really exist now, can it?
>> I mean, you just said that /no one is using Linux/ hence this
>> laptop is just a figment of someone's imagination.
>
> Wow - Linux has one user! Stop the presses!
Two. :-P
[rest snipped]
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Mike
>> Wow - Linux has one user! Stop the presses!
>
> Two. :-P
Still nothing.
> Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
Linux. Because even though we can't even *give* it away, it's *really*
great. Trust us.
Mike
Kelsey Bjarnason
You really are stupid, aren't you? "20 people is 'few'". That's 20
people at one place. Not 20 in total. Of course, this concept is
obviously beyond you, or you wouldn't have responded as you did.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 17:15:33 +0000, Jim wrote:
> Well, shit, I better get my arse back into re-education then, because this
> Linux laptop can't really exist now, can it? I mean, you just said that
> /no one is using Linux/ hence this laptop is just a figment of someone's
> imagination.
Indeed. Firewall/proxy box at home doesn't exist. My desktop here and
the one at home don't exist. The umpteen servers I'm running here don't
exist.
Newsforge had an interesting comment:
"The last few Top500 Supercomputer Site lists left little doubt that Linux
is the operating system of choice for these bleeding edge systems, but the
latest list highlights the popularity of Linux in supercomputing and cites
it as the OS of choice for 78% of the world's fastest machines. 391 of the
systems rely on Linux of one flavor or another -- far more than Unix
(yesterday's supercomputing king), Mac OS X, Solaris, or any others.
Microsoft Windows didn't even turn up on the list."
Of course, that almost 80% of the world's top computers don't exist. Must
remember that. It's all just paper tigers and pretense.
> You fucking idiot.
He's not that smart.
Mike
news:pan.2006.09.23....@ncoldns.com...
>
> You really are stupid, aren't you? "20 people is 'few'". That's 20
> people at one place. Not 20 in total. Of course, this concept is
> obviously beyond you, or you wouldn't have responded as you did.
No, the point is that few poeple use Linux. Even if *everyone* you knew
used it, it still wouldn't amount to anything. Anecdotes <> facts.
Mike
Mike
> is the operating system of choice for these bleeding edge systems, but the
> latest list highlights the popularity of Linux in supercomputing and cites
> it as the OS of choice for 78% of the world's fastest machines. 391 of the
> systems rely on Linux of one flavor or another -- far more than Unix
> (yesterday's supercomputing king), Mac OS X, Solaris, or any others.
> Microsoft Windows didn't even turn up on the list."
Wow - that's 391 computers! Look out everyone, Linux is taking over!
Mike
The Ghost In The Machine
<n...@where.man>
wrote
<12h8vun...@news.supernews.com>:
He does have a point. 20/100M = 0.0002% desktops.
Personally, I for one would think the number of Linux
users is a bit more than that. If nothing else,
Munich has a fair number of desktop boxen. :-)
Mike
> He does have a point. 20/100M = 0.0002% desktops.
>
> Personally, I for one would think the number of Linux
> users is a bit more than that. If nothing else,
> Munich has a fair number of desktop boxen. :-)
Being generous and giving Linux 1% desktop share, and going with 500 million
PCs in use worldwide (very conservative), gives 5 million Linux desktop
users.
Almost certainly high, but at least in the ballpark. Certainly moreso than
someone's absurd guesstimate of 35 million upthread.
Mike
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
> message news:l6eeu3-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
>> He does have a point. 20/100M = 0.0002% desktops.
>>
>> Personally, I for one would think the number of Linux
>> users is a bit more than that. If nothing else,
>> Munich has a fair number of desktop boxen. :-)
>
> Being generous and giving Linux 1% desktop share, and going with 500
> million PCs in use worldwide (very conservative), gives 5 million Linux
> desktop users.
>
> Almost certainly high, but at least in the ballpark.
For Ubuntu alone, maybe not too far off
<https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuWeeklyNewsletter/Issue13>. But for Linux as
a whole, it would have to be much higher, because not everyone is running
Ubuntu <http://desktoplinux.com/articles/AT5816278551.html>.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
You don't have to trust us, or anybody else. Because you can look at the
source code to check it for yourself.
Gregory Shearman
> "Gregory Shearman" <ZekeG...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:IcPQg.13757$b6.1...@nasal.pacific.net.au...
>>
>> That's why the internet is weighed down by spamming winbots.
>
> Sure it is. Source?
Everywhere. Even my local newspaper on Saturday had an article in its IT
section about spam and how spammers use 'bots to send spam. These are of
course Windows machines. You cannot install these malware programs on Linux
machines.
But you were just making troll noises, right?
>> There's no end to human stupidity.
>
> Of course there is. The fact that Linux is going nowhere proves that
> there
> is a limit to human stupidity. Very few people are dumb enough to try to
> use it.
I've been using it for more than 10 years... how stupid am I? I don't pay
the windows tax. I don't get hit with viruses... NEVER have been hit with
viruses.... My machines only need rebooting after a kernel update.... such
STUPIDITY!
>
> Mike
Linonut
Unfortunately, you're coming across as quite loony yourself.
--
"Spock, you're nothing but a damn computer!"
"Why, thank you, Doctor!"
Jim
comp.os.linux.advocacy:
@sig:
> "Spock, you're nothing but a damn computer!"
> "Why, thank you, Doctor!"
"Devil In The Dark"?
Mike
Linonut <lin...@bone.com> wrote:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Mike belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
> > "Linonut" <lin...@bone.com> wrote in message
> > news:Go6dnbIGkq8TtonY...@comcast.com...
> >> I think Mikey is laughing now.
> >
> > Yes, laughing at the Linux Loonies!
>
> Unfortunately, you're coming across as quite loony yourself.
Such a devastating comeback from someone who calls himself "Linonut"!
Mike
AZ Nomad
Do you keep such company that you've found excellent results with the
"no I'm not but you are" comeback?
Most people find that it doesn't work once they're no more than about ten years
old.
Mike
No one is running it. There are no more than 6 million or so Linux
desktop users in total. If there were more, they would be showing up
in all of the stats.
Mike
Mike
news:ef2e1v$ll6$7...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
You don't have to trust us, or anybody else. Because you can download
Vista RC1 and try it out for yourself. Which is certainly easier for most
people than "looking at source code"!
Mike
Mike
news:slrnehb61i....@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
Exactly why I was pointing that out to "Linonut".
