Discussion:
To all Windows users!!!!!
(too old to reply)
Evil Bastard
2003-08-22 14:55:16 UTC
Permalink
To all people who absolutely must persist with windows and aren't yet
ready to switch to free open source software:

Could you PLEASE ALL FIX YOUR SECURITY! Like, NOW!!!!

1) Don't EVER open an attachment unless you're expecting it and you know
the sender.

2) Run a good firewall - ZoneAlarm is a reasonable free one, and there are
better ones available for payment or via covert channels

Make sure to block off all incoming and outgoing connections on ports 135
and 139 at the very least

3) Please stop using software that promotes infection - software such as
Outlook, Outlook Express and Internet Explorer.

Install Pegasus, Eudora, Mozilla or Opera instead.

I am just so sick and tired of all your freakin viruses chewing up my
bandwidth and server processor cycles.

I am even more pissed off when I receive bounce messages accusing me of
sending viruses that never left my system (new viruses spoofing my email
address in the From: header.

Thank you very much in advance.

Regards
EB
Steve B
2003-08-22 18:51:49 UTC
Permalink
But if we all switch to open source the virus writers will target it, and
you'll be affected too.
8)
There are counters to that argument, such as Apache; 60% market share
and almost bullet-proof according to those who know it better than I
do.

Hard to obtain an unbiased optinion, but FWIW

www.idg.co.nz/webhome.nsf/UNID/8C0C310C4BBD8A1DCC256D86000DF99B?OpenDocument

Steve B.
Peter
2003-08-22 19:36:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Evil Bastard
To all people who absolutely must persist with windows and aren't yet
Could you PLEASE ALL FIX YOUR SECURITY! Like, NOW!!!!
hear hear ! well said

Unfortunately, most Windows users do so because they don't know any better.
For most users, their PC comes with Windos installed, and that's as far as
they get.

But you're absolutely right, a good rule of thumb is to avoid Microsoft
software wherever possible. Just changing to Mozilla, Open Office, Opera,
et al, will greatly reduce your risk of infection, even if you have to stay
on the Windos OS.


Peter
Peter
2003-08-22 19:51:45 UTC
Permalink
But if we all switch to open source the virus writers will target it, and
you'll be affected too.
That rather shows your ignorance of the topic.

For one thing, the open source software is far less vulnerable than the
Microsoft stuff. Open source is not immune, but it is a lot safer than MS.

Secondly, open source community creates a rich diversity of products. This
diversity is an inherent obstacle to malware because the virus writer has
to cope with so many different products (very very difficult). Conversely,
the monoculture that Microsoft seeks to impose means a virus writer needs
only to crack one product to wipe out a big portion of the population.

Fortunately, more people are becoming aware of these facts, and are
realising that Microsoft is ripping us off. MS is making obscene profits
peddling substandard goods. In any other consumer product, this would be
against the law, but somehow MS gets away with it. See ...
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3519276


Peter
Henry Falkner
2003-08-22 20:33:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Evil Bastard
3) Please stop using software that promotes infection - software such as
Outlook, Outlook Express and Internet Explorer.
Install Pegasus, Eudora, Mozilla or Opera instead.
I have yet to discover a Pegasus user who can either send or receive images
for our amateur radio newsletter without having to call for help. The
Pegasus directory names on the top bar are apparently not those that Windows
uses. I was unable at first go to transfer images received with Pegasus to a
friend's photo processing program, because I could not find their location
within Pegasus by using 'Find' in Windows98SE.

Keep Windows updated, use something like Symantec Systemworks.

The problems I had with Windows were all self-inflicted, like dodgy
downloads interrupted halfway.

Henry
whoa
2003-08-23 08:40:52 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 08:33:26 +1200, "Henry Falkner"
Post by Henry Falkner
Post by Evil Bastard
3) Please stop using software that promotes infection - software such as
Outlook, Outlook Express and Internet Explorer.
Install Pegasus, Eudora, Mozilla or Opera instead.
I have yet to discover a Pegasus user who can either send or receive images
for our amateur radio newsletter without having to call for help. The
Pegasus directory names on the top bar are apparently not those that Windows
uses. I was unable at first go to transfer images received with Pegasus to a
friend's photo processing program, because I could not find their location
within Pegasus by using 'Find' in Windows98SE.
I have no problems with Pegasus and images, RTFM works a treat, even as a
last resort.
Post by Henry Falkner
Keep Windows updated, use something like Symantec Systemworks.
AAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH. Systemworks is to working systems what
the German Democratic Republic was to Democracy.
Post by Henry Falkner
The problems I had with Windows were all self-inflicted, like dodgy
downloads interrupted halfway.
This admission speaks volumes.
Henry Falkner
2003-08-24 20:26:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Henry Falkner
I was unable at first go to transfer images received with
Pegasus to a friend's photo processing program, because I could not find
their location within Pegasus by using 'Find' in Windows98SE.
So did you try saving that image first, like, decoding it using Pegasus
and then saving it into a directory?
Or did you think that Pegasus automatically decodes, saves, and/or
executes
everything that arrives as an attachment?
I think that you've just struck the reason why Pegasus is considered to be
so good on the Windows platform.
Lennier
Thanks for the tip.