Thanks for making my point!
Mike
Mike
> Mike wrote:
>
>> "Gregory Shearman" <ZekeG...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>> news:IcPQg.13757$b6.1...@nasal.pacific.net.au...
>>>
>>> That's why the internet is weighed down by spamming winbots.
>>
>> Sure it is. Source?
>
> Everywhere. Even my local newspaper on Saturday had an article in its IT
> section about spam and how spammers use 'bots to send spam.
Your anecdote is not a source.
Mike
Gregory Shearman
> "Gregory Shearman" <ZekeG...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:cgbRg.14212$b6.1...@nasal.pacific.net.au...
>> Mike wrote:
>>
>>> "Gregory Shearman" <ZekeG...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>>> news:IcPQg.13757$b6.1...@nasal.pacific.net.au...
>>>>
>>>> That's why the internet is weighed down by spamming winbots.
>>>
>>> Sure it is. Source?
>>
>> Everywhere. Even my local newspaper on Saturday had an article in its IT
>> section about spam and how spammers use 'bots to send spam.
Saturday's Newcastle Herald is not a source? That's a new one on me!
> Your anecdote is not a source.
Ah! Newspaper articles are "anecdotes" now?
Gregory Shearman
> You don't have to trust us, or anybody else. Because you can download
> Vista RC1 and try it out for yourself. Which is certainly easier for most
> people than "looking at source code"!
So, you have to trust Microsoft not to allow your computer to become a
winbot or be infected with viruses. I don't like their track record on the
trust department....
But I'm not you.
Mike
> Saturday's Newcastle Herald is not a source? That's a new one on me!
No, you telling the story here is not a source. Link please.
> Ah! Newspaper articles are "anecdotes" now?
You telling it here is an anecdote.
Mike
Mike
> Mike wrote:
>
>> You don't have to trust us, or anybody else. Because you can download
>> Vista RC1 and try it out for yourself. Which is certainly easier for
>> most
>> people than "looking at source code"!
>
> So, you have to trust Microsoft not to allow your computer to become a
> winbot or be infected with viruses. I don't like their track record on the
> trust department....
So, you have to trust a bunch of geeks who have no financial interest in the
success of the product, a product which can't get above 1% installed base by
giving said product away. I don't like their track record in the success
department.
But I'm not you.
Mike
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 08:47:53 -0400, Mike wrote:
> So, you have to trust a bunch of geeks who have no financial interest in the
> success of the product, a product which can't get above 1% installed base by
> giving said product away. I don't like their track record in the success
> department.
You know, the sheer scope of the dishonesty of that post is overwhelming.
Let's see...
It assumes only "geeks" - rather than professionals - are involved, which
is simply untrue.
It assumes "1%" without foundation - but treats it as an absolute.
It assumes no financial interest, despite several companies - RedHat, for
example - having a definite financial interest.
It assumes that, on the whole, it is all about financial gains, which
isn't the case, but you bring up the whole financial thing again.
You say you don't like their record in the "success" department, but you
examine one thing which is largely irrelevant, one which is at best
questionable, in order to determine that "success".
In short, you're a troll. Of course, we've known this for some time,
however you've now - for me, at least - crossed the line between simple
ignorance and willful dishonesty.
Bye bye.
Gregory Shearman
> So, you have to trust a bunch of geeks who have no financial interest in
> the success of the product, a product which can't get above 1% installed
> base by
> giving said product away. I don't like their track record in the success
> department.
1) It's not a product. It's an open source operating system.
2) Because of its open source design it is far more secure than most of its
closed source rivals.
>
> But I'm not you.
Obviously. I use an open source operating system. I have done so for over 10
years. In that time I've never had a virus or had to reinstall because of
viral damage.
Gregory Shearman
Mike
> Mike wrote:
>
>> So, you have to trust a bunch of geeks who have no financial interest in
>> the success of the product, a product which can't get above 1% installed
>> base by
>> giving said product away. I don't like their track record in the
>> success
>> department.
>
> 1) It's not a product.
Because it's not worth anything.
>It's an open source operating system.
Barely.
> 2) Because of its open source design it is far more secure than most of
> its
> closed source rivals.
Sure it is. We won't know for sure until hundreds of millions of users are
using it, will we? But that will never happen, so you have security by
obscurity.
Mike
Mike
> Mike wrote:
>
>> "Gregory Shearman" <ZekeG...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>> news:tftRg.14565$b6.1...@nasal.pacific.net.au...
>>> Saturday's Newcastle Herald is not a source? That's a new one on me!
>>
>> No, you telling the story here is not a source. Link please.
>>
>>> Ah! Newspaper articles are "anecdotes" now?
>>
>> You telling it here is an anecdote.
>>
>> Mike
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botnet
Ah yes, wikipedia, that unbiased bastion of truth and light. So you
couldn't find your source from Saturday's Newcastle Herald?
But even if *is* true, it still doesn't matter. As I said before, a couple
hundred thousand infected machines is *nothing* in the universe of Windows
machines. Doesn't affect me in the least. The dumb asses who are
infected deserve what they get from running without any kind of protection.
Mike
Mike
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
>
> Sure it is. We won't know for sure until hundreds of millions of users are
> using it, will we? But that will never happen, so you have security by
> obscurity.
You are not using the term 'security by obscurity' correctly. That
refers to security that depends on the mechanism being kept secret
(i.e. closed source software). It more appropriately applies to
Microsoft and other closed source commercial offerings than it does
to Linux.
Here is an article written by Bruce Perens that explains it better
than I can:
http://slashdot.org/features/980720/0819202.shtml
And your assertion that the relatively smaller install base of Linux
somehow makes it a smaller target is also not true. Linux runs a
disproportionately large number of Internet servers, many of them
e-commerce sites, yet it suffers a comparatively small number of
security breaches compared to Windows servers. The lack of a Linux
monoculture certainly helps to reduce the impact of any exploit,
but that alone is not nearly enough to explain it's excellent track
record, especially considering how many tasty looking Linux servers
are out there in colo racks just begging the blacks hats to crack
them.
Just for good measure, here is an article regarding Linux security
and how it compares to Windows:
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/35421.html
Cheers,
Thad
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
>
> couldn't find your source from Saturday's Newcastle Herald?
>
> But even if *is* true, it still doesn't matter. As I said before, a couple
> hundred thousand infected machines is *nothing* in the universe of Windows
> machines. Doesn't affect me in the least. The dumb asses who are
> infected deserve what they get from running without any kind of protection.
It may not effect you, but personally I am sick of the constant bandwidth
burn from all those Windows bots trying to deliver spam to the customer
accounts on my colo server. And yes, I've looked at the logs and done
some traceback analysis... almost all of the spam is coming from malware
infected windows machines.
Thank goodness for iptables. At least most of those bots don't make it
much past the first TCP connection request.
Later,
Thad
The Ghost In The Machine
<l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand>
wrote
on Sat, 23 Sep 2006 16:44:41 +1200
<ef2e1v$ll6$7...@lust.ihug.co.nz>:
If one knows how to read it. :-) Fortunately, that's
a fair bit easier, even for one schooled in English and
math but otherwise not literate in C or C++, than trying
to disassemble machine language.
There are a lot of issues here, though, and suggesting
that one read the source code is a bit on the glib side,
especially since compiler hacks to miscompile that code
have been around since Unix.
Fortunately, the source code for gcc is available as well,
if one knows how to read *it* (byacc is a little obscure
but usable enough for neophytes, and LALR experts can make
it do all sorts of things :-) ).
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Oliver Wong
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand>
> wrote
> on Sat, 23 Sep 2006 16:44:41 +1200
> <ef2e1v$ll6$7...@lust.ihug.co.nz>:
>> You don't have to trust us, or anybody else. Because you can look at the
>> source code to check it for yourself.
>
> If one knows how to read it. :-) Fortunately, that's
> a fair bit easier, even for one schooled in English and
> math but otherwise not literate in C or C++, than trying
> to disassemble machine language.
>
> There are a lot of issues here, though, and suggesting
> that one read the source code is a bit on the glib side,
> especially since compiler hacks to miscompile that code
> have been around since Unix.
>
> Fortunately, the source code for gcc is available as well,
> if one knows how to read *it* (byacc is a little obscure
> but usable enough for neophytes, and LALR experts can make
> it do all sorts of things :-) ).
When presented with source code and a binary, you can't ever be 100%
sure that the source code presented is the one used to create that binary.
Of course, you could just discard the binary and recompile yourself to be
sure that the source code and the binaries match.
But what do you do if the binary you're trying to verify is the compiler
itself?
- Oliver
Jim
in comp.os.linux.advocacy:
>
lol then you're stuck in the chicken-egg thing.
So, which came first? C or the compiler?
I've got a headache now.
--
-*-Some people are like Slinkies; they serve no specific purpose,
but they bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.
-*- Linux Desktops & Clustering Solutions -*- http://dotware.co.uk
-*- Registered Linux user #426308 -*- http://counter.li.org
-*- We now return you to your regularly scheduled broadcast.
-*- Contemplating Knife -*- Which end do the bullets go in again?
-*- I can't wait to get to heaven and meet seventy virgins - I've yet to
meet *one* on *Earth*!
-*- For sale: one (1) Fender Phantom air guitar. £500 ONO
-*- For sale: one (1) Italian WWII bolt-action rifle. .303cal, never fired,
only dropped once. Offers.
-*- Hit every key to continue.
The Ghost In The Machine
<ow...@castortech.com>
wrote
on Mon, 25 Sep 2006 18:42:29 GMT
<pqVRg.32844$bf5.2599@edtnps90>:
A project I for one am still researching. Briefly put,
given a blank computer (no BIOS, no OS on disk, no
nothing), how does one ensure that each and every stitch
of code goes through a proper verification process as one
sets it up?
The best I can do requires some mildly interesting
equipment. The context, in this case, would be a
lead-copper shielded laboratory or work area -- in other
words, no mind-control beams, radioactivity, etc. except
as directed by the worker(s) therein. Of course most people
won't have quite this level but even one's own bedroom,
basement, or kitchen would probably suffice for most
applications, assuming the Russians aren't wandering
around the area with a small otherwise unadorned white
truck or big black limo festooned with antennae and what
appears to be a 1930's-era ray gun.
(Of course most people won't have a blank computer, either;
the BIOS is already there.)
[1] An EEPROM burner. This little device simply takes
a RAM image and burns it into a EEPROM. There should be
methods to erase the EEPROM (a UV lamp, if nothing else)
and maybe a method by which one can key in arbitrary bytes
into RAM, and display the RAM.
[2] Lots of paper, for notes and such.
[3] A fair amount of time.
[4] A seed compiler/assembler. The one that comes to
mind is a variant of SmallC; it needs to be large enough
to compile the GNU CC source. It also needs to be small
enough so that one can "compile" it (translate it into
machine code) and then key it into memory manually.
[5] A trusted storage device, such as an unaltered disk.
Vetting the disk is an interesting subproblem in itself,
but one might use an older model that doesn't use
sophisticated electronic caching. Admittedly, current
disks are idiots when it comes to data interpretation
-- but who knows what DRM will require in the future?
Perhaps the disks of the future will have to know whether
one has legitimately acquired that Whitney Houston video,
ABBA song audio, or old Howdy Doody footage.
Perhaps not.
[6] A disk exerciser/writer. This would be little more
than a RAM scratchpad and a control system for writing an
arbitrary sector of the disk. Dolphins [*] used to be used
for very old model disks in the 1980's but I have no idea
what's in the field now.
[7] Lots of specifications -- e.g., processor, address
decoding, various issues with support chips. The x86
PC is a little complicated, actually, with stuff such
as A20, INT2-INT9 chaining, and DMA0 hardwired into
the refresh circuitry.
The procedure is reasonably simple, of course.
[1] Code up the BIOS and burn it onto the EEPROM.
[2] Plug the chip in, and code up the boot sector on the disk.
[3] "Compile" the seed, and put that on the disk as well
under a proto-filesystem, along with a simple proto-shell
and whatever libraries are required. This proto-shell
just needs to invoke the compiler, and, time permitting,
manage the proto-filesystem. Code for that will probably
be in the proto-library referenced by the seed compiler;
we've not gotten to the point of a true kernel yet.
[4] Get the source code for gcc from a trusted area, and
copy that into the proto-filesystem, after manual vetting.
[5] You're now ready for compilation of gcc. The results
will be in your proto-filesystem.
[6] At this point you'll want a few other things, such
as glibc, the kernel source, utilities such as mv, cp,
etc., a bootloader, and whatever else one's heart desires,
security, time, and Russian antennae-festooned vehicles
permitting.