HOWEVER - the guy who owns that software ALSO is unaware of that procedure.
Outlook Express in my configuration asks me what I want to do with the
attachment, and gives me a warning. In the default state, Windows 98SE with
the latest patches, and XP, don't give you access to the attachment
altogether.

I see no difference between keeping your OS up-to-date and choosing 3rd
party software.

I am in the process of changing over from one laptop to another,
transferring stuff as I need it. The amount of third party clutter that
duplicates what Win98SE and Nortons Systemworks normally do is quite
amazing.

Henry
cowboyz
2003-08-22 21:30:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Evil Bastard
To all people who absolutely must persist with windows and aren't yet
I will awitch to open source software as soon as you offer constructive,
easy to understand help on how to setup the things that I want to do without
telling me to RTFM.

--
"It's what you learn after you know it all that counts."
Howard Johnson
2003-08-22 21:49:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by cowboyz
Post by Evil Bastard
To all people who absolutely must persist with windows and aren't yet
I will awitch to open source software as soon as you offer constructive,
easy to understand help on how to setup the things that I want to do without
telling me to RTFM.
Seeing as Windows is so easy in comparison, can you tell me how to turn off
the tool tips please?
Enkidu
2003-08-22 23:04:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Henry Falkner
Post by cowboyz
Post by Evil Bastard
To all people who absolutely must persist with windows and aren't yet
I will awitch to open source software as soon as you offer constructive,
easy to understand help on how to setup the things that I want to do
without
Post by cowboyz
telling me to RTFM.
Seeing as Windows is so easy in comparison, can you tell me how to turn off
the tool tips please?
In XP, it's Right click desktop, Properties, Appearance, Effects, and
uncheck the top box.

Cheers,

Cliff
--

Signed and sealed with Great Seal of the Executive
Council of the Internet, by The Master of The Net.
Howard Johnson
2003-08-22 23:55:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Enkidu
Post by Henry Falkner
Post by cowboyz
Post by Evil Bastard
To all people who absolutely must persist with windows and aren't yet
I will awitch to open source software as soon as you offer
constructive,
Post by Enkidu
Post by Henry Falkner
Post by cowboyz
easy to understand help on how to setup the things that I want to do
without
Post by cowboyz
telling me to RTFM.
Seeing as Windows is so easy in comparison, can you tell me how to turn off
the tool tips please?
In XP, it's Right click desktop, Properties, Appearance, Effects, and
uncheck the top box.
Great
Now they just pop up instead of fading up.
Woohooo
Any more useful suggestions like that from you Windows experts !
Nathan Mercer
2003-08-24 06:51:46 UTC
Permalink
Thanks for telling us about WindowsNT5.1 . But what is it in Windows?
Get a life, and learn how to spell too
whoa
2003-08-23 08:41:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Henry Falkner
Post by cowboyz
Post by Evil Bastard
To all people who absolutely must persist with windows and aren't yet
I will awitch to open source software as soon as you offer constructive,
easy to understand help on how to setup the things that I want to do
without
Post by cowboyz
telling me to RTFM.
Seeing as Windows is so easy in comparison, can you tell me how to turn off
the tool tips please?
Sure, You tell me how to install fonts in Linux.
Uncle StoatWarbler
2003-08-23 19:32:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by whoa
Sure, You tell me how to install fonts in Linux.
Assuming KDE or gnome, control panel, look and feel, fonts.
Howard Johnson
2003-08-23 20:18:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by whoa
Post by Henry Falkner
Post by cowboyz
Post by Evil Bastard
To all people who absolutely must persist with windows and aren't yet
I will awitch to open source software as soon as you offer
constructive,
Post by whoa
Post by Henry Falkner
Post by cowboyz
easy to understand help on how to setup the things that I want to do
without
Post by cowboyz
telling me to RTFM.
Seeing as Windows is so easy in comparison, can you tell me how to turn off
the tool tips please?
Sure, You tell me how to install fonts in Linux.
apt-get or rpm ?
Howard Johnson
2003-08-24 04:39:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Howard Johnson
Post by whoa
Sure, You tell me how to install fonts in Linux.
apt-get or rpm ?
are package managers the only option?
What if there isn't a packaged option?
Debian manages fonts with defoma, the debian font manager.
There is a GUI frontend to defoma called dfontmgr which allows you to drag
and drop font files to register them.
Now the tooltips, is searching the web for tweak sites and using regedit the
only way to change this setting ?
Or is there a friendly front end ?
Most of the suggestions I got from windows experts were to turn off the
notification area balloon tips or chage the transition effect.
Do Windows users really need a tooltip that says "Click here to begin"
attached to the start button. Perhaps if they added "and click here to shut
down even though it says "Start"" it would be more useful.
Its another example of the patronising twee cutsie Clippy mindset.
Irritating.
Enkidu
2003-08-24 05:55:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Howard Johnson
Do Windows users really need a tooltip that says "Click here to begin"
attached to the start button.
Erm, that one only comes up *once* on the first login to the box.