Now at this point you're probably asking "dude, where's
your tinfoil hat and authorization pass?" (no, I don't
work for the Feds) but it's clear that there are a fair
number of issues here, not the least of which is the list
of equipment one can trust. No doubt someone in the CIA,
FBI, or an ex-KGB agent can easily lay hands on any of the
above equipment. Note that a trusted PC can take the place
of [1] and [6]; cross-compilers on such a PC can also be
used to shave time off of [4]. But that trusted PC had
better not be on the Internet, if one can help it. :-)
Especially if it's running a certain OS offered by a
company in Redmond.
I can tell you that the way gcc is built precludes a lot
of hacks.
[A] One is assumed to have a native compiler and library,
and the source code to gcc and maybe glibc. For Linux,
things get mildly interesting -- "chicken and egg", as
you put it -- but cross-compilation with gcc is also
possible, and indeed reasonably simple to do.
[B] cc compiles gcc, creating an executable xgcc1.
Some checking is then done.
[C] xgcc1 compiles gcc again, creating another executable xgcc2.
Some more checking is done.
[D] If necessary, xgcc2 compiles gcc yet again, creating xgcc3.
All optimizations are now in place.
Now, one might do some creative hacking -- it's been done for
various C compilers, looking for code sequences commonly used
in such places as /bin/login. It would take some doing nowadays.
BTW, specs for a tinfoil hat (more precisely, aluminum
foil deflector beanie) are available at
if one needs such, and of course one can always visit the
CIA's web site for instructions:
but you didn't hear it from me. :-) No, I can't be more
precise regarding the instructions, although the Factbook
has some interesting tidbits regarding countries.
As for vans with antennae --
the best I can do on short notice is
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/ESANKIZPD4D_index_1.html, which
is designed more for chasing interference for an ESA
space probe than detecting emanations from CIA or ex-KGB
agents. :-) But that white thing on top is fairly conspicuous.
(An alternate method would be to get one's hand on a CD burner
with a large scratchpad RAM buffer, and key appropriate code
into that. There would be a lot of code, though, and the
image might as well be built on a trusted machine anyway.)
[*] A brand name, of course. I highly doubt Flipper would
want to get involved here, even if Timmy did fall into
the well -- oh, wait, that's Lassie.
Gregory Shearman
> "Gregory Shearman" <ZekeG...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:a0IRg.14669$b6.1...@nasal.pacific.net.au...
>> Mike wrote:
>>
>>> "Gregory Shearman" <ZekeG...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>>> news:tftRg.14565$b6.1...@nasal.pacific.net.au...
>>>> Saturday's Newcastle Herald is not a source? That's a new one on me!
>>>
>>> No, you telling the story here is not a source. Link please.
>>>
>>>> Ah! Newspaper articles are "anecdotes" now?
>>>
>>> You telling it here is an anecdote.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botnet
>
> Ah yes, wikipedia, that unbiased bastion of truth and light. So you
> couldn't find your source from Saturday's Newcastle Herald?
I have a paper copy here in my hand. If you want an electronic copy then
you'll have to pay for it... only two dollars and 20 cents. Here's the
link:
http://tinyurl.com/mlx7t
You won't accept that there are winbots delivering spam? Where in hell do
you think all this spam originates? Linux boxes?
> But even if *is* true, it still doesn't matter. As I said before, a
> couple hundred thousand infected machines is *nothing* in the universe of
> Windows
> machines. Doesn't affect me in the least. The dumb asses who are
> infected deserve what they get from running without any kind of
> protection.
You are SO wrong. It affects EVERY user of the Internet, it affects EVERY
buyer of a product. Do you have ANY idea how much money is involved in
dealing with spam? Who pays for that? The man in the moon? The consumers of
goods and services pay for it.
Mike
> Mike wrote:
>
>> "Gregory Shearman" <ZekeG...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>> news:a0IRg.14669$b6.1...@nasal.pacific.net.au...
>>> Mike wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Gregory Shearman" <ZekeG...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:tftRg.14565$b6.1...@nasal.pacific.net.au...
>>>>> Saturday's Newcastle Herald is not a source? That's a new one on me!
>>>>
>>>> No, you telling the story here is not a source. Link please.
>>>>
>>>>> Ah! Newspaper articles are "anecdotes" now?
>>>>
>>>> You telling it here is an anecdote.
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botnet
>>
>> Ah yes, wikipedia, that unbiased bastion of truth and light. So you
>> couldn't find your source from Saturday's Newcastle Herald?
>
> I have a paper copy here in my hand. If you want an electronic copy then
> you'll have to pay for it... only two dollars and 20 cents. Here's the
> link:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/mlx7t
>
> You won't accept that there are winbots delivering spam? Where in hell do
> you think all this spam originates? Linux boxes?
Why not? Is Linux not up to sending thousands of email mesages a day?
Sure, there are Windows machines sending spam. So what? Since "Linux
controls the internet", it's all going thru Linux machines, right? Why
isn't the "superior" Linux catching it and stopping it?
Sorry for the double post, had to restore the newsgroups list that you so
conveniently changed. Again.
Mike
Oliver Wong
>
> I can tell you that the way gcc is built precludes a lot
> of hacks.
However, I think you're assuming that the source/process/whatever you
were looking at when you said "the way gcc is built precludes a lot of hack"
is the source/process/whatever that was actually used to build gcc. cc
itself might have had backdoors written into it, so that whenever you
replicate the building of gcc "from scratch", you've already injected the
malicious subroutines into your binaries.
Pretty much no matter how far you go back, there's a point where *you*
did not construct the device you're using, and thus must trust the device.
That device may be the compiler, the RAM, the harddrive, the CPU, or even
your own brain (e.g. how do you know that the person who taught you computer
science wasn't trying to implant erroneous knowledge into your mind so as to
subvert your computer system 20 years later?)
- Oliver
Linonut
> However, I think you're assuming that the source/process/whatever you
> were looking at when you said "the way gcc is built precludes a lot of hack"
> is the source/process/whatever that was actually used to build gcc. cc
> itself might have had backdoors written into it, so that whenever you
> replicate the building of gcc "from scratch", you've already injected the
> malicious subroutines into your binaries.
On the other hand, you would have heard rumors (at a minimum) of such a
thing happening, just like you hear rumors (at a minimum) about other
crack attacks.