Cheers,

Cliff
--

Signed and sealed with Great Seal of the Executive
Council of the Internet, by The Master of The Net.
Howard Johnson
2003-08-24 06:52:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Enkidu
Post by Howard Johnson
Do Windows users really need a tooltip that says "Click here to begin"
attached to the start button.
Erm, that one only comes up *once* on the first login to the box.
Cheers,
Cliff
--
Signed and sealed with Great Seal of the Executive
Council of the Internet, by The Master of The Net.
It comes up all the time if you hover over the start button in XP
Enkidu
2003-08-24 09:49:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Howard Johnson
Post by Enkidu
Post by Howard Johnson
Do Windows users really need a tooltip that says "Click here to begin"
attached to the start button.
Erm, that one only comes up *once* on the first login to the box.
It comes up all the time if you hover over the start button in XP
Ah, so it does. I've never hovered long enough to find out. In any
case I don't often use the Start button.

Cheers,

Cliff
--

Signed and sealed with Great Seal of the Executive
Council of the Internet, by The Master of The Net.
David Pears
2003-08-24 09:57:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Enkidu
Post by Howard Johnson
Post by Enkidu
Post by Howard Johnson
Do Windows users really need a tooltip that says "Click here to begin"
attached to the start button.
Erm, that one only comes up *once* on the first login to the box.
It comes up all the time if you hover over the start button in XP
Ah, so it does. I've never hovered long enough to find out. In any
case I don't often use the Start button.
Kinda sad really, when the best argument for Linux is that Windows
users can't turn off a tiny little box that only Linux users have
actually ever noticed.

David
Howard Johnson
2003-08-24 10:13:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Pears
Post by Enkidu
Post by Howard Johnson
Post by Enkidu
Post by Howard Johnson
Do Windows users really need a tooltip that says "Click here to begin"
attached to the start button.
Erm, that one only comes up *once* on the first login to the box.
It comes up all the time if you hover over the start button in XP
Ah, so it does. I've never hovered long enough to find out. In any
case I don't often use the Start button.
Kinda sad really, when the best argument for Linux is that Windows
users can't turn off a tiny little box that only Linux users have
actually ever noticed.
David
Kind of pathetic for you to assume that the question has anything to do with
Linux.
Its a Windows user's question.
David Pears
2003-08-24 10:31:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Howard Johnson
Post by David Pears
Post by Enkidu
Post by Howard Johnson
It comes up all the time if you hover over the start button in XP
Ah, so it does. I've never hovered long enough to find out. In any
case I don't often use the Start button.
Kinda sad really, when the best argument for Linux is that Windows
users can't turn off a tiny little box that only Linux users have
actually ever noticed.
Kind of pathetic for you to assume that the question has anything to do with
Linux.
Its a Windows user's question.
So why was it first brought up by one of the Linux advocates as
reason for using Linux?

The argument has sorta been...
"what is the benefit in using Linux?",
"you can customise it a lot",
"you can with Windows too",
"so how do you turn off those little boxes that pop up",
"what little boxes?",
"the one that appears when you hover over Start",
"oh wow, I've never noticed that before".

And so far that has been the only specific detailed advantage
presented for why Linux is better than Windows. Everything else seems
to be either general and unsubstantiated, such as "Linux is secure and
bug free", based on some bizarre claim that real Windows stopped with
Win 98 and that Windows XP isn't Windows, or the Linux advocate has
been using Windows anyway (which includes the NZ Greens party).

David
Richard Hector
2003-08-24 10:55:46 UTC
Permalink
... some bizarre claim that real Windows stopped with Win 98 and that
Windows XP isn't Windows
I hope you realise that that is only in the mind of Lennier :-)

(who thinks that both are products of some company called Micro$oft ...)

Richard
Richard Hector
2003-08-24 11:44:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Hector
... some bizarre claim that real Windows stopped with Win 98 and that
Windows XP isn't Windows
I hope you realise that that is only in the mind of Lennier :-)
The last version of Micro$oft Windows was WIN4.9 - WindowsME.
WIN4.9 is widely disparaged as being generally inferior to WIN4.1 .
Microsoft (not Micro$oft) owns the products; they get to choose what to
call it - the same as they do with the name of the company. If we were to
follow your line of reasoning, I'd think there must be a point somewhere
between Windows 1.0 and Me that the changes were sufficient to claim that
Windows had been discontinued too. Like the point at which it decided to
take over the whole computer (3.0?), or the point at which it no longer
had to be launched from the command interpreter (95)

Richard
Richard Hector
2003-08-24 12:09:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Hector
Microsoft (not Micro$oft) owns the products; they get to choose what to
call it - the same as they do with the name of the company.
Be that as it may.
From my perspective, "Micro$oft" is the name of the company. "microsoft"
is an inferior quality of something.
And from my perspective, you spend too much time childishly wiggling your
fingers behind Microsoft's head, while aligning yourself strongly with
Linux.

So you make Linux users look like idiots (because you're the
loudest, not because we are), and miss most of the plentiful real reasons
to choose any OS over another.

Richard
Howard Johnson
2003-08-24 22:11:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Hector
Post by Richard Hector
Microsoft (not Micro$oft) owns the products; they get to choose what to
call it - the same as they do with the name of the company.
Be that as it may.
From my perspective, "Micro$oft" is the name of the company. "microsoft"
is an inferior quality of something.
And from my perspective, you spend too much time childishly wiggling your
fingers behind Microsoft's head, while aligning yourself strongly with
Linux.
So you make Linux users look like idiots (because you're the
loudest, not because we are), and miss most of the plentiful real reasons
to choose any OS over another.
Richard
Hear Hear

How about a big cup of SFU Lennier

David Pears
2003-08-24 12:00:00 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 23:39:18 +1200, Lennier
Post by Richard Hector
... some bizarre claim that real Windows stopped with Win 98 and that
Windows XP isn't Windows
I hope you realise that that is only in the mind of Lennier :-)
The last version of Micro$oft Windows was WIN4.9 - WindowsME.
WIN4.9 is widely disparaged as being generally inferior to WIN4.1 .
This is the sort of thing that makes many Linux advocates look like
loons to the general population.

There is no way I'd trust you to advise me on operating system choice,
or to administer or support my systems.

David
Howard Johnson
2003-08-24 11:14:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Pears
Post by Howard Johnson
Post by David Pears
Post by Enkidu
Post by Howard Johnson
It comes up all the time if you hover over the start button in XP
Ah, so it does. I've never hovered long enough to find out. In any
case I don't often use the Start button.
Kinda sad really, when the best argument for Linux is that Windows
users can't turn off a tiny little box that only Linux users have
actually ever noticed.
Kind of pathetic for you to assume that the question has anything to do with
Linux.
Its a Windows user's question.
So why was it first brought up by one of the Linux advocates as
reason for using Linux?
The argument has sorta been...
"what is the benefit in using Linux?",
"you can customise it a lot",
I don't think so
There have been claims that Linux is hard to configure and requires a lot of
documentation and Windows is easy to configure and can be configured by a
small child (someone get me a child please), when there are a lot of Windows
settings which require the use of regedit and policy editor, and various
linux distros have GUI and web enabled interfaces as frontends to the /etc
config files.
Post by David Pears
"you can with Windows too",
"so how do you turn off those little boxes that pop up",
"what little boxes?",
"the one that appears when you hover over Start",
"oh wow, I've never noticed that before".
And so far that has been the only specific detailed advantage
presented for why Linux is better than Windows. Everything else seems
to be either general and unsubstantiated, such as "Linux is secure and
bug free", based on some bizarre claim that real Windows stopped with
Win 98 and that Windows XP isn't Windows, or the Linux advocate has
been using Windows anyway (which includes the NZ Greens party).
Platform/OS threads never cover anything new.
I think I may have dished out some stick regarding lenny's ridiculous claims
about Windows.
This residence has an OS agnostic network with Debian, XP 2k 9x MacOS all
running, all able to share displays and files, its the only way to learn.
Some dualboot to 98 to play Starcraft
I usually choose a platform for the applications it runs. I find Linux rock
solid and pragmatically designed, it has its own annoyances.
XP is shiny and racy with the registry instead of /etc.
I use both, and I participate here for my amusement and education.
I'm pleased that Max Burke pointed me at a link to to turn off the Windows
Explorer Infotips.
Thanks Max.
By participating on a newsgroup other people get to see how to do that too
if they like
Howard Johnson
2003-08-24 10:25:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Enkidu
Post by Howard Johnson
Post by Enkidu
Post by Howard Johnson
Do Windows users really need a tooltip that says "Click here to begin"
attached to the start button.
Erm, that one only comes up *once* on the first login to the box.
It comes up all the time if you hover over the start button in XP
Ah, so it does. I've never hovered long enough to find out. In any
case I don't often use the Start button.
It birdshits itself over every other taskbar button in an ugly way.
Its a messy mistake.
I hope they address it in a service pack soon, and put in some better
controls that don't involve regedit
There are plenty of other annoying ugly bits of clutter in Windows that are
the subject of several books for Windows users, and an annoyances website.
The same tooltip popup nonsense happens in Outlook Express truncated article
titles and despite having a checkbox to turn it off, it has no effect.
unknown
2003-08-24 10:06:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Howard Johnson
Now the tooltips, is searching the web for tweak sites and using
regedit the only way to change this setting ?
No. TweakUI. Haven't you downloaded and installed it yet?
Post by Howard Johnson
Or is there a friendly front end ?
TweakUI (see my previous post for the link)
Post by Howard Johnson
Most of the suggestions I got from windows experts were to turn off
the notification area balloon tips or chage the transition effect.
Do Windows users really need a tooltip that says "Click here to begin"
attached to the start button.
No, but MIcrosoft in it's wisdom decided that it is needed....
But hey if that irrelevancy annoys you enough to stop you using the OS
then perhaps Linux would be a better option for you....
;-)
Post by Howard Johnson
Perhaps if they added "and click here
to shut down even though it says "Start"" it would be more useful.
Its another example of the patronising twee cutsie Clippy mindset.
Irritating.
Only if *you* let it be irritating......
--
mlvburke@#%&*.net.nz
Replace the obvious with paradise to email me.
See Found Images at:
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke
Howard Johnson
2003-08-24 10:37:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Post by Howard Johnson
Now the tooltips, is searching the web for tweak sites and using
regedit the only way to change this setting ?
No. TweakUI. Haven't you downloaded and installed it yet?
Yes, it only turns off the round cornered balloon help popups
Post by unknown
Post by Howard Johnson
Or is there a friendly front end ?
TweakUI (see my previous post for the link)
Post by Howard Johnson
Most of the suggestions I got from windows experts were to turn off
the notification area balloon tips or chage the transition effect.
Do Windows users really need a tooltip that says "Click here to begin"
attached to the start button.
No, but MIcrosoft in it's wisdom decided that it is needed....
But hey if that irrelevancy annoys you enough to stop you using the OS
then perhaps Linux would be a better option for you....
;-)
Why ?
I'm happy using both, I just don't agree with you that a Windows desktop is
easy to configure and a Linux desktop is hard to configure.
Why not put in the same controls for taskbar tooltips as they do for the
balloon popup, its obviously technically possible.
Post by unknown
Post by Howard Johnson
Perhaps if they added "and click here
to shut down even though it says "Start"" it would be more useful.
Its another example of the patronising twee cutsie Clippy mindset.
Irritating.
Only if *you* let it be irritating......
You seem to have found the tweak sites Max
Found a few irritations yourself ? ;)
Its where *I* want to go today that counts, remember ?
cowboyz
2003-08-24 05:47:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by whoa
Sure, You tell me how to install fonts in Linux.
Easy.
Do you want Micro$oft's TrueType fonts on Linux?
Double click on the RPM file - done.
./configure
Make
etc.
This is necessary because Micro$oft prohibits the distribution of their
fonts in an installable packaged format.
And then what do you do if you get a message saying... This is only
compatible with gcc2.2 you have gcc3.3. something like that.