> Pretty much no matter how far you go back, there's a point where *you*
> did not construct the device you're using, and thus must trust the device.
> That device may be the compiler, the RAM, the harddrive, the CPU, or even
> your own brain (e.g. how do you know that the person who taught you computer
> science wasn't trying to implant erroneous knowledge into your mind so as to
> subvert your computer system 20 years later?)
By using your reasoning powers.
Having both your own brain and the community's collection of brains
available to you goes a long way towards trust.
--
Yeah, I've heard of "decaf." What's your point?
Gregory Shearman
> "Gregory Shearman" <ZekeG...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:r%_Rg.14691$b6.1...@nasal.pacific.net.au...
>> Mike wrote:
>>
>>> "Gregory Shearman" <ZekeG...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>>> news:a0IRg.14669$b6.1...@nasal.pacific.net.au...
>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Gregory Shearman" <ZekeG...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:tftRg.14565$b6.1...@nasal.pacific.net.au...
>>>>>> Saturday's Newcastle Herald is not a source? That's a new one on me!
>>>>>
>>>>> No, you telling the story here is not a source. Link please.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ah! Newspaper articles are "anecdotes" now?
>>>>>
>>>>> You telling it here is an anecdote.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botnet
>>>
>>> Ah yes, wikipedia, that unbiased bastion of truth and light. So you
>>> couldn't find your source from Saturday's Newcastle Herald?
>>
>> I have a paper copy here in my hand. If you want an electronic copy then
>> you'll have to pay for it... only two dollars and 20 cents. Here's the
>> link:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/mlx7t
>>
>> You won't accept that there are winbots delivering spam? Where in hell do
>> you think all this spam originates? Linux boxes?
>
> Why not? Is Linux not up to sending thousands of email mesages a day?
Thousands? How about hundreds of millions?
> Sure, there are Windows machines sending spam. So what? Since "Linux
> controls the internet", it's all going thru Linux machines, right? Why
> isn't the "superior" Linux catching it and stopping it?
Spam IS being stopped, at GREAT cost to the WHOLE WORLD.... Thanks
microsoft for this drain on communications.
> Sorry for the double post, had to restore the newsgroups list that you so
> conveniently changed. Again.
Oops! There they go again!
Oliver Wong
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Oliver Wong belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> *you*
>> did not construct the device you're using, and thus must trust the
>> device.
>> That device may be the compiler, the RAM, the harddrive, the CPU, or even
>> your own brain (e.g. how do you know that the person who taught you
>> computer
>> science wasn't trying to implant erroneous knowledge into your mind so as
>> to
>> subvert your computer system 20 years later?)
>
> By using your reasoning powers.
How do you know that the formal rules of logic that you were taught are
the "real" rules of logic? Sure, you might examine the rules and notice they
are self consistent... but couldn't there be a different set of logical
rules and axiom which are also self consistent?
Eventually, when you go back through all knowledge you've acquired and
trying to find out how you can re-derive them from base principles, you'll
hit an axiom which you just have to "believe in", without any way to derive
it. How you were raised by your parents (if that's really who they are ;))
can have a very strong influence in what these axioms are.
- Oliver
Linonut
>> By using your reasoning powers.
>
> How do you know that the formal rules of logic that you were taught are
> the "real" rules of logic? Sure, you might examine the rules and notice they
> are self consistent... but couldn't there be a different set of logical
> rules and axiom which are also self consistent?
You might want to read Russell and Whitehead's "Principia Mathematica".
> Eventually, when you go back through all knowledge you've acquired and
> trying to find out how you can re-derive them from base principles, you'll
> hit an axiom which you just have to "believe in", without any way to derive
> it. How you were raised by your parents (if that's really who they are ;))
> can have a very strong influence in what these axioms are.
Such axioms would have to pass muster in the domain that depends upon
those axioms for action.
--
/\ STOP! This post has not passed Microsoft Logo testing to verify its
/ \ compatibility with Microsoft FUD. Microsoft strongly recommends
/ !! \ you stop reading this post, and consult a poster with Logo
/______\ certification. [ Continue Anyway ] [ STOP Reading ]
Mike
>> Sorry for the double post, had to restore the newsgroups list that you so
>> conveniently changed. Again.
>
> Oops! There they go again!
Oops indeed!
Mike
Peter Köhlmann
< snip morons stuff >
Done
--
Microsoft Windows - The art of incompetence.
Mike
news:efgbf4$oot$02$2...@news.t-online.com...
Oooh, I am *so* scared.
> Microsoft Windows - The art of incompetence.
Linux - The art of "we can't even *give* it away".
Mike
Jim
comp.os.linux.advocacy:
> "Peter Köhlmann" <peter.k...@t-online.de> wrote in message
Nobody's forcing you to use Linux. What's being forced is Microsoft Windows
and WGA extortion. I, like quite a few other individuals, have chosen to
throw the babyfood and get my teeth into something solid. Ref: .sig
--
-*- Linux: Because restarts are for upgrades.
-*- Some people are like Slinkies; they serve no specific purpose,
Mike
news:PFPSg.42420$8V4....@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
> Nobody's forcing you to use Linux. What's being forced is Microsoft
> Windows
> and WGA extortion. I, like quite a few other individuals, have chosen to
> throw the babyfood and get my teeth into something solid. Ref: .sig
Nobody's forcing me to use Windows either. I have OS X on 3 machines here,
and Linux on 1. I use Windows because I *choose* to. I, like quite a few
others, have chosen to throw the toy, amateur OS and go with the Pros.
Mike
Jim
comp.os.linux.advocacy:
> "Jim" <ja...@the-computer-shop.co.uk> wrote in message
Your choice, and your opinion. Like me, I made my choice and I have my
opinion.
I quite like Mac OS myself, only problem I have is that the hardware is a
bit out of my price bracket for the performance I demand (although I do
have a G3/400 powerbook with Tiger on it and a G3/350 iMac with OS9, and
I'm happy with them both - I paid less than £50 each for them). So, I go
with less expensive (read: x86/64) hardware and choose software that can
most efficiently make use of the processing power available to me on that
hardware (read: Linux). I won't use Linux on a Mac, because I know that the
marriage of PPC hardware and Mac OS is such that the optimum use is already
being made of the hardware. It's been that way from day one. Kudos to Apple
for that, now if they'd just drop their prices by oh, I don't know, 30%?