or file does not exist midway through its little ./configure hissy fit????
Lennier
--
"It's what you learn after you know it all that counts."
Allistar
2003-08-23 22:33:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Henry Falkner
Post by cowboyz
Post by Evil Bastard
To all people who absolutely must persist with windows and aren't yet
I will awitch to open source software as soon as you offer constructive,
easy to understand help on how to setup the things that I want to do
without
Post by cowboyz
telling me to RTFM.
Seeing as Windows is so easy in comparison, can you tell me how to turn
off the tool tips please?
And while you're there tell me how to enable menu translucency, how to tell
the desktop exactly what each of the three buttons does, how to have 16
desktops running at once, how to alter the way alt-tab works, how to enable
a desktop menu ala Macintosh, how to display devices on desktop by default.

My point is that Linux (or more specifically KDE) is very very configurable.

Allistar.
Evil Bastard
2003-08-23 00:03:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by cowboyz
I will awitch to open source software as soon as you offer constructive,
easy to understand help on how to setup the things that I want to do without
telling me to RTFM.
Valid criticism.

There definitely is a bit of an RTFM and even RTFS culture within some of
the open source community.

But this is IMO more than balanced by the community support.

I guess it's a matter of who you depend on.

With proprietary software, you end up depending on the vendor, who may or
may not charge you for help (eg Microsoft charges upwards of $60 or more
for a 2 minute support call once your freebies run out). Also, the vendor
may or may not fix your problem.

With open source software, you are dependent on the user community. There
are vast numbers of mailing lists and chat rooms where you can ask
questions, and thousands upon thousands of people, including those on the
development team, who are there 24/7 to heop.

But this worst-thing-in-the-world 'RTFM' attitude may not be as bad as it
sounds. Babies are helpless, and only know how to cry and suck on a tit.
But children have some skills to meet their needs, and as they mature,
their dependence on their parents diminishes.

You'll notice that people in the OSS community will respect you far more
if you show you've made some effort to fix an issue yourself. But take
note that the OSS community is no place to be if you want to remain a
baby.

M$ makes billions of dollars by allowing people to stay in that
baby-stage dependence, and exploiting them every possible moment.

OSS encourages people to grow up and claim their own independence.

EB
Bruce Hamilton
2003-08-23 04:16:28 UTC
Permalink
[ Microsoft v Opensource ...]
Post by Evil Bastard
With open source software, you are dependent on the user community. There
are vast numbers of mailing lists and chat rooms where you can ask
questions, and thousands upon thousands of people, including those on the
development team, who are there 24/7 to heop.
Knowledgebase?, Usenet?. I've always been far more successful getting solutions
from those for my MS software than from any of the resources of suppliers of
other operating system or applications I've had to use because specialist
software allegedly required such "powerful" OSs.

Yes, it's probably because Windows is so flawed it needs all the support it can
get, but I can now worry about the actual work I do, rather than the fragility
and limitations of the software I used to have to contend with. Applying
patches is trivial, and if Microsoft really do want to start poking around my
computer, good luck to them - if they screw up, litigious Americans will hammer
them first.
Post by Evil Bastard
You'll notice that people in the OSS community will respect you far more
if you show you've made some effort to fix an issue yourself. But take
note that the OSS community is no place to be if you want to remain a
baby.
As far as I'm concerned software is like a car - it should get me to where I
want to be. I can choose a bespoke system, a mass-produced integrated system, a
non-frills system, or a kitset system. The style I wish to flaunt when I arrive
at my destination could also determine my choice but, being lazy, the system
with minimal time input and reasonable cost ( MS XP ) currently works for me.
Post by Evil Bastard
M$ makes billions of dollars by allowing people to stay in that
baby-stage dependence, and exploiting them every possible moment.
OSS encourages people to grow up and claim their own independence.
People used to say that about OS2 ( what's that? ), and I suspect SCO has just
about managed to make Linux and similar OSs pretty unattractive to businesses
wary of future litigation.

Given that life's not a rehearsal, why fritter it away trying to assemble a car
when I can purchase one for a reasonable price, and get on with more
interesting challenges?. I happen to believe that, for computers, it's arriving
promptly at the destination, not the journey, that's important. YMMV.

Followups set to nz.comp only.

Bruce Hamilton
Howard Johnson
2003-08-22 22:19:33 UTC
Permalink
But if we all switch to open source the virus writers will target it, and
you'll be affected too.
8)
Only partially true. Virus writers may very well target open source
software.
Open source is of course a generic term that describes apps written to run
on Windows as well as other operating systems, so lets assume that this
poster means free operating systems like Linux and BSD
But the flaws in Windows which enable viruses to propagate have been caused
by Microsofts opt in security model, and the identical nature of the
unsecured default suite of internet applications.
With Linux some distribution vendors may adopt a similar model for
convenience and some may be more secure out of the box. Linux installs are
completely modular and may have nothing in common except the kernel and the
gnu base.
Its really down to how the file sharing and internet communication
applications are set up.
Windows can be secured without Anti virus products by eliminating the
fundamental exploits.
Thats what each Linux distro attempts to do, and the reason for the
identical security advisories each time one of the open source building
block apps needs a security update.
Windows 9x had so many vulnerabilities that the best that could be done was
to parse incoming code with anti virus software. Windows XP eliminates many
of the fundamental exploits, so it is a positive step.
Howard Johnson
2003-08-22 23:16:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Howard Johnson
Windows XP eliminates
many of the fundamental exploits, so it is a positive step.
<snigga>
Yeah right!
Right

Its a multi user OS with file priveleges
Its much easier to admin and secure.
Micro$oft Windows is not worth the money - it is insecure, bug-ridden
garbage.
Most people here killfile ranters like you regardless of whether they use
linux and/or Windows
There is a reason why Unix systems - even after more than 33 years service
- are still commonly used in mission-critical areas.
There are many reasons why Windows systems are commonly used everywhere
There is also a good reason why Open Source software has settled on the
same security model as Unix.
Unix doesn't have a "security model".
Its up to you, you can run with root privileges no login and your root
directory writeable if you want.
Its just a kit of tools
You wouldn't have a clue how to put together a PC installation from scratch
without a distribution.
The security administration is done by the distribution vendors.
And there is also a good reason why Open Source software came back into
existence after years of domination by Micro$oft and it's appallingly bad
Windows Applications.
Its free.
Howard Johnson
2003-08-23 00:14:47 UTC
Permalink
Unix doesn't have a "security model". Its up to you, you can run with
root privileges no login and your root directory writeable if you want.
Actually - *THAT* is it's security model.
Wrong.
Its a series of options for the distribution vendor to configure and the
user to modify.
Howard Johnson
2003-08-23 02:13:03 UTC
Permalink
The Sysadmin
Just a user with different privileges.
No.
The Root User is not a "user". The Root User is an account for quite
specific purposes only.
Where the grownups work, users with sudo privileges do various types of
admin and the root account is never used by humans.
gblack
2003-08-23 05:01:20 UTC
Permalink
--

"Lennier" <***@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:***@TRACKER...
: On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 12:14:47 +1200, Howard Johnson wrote:
:
: >> Actually - *THAT* is it's security model.
: >>
: > Wrong.
: > Its a series of options for the distribution vendor to configure
and the
: > user to modify.
:
: What???
:
: The Sysadmin - not the users - decides who gets what access on the
system.
:
: Lennier

This number of posts just scream -agenda-
T.N.O
2003-08-24 06:54:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Howard Johnson
Actually - *THAT* is it's security model.
Wrong.
Its a series of options for the distribution vendor to configure and the
user to modify.
sounds remarkably similar to Windows... everything is there, it just needs
to be modified.
cowboyz
2003-08-23 06:46:18 UTC
Permalink
Unix doesn't have a "security model". Its up to you, you can run with
root privileges no login and your root directory writeable if you want.
Actually - *THAT* is it's security model.
The admin can do what it likes - the assumption being that the sysadmin
knows exactly what it is doing. The user is quite restricted as to what it
can do - the assumption being that users do not know what they're doing
and should not be trusted with important system stuff.
This is exactly as it should be.
Windows
You are assuming that all computer users have a system adminstrator and
multi-users. This is why the *home* PC was created. For those who want to
buy their computer from a shop, take it home, plug it in and get on with
whatever they want to do on it.
Microsoft (weather you like it or not) have captured the home market well.
They have created an OS that is very easy to use.