I'd certainly consider buying in a stack of Macs to use in cluster
configuration then, but not before.
Mike
news:efgbf4$oot$02$2...@news.t-online.com...
X-Complaints-To: usenet...@t-online.de
Done.
Mike
Hadron Quark
Get a clue. Blaming MS for SPAM is like blaming the post office for
letter bombs.
Tell me, is MS responsible for the 30 odd flyers that get dropped in my
letter box every week?
Mike
> Your choice, and your opinion. Like me, I made my choice and I have my
> opinion.
>
> I quite like Mac OS myself, only problem I have is that the hardware is a
> bit out of my price bracket for the performance I demand (although I do
> have a G3/400 powerbook with Tiger on it and a G3/350 iMac with OS9, and
> I'm happy with them both - I paid less than £50 each for them).
Then do what I do - run OS X on a PC. I have it on a TinkPad T41 laptop
and this DIY box with an ASUS P4C800-E MB and ATI X800XT video card. Runs
fine on both. I also have a G4 500 "real Mac".
Mike
Oliver Wong
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Oliver Wong belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>>> By using your reasoning powers.
>>
>> How do you know that the formal rules of logic that you were taught
>> are
>> the "real" rules of logic? Sure, you might examine the rules and notice
>> they
>> are self consistent... but couldn't there be a different set of logical
>> rules and axiom which are also self consistent?
>
> You might want to read Russell and Whitehead's "Principia Mathematica".
Why?
I understand that the book is basically a proof of concept (not quite
sure what it was trying to prove at the meta level, above the fact that e.g.
1 + 1 = 2), in retaliation to Russel's own Paradox. They were trying to
"fix" mathematics, because in its prior incarnations, there seemed to exist
contradictions.
Is reading the book going to convince me that you can know whether
*logic itself* is correct/true/good/whatever?
>
>> Eventually, when you go back through all knowledge you've acquired
>> and
>> trying to find out how you can re-derive them from base principles,
>> you'll
>> hit an axiom which you just have to "believe in", without any way to
>> derive
>> it. How you were raised by your parents (if that's really who they are
>> ;))
>> can have a very strong influence in what these axioms are.
>
> Such axioms would have to pass muster in the domain that depends upon
> those axioms for action.
I'm not sure what you mean by "pass muster". If you believe something
without deriving it from some other knowledge you previously had, then that
thing is an axiom in your system. If you never encounter any evidence which
contradicts your beliefs, then you will never find out that your axiom was
"wrong". For example, you might decide to believe that there are *EXACTLY*
10^79 protons in the universe. The arguments about the *probability* of
landing on such a round number aside, probably neither you nor I will be
able to disprove that belief within our lifetimes. Doesn't mean it's a
factually true belief, though.
- Oliver
Linonut
> Is reading the book going to convince me that you can know whether
> *logic itself* is correct/true/good/whatever?
No. It will convince about the right way to understand logic, though.
If you can get through it.
I can't.
> I'm not sure what you mean by "pass muster". If you believe something
> without deriving it from some other knowledge you previously had, then that
> thing is an axiom in your system. If you never encounter any evidence which
> contradicts your beliefs, then you will never find out that your axiom was
> "wrong". For example, you might decide to believe that there are *EXACTLY*
> 10^79 protons in the universe. The arguments about the *probability* of
> landing on such a round number aside, probably neither you nor I will be
> able to disprove that belief within our lifetimes. Doesn't mean it's a
> factually true belief, though.
There is a difference between an axiom and a postulation.
--
It is easier to fix Unix than to live with NT.
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
09/28/2006
at 05:06 PM, Linonut <lin...@bone.com> said:
>No. It will convince about the right way to understand logic,
>though.
Stratification?
>There is a difference between an axiom and a postulation.
Not in logic. Euclid made such a distinction, but it didn't stand up
to close examination.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org
Linonut
> begin In <1IOdnSr16ebA2oHY...@comcast.com>, on
> 09/28/2006
> at 05:06 PM, Linonut <lin...@bone.com> said:
>
>>No. It will convince about the right way to understand logic,
>>though.
>
> Stratification?
>
>>There is a difference between an axiom and a postulation.
>
> Not in logic. Euclid made such a distinction, but it didn't stand up
> to close examination.
I'm sure I'm using "postulation" non-technically. "Surmise" might be a
better word.
But the last thing in the world I care about is carrying a basically
empirical argument into the realm of philosophy, which is what Wong
seems to be doing.
--
"Linux is a cancer!" -- Steve Ballmer, CEO Microsoft
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
>
> controls the internet", it's all going thru Linux machines, right? Why
> isn't the "superior" Linux catching it and stopping it?
Linux is certainly up to the task on my server. We receive a
helacious amount of spam, most of it chucked in the bit bucket
by procmail. As most of this email is being sent to my server
directly from malware infected Windows systems, there is not
much any other Linux system can do to prevent the wasteful
hijacking of my bandwidth.
So yes, linux can clean up most of the mess made by malware infected
windows spam zombies... I just wish it did not have to.
Thad
Oliver Wong
>
> But the last thing in the world I care about is carrying a basically
> empirical argument into the realm of philosophy, which is what Wong
> seems to be doing.
Sorry. When we started arguing about whether one could "trust" the
compiler, I thought we were already in the realm of philosophy. FWIW, (in
case this is what the argument was about for you,) if trust were the primary
concern, I'd certainly favor open source over closed source.
- Oliver
Linonut
Trust is best gained by observation.
A community reinforces trust!
--
Speak softly and carry a cellular phone.
Mike
news:efjiap$dqt$1...@tux.glaci.com...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Mike <n...@where.man> wrote:
>>
>> Sure, there are Windows machines sending spam. So what? Since "Linux
>> controls the internet", it's all going thru Linux machines, right? Why
>> isn't the "superior" Linux catching it and stopping it?
>
> Linux is certainly up to the task on my server. We receive a
> helacious amount of spam, most of it chucked in the bit bucket
> by procmail.
Funny, I never get any "spam"! What do I have to do to get it? Run
Linux?
Mike
Peter Köhlmann
Oh, looky looky!
Another windows user who "never gets any virus/spam/you name it"
It is sooooo believable.
--
The PROPER way to handle HTML postings is to cancel the article, then
hire a hitman to kill the poster, his wife and kids, and fuck his dog and
smash his computer into little bits. Anything more is just extremism.
Mike
> Mike wrote:
>
>> <tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com> wrote in message
>> news:efjiap$dqt$1...@tux.glaci.com...
>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Mike <n...@where.man> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Sure, there are Windows machines sending spam. So what? Since "Linux
>>>> controls the internet", it's all going thru Linux machines, right?
>>>> Why
>>>> isn't the "superior" Linux catching it and stopping it?
>>>
>>> Linux is certainly up to the task on my server. We receive a
>>> helacious amount of spam, most of it chucked in the bit bucket
>>> by procmail.
>>
>> Funny, I never get any "spam"! What do I have to do to get it? Run
>> Linux?
>>
>> Mike
>
> Oh, looky looky!
> Another windows user who "never gets any virus/spam/you name it"
Oh looky looky! Another dumb ass Linux user who thinks *all* computer
users get viruses/spam/you name it!
Mike
Peter Köhlmann
Nope, Mike, not *all* computer users get viruses. All *windows* *users* get
them.
And not even all computer users get spam. Only those connected to the net
get them. And receiving spam has absolutely nothing to do with the OS one
runs
But then, you are a windows user. Way too dimwitted to recognize the
differences
--
My other computer is your windows box
Mike
Nope, none here in 15 years of Windows use. You're simply wrong.
> And not even all computer users get spam. Only those connected to the net
> get them. And receiving spam has absolutely nothing to do with the OS one
> runs
Nope, none here.
> But then, you are a windows user. Way too dimwitted to recognize the
> differences
But then, you're a linux user. Way too pretentious and overzealous to
recognize the truth.
Mike
Hadron Quark
No. Only fools like you who don't understand the basics of gateways and
common sense virus protection.
> And not even all computer users get spam. Only those connected to the net
> get them. And receiving spam has absolutely nothing to do with the OS one
> runs
Did you figure that out? You have to be connected to the net? Well done!
>
> But then, you are a windows user. Way too dimwitted to recognize the
> differences
Thank god you were here to explain how one must connect to the net to
get spam!
--
innunendo, n.:
Italian enema.
Peter Köhlmann
Oh, Hadron, "linux kernel hacker", who needs virus protection
For his windows machine, the one he *only* uses for gaming.
ALl serious work is done on linux, right, Hadron?
Now tell us: What "virus protection" is the right one for linux?
After all, there are currently (since years) exactly *zero* linux viruses in
the wild.
But then, I have to protect myself against those extremely dangerous linux
viruses, right, Hadron? Would you mind tell us more about this extremely
sensitive stuff? You seem soooo knowledgeable about linux viruses
>> And not even all computer users get spam. Only those connected to the net
>> get them. And receiving spam has absolutely nothing to do with the OS one
>> runs
>
> Did you figure that out? You have to be connected to the net? Well done!
>
Oh, you could not find the line I was responding to?
Nevermind, comes time you will grow your very first working brain cell
>>
>> But then, you are a windows user. Way too dimwitted to recognize the
>> differences
>
> Thank god you were here to explain how one must connect to the net to
> get spam!
>
Well, after all Mike thinks *all* computer users get spam.
This certainly would include those computers never connected to the net
Time to "hack linux kernels", Hadron.
You are so much more effective doing that than trolling
And you are a complete, utter failure at linux
But you certainly dearly love and use linux day in and out.
And you are certainly the *only* "linux advocate" in this group
All others are "me too" Roy followers. Or so
The only people worth having a nice chat with are flatfish, wjbell and DFS,
right, Hadron?
DFS and flatfish being vile racists makes them certainly nice company
Flatfish and wjbell being petty software thiefs are clearly more endearing
to a "linux advocate" of your caliber than those actually using it
Yes, I certainly can see how you are the great "linux advocate", the only
true one ("choice is bad") and "kernel hacker"
--
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice which can be equally well
explained by stupidity
Mike
Peter Köhlmann <peter.k...@t-online.de> wrote:
I said no such thing. I said *I* don't get spam.
Reading is *so* important.
Mike
Peter Köhlmann
Oh. So *you* are the one without network connection
> Reading is *so* important.
>
> Mike
Good that we now have cleared that up
Did I already mention that you are a liar?
*Everyone* connected to the net and having an email addy gets spam.
Without any exception. Claiming that you don't just makes it perfectly clear
that you are lying
--
Linux is for people who want to know why it works.
Mac is for people who don't want to know why it works.
DOS is for people who want to know why it does not work.
Windows is for people who don't want to know why it does not work.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 21:27:42 +0100, Hadron Quark wrote:
>> Nope, Mike, not *all* computer users get viruses. All *windows* *users*
>> get them.
>
> No. Only fools like you who don't understand the basics of gateways and
> common sense virus protection.
WTF has a *gateway* got to do with virus protection?
Yeesh...
The Ghost In The Machine
<kbjar...@ncoldns.com>
wrote
on Mon, 30 Oct 2006 14:17:45 -0800
<pan.2006.10.30....@ncoldns.com>:
Viruses can come in through ports such as 445, 137, 139.
A router not allowing outside packets through from these
and other ports will drop the packets on the floor,
neutralizing the dangers thereof (if any). Unless an
upstream router sends an explicit response for some reason
upon a timeout, the sender will see nothing.
Of course if one opens portholes in the router for various
reasons (the most useful one is 22 for ssh access; 80
and 443 might be used as well if one really wants to do
a Web server over a relatively dinky DSL/cable line :-);
26000 UDP might be of interest to gamers) the packets
can then get in...but Linux won't respond to them either
unless a daemon opens the ports on the local host side.
I know of few Linux daemons who care about port 445.
That router is a form of protection, and many Windows users
will be protected if they sign up for, say, Earthlink's
DSL [*], which gives them the following:
[1] A modem which has built-in NAT capability.
[2] A phone cord.
[3] An Ethernet cable.
[4] A small power transporter/battery eliminator.
[5] Small low-pass filter units to reduce the noise
through PSTN equipment (phones, answering machines, etc.).
[6] The usual contract verbiage. :-)
Presumably, cable modems have similar capabilities.
The only subscribers really vulnerable are new subscribers
with dialup-only (53k/PSTN) capabilities, or existing
subscribers who haven't gotten a modem upgrade and do not
have modems with NAT/port block capabilities.