--
"It's what you learn after you know it all that counts."
Allistar
2003-08-23 22:38:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by cowboyz
Unix doesn't have a "security model". Its up to you, you can run with
root privileges no login and your root directory writeable if you want.
Actually - *THAT* is it's security model.
The admin can do what it likes - the assumption being that the sysadmin
knows exactly what it is doing. The user is quite restricted as to what
it can do - the assumption being that users do not know what they're
doing and should not be trusted with important system stuff.
This is exactly as it should be.
Windows
You are assuming that all computer users have a system adminstrator and
multi-users. This is why the *home* PC was created. For those who want
to buy their computer from a shop, take it home, plug it in and get on
with whatever they want to do on it.
Microsoft (weather you like it or not) have captured the home market well.
They have created an OS that is very easy to use.
And, as is the point with this thread, very easy to exploit.

Allistar.
Uncle StoatWarbler
2003-08-23 19:10:48 UTC
Permalink
Microsoft replaced their domestic user operating system with a better
domestic operating system with better security and separate user and admin
privs
Unfortunately most games and much software requires admin privileges to
RUN, let alone install and most bonehead installers are setting users up
with admin privileges by default.
whoa
2003-08-23 22:00:31 UTC
Permalink
Its a multi user OS with file priveleges Its much easier to admin and
secure.
Than what?
Linux???
Don't think so!
So give us an example of how easy it is to secure a common and current Linux
distro??????????????
Howard Johnson
2003-08-24 04:47:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by whoa
So give us an example of how easy it is to secure a common and current
Linux distro
Delete the dodgy user's account.
And/or
Set up the HOSTS-ALLOW list to point to only the specific hosts users are
permitted to connect with.
Set up the HOSTS-DENY list to deny everything else.
Ensure that only services that are necessary on that box are started and
running, and that all the rest are not installed - easy to do using the
service management GUI and RPM from the command line.
And/or
Set up IPchains for packet filtering using the builtin firewall to catch
known dodgy stuff.
Of course one has to know what to look for, and this is a good reason why
the illiterate should not be permitted to own a computer until they have
gained the required training and understanding (note "understanding" not
"knowledge") of what they are to do.
Of course that means I probably shouldn't own a computer either. :o)
You definitely shouldn't be allowed to try and explain how one works ;o)
Enkidu
2003-08-24 05:52:29 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 16:12:02 +1200, Lennier
Of course one has to know what to look for, and this is a good reason why
the illiterate should not be permitted to own a computer until they have
gained the required training and understanding (note "understanding" not
"knowledge") of what they are to do.
One good way is to remove the &*^%ing GUI!
Of course that means I probably shouldn't own a computer either. :o)
I couldn't possibly comment.

Cheers,

Cliff
--

Signed and sealed with Great Seal of the Executive
Council of the Internet, by The Master of The Net.
cowboyz
2003-08-24 08:50:31 UTC
Permalink
So what you are really saying is that the software *available* for
windows system is much more suitable to your current needs that the
software that is available for your Linux box.
You are not coming off well here.
I am not intending to "come off" well or otherwise in this discussion.
I presently use Pan on Linux to read the NZ.* hierarchy.
I use Xnews on Windows to download MP3s.
Thus, I can do both tasks at the same time.
you could use pan on windows and do it at the same time couldn't you. then
there would be no need for Linux.
Once Pan gets multi-threading, I will have no regular use for anything on
Windows.
Once, if , when .. all the same and what I have been saying all along.
When Linux comes up with software to do the job it will be more competitive
with windows. You, an avid Linux user, have freely admitted that Linux does
not have the quality of software to meet your needs that windows has.
Everything you can do on Linux can be done on windows. Apparently it does
not work in reverse.
Lennier
reetix
2003-08-22 23:59:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Howard Johnson
Windows XP eliminates
many of the fundamental exploits, so it is a positive step.
<snigga>
Yeah right!
Micro$oft Windows is not worth the money - it is insecure, bug-ridden
garbage.
Yeah Yeah you're right. I wish I could write garbage like that, that most of
the world use, making ... one of the richest men in the world ..
Howard Johnson
2003-08-23 01:36:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by reetix
Micro$oft Windows is not worth the money - it is insecure, bug-ridden
garbage.
Yeah Yeah you're right. I wish I could write garbage like that, that
most
Post by reetix
of the world use, making ... one of the richest men in the world ..
Bill Gates was very good at marketing his software.
He is STILL to this day reaping the rewards of those early marketing
decisions.
Indeed
Being first into a marketplace is a huge advantage.
Uncle StoatWarbler
2003-08-23 19:31:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Howard Johnson
Indeed
Being first into a marketplace is a huge advantage.
As is being able to do things like bring out new versions of an operating
system which deliberately disable competitors programs.

Dos 4 and Lotus 123, being a prime example.
Enkidu
2003-08-22 22:46:37 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 02:55:16 +1200, Evil Bastard
Post by Evil Bastard
To all people who absolutely must persist with windows and aren't yet
Could you PLEASE ALL FIX YOUR SECURITY! Like, NOW!!!!
1) Don't EVER open an attachment unless you're expecting it and you know
the sender.
2) Run a good firewall - ZoneAlarm is a reasonable free one, and there are
better ones available for payment or via covert channels
Make sure to block off all incoming and outgoing connections on ports 135
and 139 at the very least
3) Please stop using software that promotes infection - software such as
Outlook, Outlook Express and Internet Explorer.
Install Pegasus, Eudora, Mozilla or Opera instead.
I am just so sick and tired of all your freakin viruses chewing up my
bandwidth and server processor cycles.
I am even more pissed off when I receive bounce messages accusing me of
sending viruses that never left my system (new viruses spoofing my email
address in the From: header.
Thank you very much in advance.
This post was not "Fair and Balanced".