It is possible the malware writers might start targeting
these devices. Of course, the E-mail infection vector
is still a problem -- all of the protections in the world
against incoming nasties won't help if one goes out, picks
up the mail, takes it in, opens it, and it surreptitiously
sneezes into one's central air while he's looking at the
enclosed contents trying to figure out where the nekkid
videos wandered off to.
(Yes, that's a contrived analogy. :-) Of course most
central air units don't do double duty as broadcast
transmitters, either, nor do things in the vent have
access to the thermostat and/or breaker controls, so
it's an imperfect analogy to boot...)
[*] I'll admit it's reasonably good service (except for
unsupported Usenet, hence my TeraNews account), but I'm
not affiliated with Earthlink apart from being a customer;
this is not intended to be spam, either. I've now got
3 modems from them, plus I have a bunch of other modems
from elder days -- including a 1200 baud unit. ;-) Maybe
I should open a museum... ;-)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
New Technology? Not There. No Thanks.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 15:03:14 -0800, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>> WTF has a *gateway* got to do with virus protection?
>>
>> Yeesh...
>>
>>
> Viruses can come in through ports such as 445, 137, 139. A router not
> allowing outside packets through from these and other ports will drop the
> packets on the floor
It would also block all other services on those ports - essentially being
a firewall.
Now, let's open it up so it's actually allowing traffic _through_ on those
ports. It's still a gateway... but now has *zero* effect on viruses
coming through on those ports.
So I repeat: WTF has a *gateway* got to do with virus protection?
Answer: nothing. A firewall can provide minimal protection against some,
as can, say, a NAT router. A gateway, _as_ a gateway, does nothing.
The Ghost In The Machine
<pan.2006.10.31....@ncoldns.com>:
Well, there is that; I'll admit I have no idea what a "gateway" is in
this context, then. :-)
Best I can do is an outgoing Squid proxy. Prior to my acquiring my
latest router that actually worked very well for outgoing connections to
the Web while insulating all but the victim machine (which obviously has
to straddle what passes for a DMZ on a dialup system) from the worst of
the attacks. It also cached things fairly well, which was a big help
when I only had 53k to play with.
Of course with NAT Squid becomes redundant, and I have a lot more
bandwidth now.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #12398234:
void f(char *p) {char *q = strdup(p); strcpy(p,q);}
Mike
Peter Köhlmann <peter.k...@t-online.de> wrote:
Claiming that "everyone gets spam" just makes it perfectly clear that
you have no idea what you are talking about.
But then, you are Linux Loser, still trying to force all replies to your
messages to your Linux Loser newsgroup, so it's understandable that you
have no clue.
Mike
Gordon
news:no-CD803D.08...@news.supernews.com...
> In article <ei5g9d$mo2$00$1...@news.t-online.com>,
> Peter Köhlmann <peter.k...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>> Did I already mention that you are a liar?
>> *Everyone* connected to the net and having an email addy gets spam.
>> Without any exception. Claiming that you don't just makes it perfectly
>> clear
>> that you are lying
>
> Claiming that "everyone gets spam" just makes it perfectly clear that
> you have no idea what you are talking about.
Everybody DOES get spam. Whether you actually SEE it or not doesn't matter.
(ie whether your ISP filters it, or your organisation filters it, or you
filter it, it doesn't matter) Spam clogs up bandwidth to an incredible
degree. Obviously YOU have "no idea what you are talking about" either.
Hadron Quark
> "Mike" <n...@where.man> wrote in message
> news:no-CD803D.08...@news.supernews.com...
>> In article <ei5g9d$mo2$00$1...@news.t-online.com>,
>> Peter Köhlmann <peter.k...@t-online.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Did I already mention that you are a liar?
>>> *Everyone* connected to the net and having an email addy gets spam.
>>> Without any exception. Claiming that you don't just makes it perfectly
>>> clear
>>> that you are lying
>>
>> Claiming that "everyone gets spam" just makes it perfectly clear that
>> you have no idea what you are talking about.
>
>
> Everybody DOES get spam. Whether you actually SEE it or not doesn't
> matter.
Wrong.
Everybody is possibly *SENT* Spam - IFF their email is compromised (and
by no means all are).
But not 100% of people GET spam. It is filtered.
gmail followed by spamassassin followed by gnus means I rarely get asked
to launder 5000000 dollars or get an 18 inch cock these days.
> (ie whether your ISP filters it, or your organisation filters it, or you
> filter it, it doesn't matter) Spam clogs up bandwidth to an incredible
> degree. Obviously YOU have "no idea what you are talking about" either.
No. You are wrong. The crux is about GETTING spam. And
(a) Not all email addresses are on the spammers books.
Conclusion : not every one is SENT spam.
(b) Some people and organisations know how to correctly filter spam.
Conclusion : not every one GETS spam *even* if they are sent spam.
From these two truisms we can deduce that Peter and you are : *WRONG*.
Again.
Gordon
You're not very good at READING what you reply to are you? If you actually
took the time to READ and COMPREHEND what I wrote, you will actually see
that I said that whether you get spam or not is not the point - some ISPs
filter it before you get it, most organisations filter it before you get
it, a number of individuals filter it before they get it. BUT - most people
WILL get sent spam. Whether they actually receive it in their Inboxes or
not depends on the above.
I do HATE having to spell things out a second time to people who have
obviously had a very COMPREHENSIVE education......
--
Registered Linux User no 240308
to email me invalidate the invalid!
Mike
Hadron Quark <qadro...@geemail.com> wrote:
> > Everybody DOES get spam. Whether you actually SEE it or not doesn't
> > matter.
>
> Wrong.
>
> Everybody is possibly *SENT* Spam - IFF their email is compromised (and
> by no means all are).
Exactly, and my ISP email address is NOT compromised, because I *never*
use it. The only thing that comes there is a once-a-month message from
my ISP.
Yes, that's right, I get ONE email a month to my ISP email address.
Therefore, "every computer connected to the internet" does NOT get spam.
My only public email address is a Hotmail account, and it gets *far*
less spam than it used to. I used to get 10 or 12 junk emails a day,
now it's down to 1 or 2. They are already pre-filtered to the junk
folder, and can be ignored.
Since these don't come to my computer, again "every computer connected
to the internet" does NOT get spam.
Mike
Gordon
> Exactly, and my ISP email address is NOT compromised, because I *never*
> use it. The only thing that comes there is a once-a-month message from
> my ISP.
because your iSP F-I-L-T-E-R-S it!
Sheeesh!