Cheers,

Cliff

--

Signed and sealed with Great Seal of the Executive
Council of the Internet, by The Master of The Net.
Evil Bastard
2003-08-23 00:05:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Enkidu
This post was not "Fair and Balanced".
Life's tough, ain't it mate!
Stephen Williams
2003-08-23 00:52:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Evil Bastard
Post by Enkidu
This post was not "Fair and Balanced".
Life's tough, ain't it mate!
Not if you're biggest concerns are server processor cycles and bandwidth.

Must be very easy indeed!

Steve
Evil Bastard
2003-08-23 01:59:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Williams
Not if you're biggest concerns are server processor cycles and bandwidth.
Did they teach English when you went to school?

Hint: "You tend to place _your_ apostrophes incorrectly, indicating that
_you're_ not well informed on these areas of written English".
Enkidu
2003-08-23 02:48:14 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 12:05:07 +1200, Evil Bastard
Post by Evil Bastard
Post by Enkidu
This post was not "Fair and Balanced".
Life's tough, ain't it mate!
Did that whizz right over your head? Let me give you another clue:

"I'm Being Nibbled to Death by Cats!"

Get it now?

Cheers,

Cliff
--

Signed and sealed with Great Seal of the Executive
Council of the Internet, by The Master of The Net.
Enkidu
2003-08-22 22:58:06 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 10:12:51 +1200, Lennier
But if we all switch to open source the virus writers will target it,
and you'll be affected too.
Due to the security model used by Unix and Linux systems it simply is not
possible for a virus to corrupt a *nix system.
Duh! Wrong!
The worst that a user would be able to do would be to delete the contents
of their own home directory.
There have been many Unix exploits that allow the user elevated
rights. Read BugTrack.
But for that virus to delete the contents of their home directory, the
user would have to save it to disc, and then run it, asuming that it
actually had the necessary permissions to run.
You're assuming mail delivery of the virus.
When using Windows/Outlook, all you have to do is to download your email
or look at a website using Windows/Internet Explorer and you can be
infected.
All you need to do on a Linux system is install something that
contains an exploit. The GNU site was compromised. Pretty much
anything with its origins there is suspect. But GNU are not the only
ones. Read Bug Track
The prudent person uses Linux.
The prudent person has a virus checker and patches all the time. In
the early days of Unix new versions came out daily. For some packages
they still do. Fergossake, even the old mainframes were patched on a
monthly basis.

Cheers,

Cliff
--

Signed and sealed with Great Seal of the Executive
Council of the Internet, by The Master of The Net.
Pancho San Remo
2003-08-23 00:42:38 UTC
Permalink
But in 5 years, I have not had even one problem with a virus. Yes - I've
occasionally received a virus via email, BUT, I am making sure that I (as
much as I can) do not have a system - or a network - with known exploits.
I've been using windows/IE/OE for over 5 years, and I've never had a
problem with a virus either.
Anthony Neville
2003-08-22 23:11:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Evil Bastard
To all people who absolutely must persist with windows and aren't yet
Could you PLEASE ALL FIX YOUR SECURITY! Like, NOW!!!!
You patronizing fuck. If this were a forum dedicated to computer newbies your
post would be forgivable. In posting here, where users know about firewalls,
ports, security updates, and viruses, it is an insult. Your lumping of ~all~
Windows users together is not appreciated, just as it would not be appreciated
to associate all linux users wiith obnoxious, geekish cliques of lumpen, mean
spirited 'Free software = freedom' zealots.

Tony.
Anthony Neville
2003-08-23 00:49:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Neville
You patronizing fuck. If this were a forum dedicated to computer newbies
your post would be forgivable. In posting here, where users know about
firewalls, ports, security updates, and viruses, it is an insult. Your
lumping of ~all~ Windows users together is not appreciated, just as it
would not be appreciated to associate all linux users wiith obnoxious,
geekish cliques of lumpen, mean spirited 'Free software = freedom'
zealots.
Sounds to me that you're not exactly happy to be using WinXP.
If I were running XP I'd still call him a patronizing fuck because a patronizing fuck is what
he is. All I have currently available is Win98 (first edition) and Redhat. Windows XP Pro
is at this very moment ready to be installed on to my 3Ghz dream machine I have been
building over the last two weeks and am just waiting for my gfx card and memory to be
delivered. Yes, Lennier, a prime machine deserves a prime desktop OS and it is not
Win98 or Redhat, but XP Pro.

Tony.
Anthony Neville
2003-08-23 01:37:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Neville
Post by Anthony Neville
You patronizing fuck. If this were a forum dedicated to computer newbies
your post would be forgivable. In posting here, where users know about
firewalls, ports, security updates, and viruses, it is an insult. Your
lumping of ~all~ Windows users together is not appreciated, just as it
would not be appreciated to associate all linux users wiith obnoxious,
geekish cliques of lumpen, mean spirited 'Free software = freedom'
zealots.
Sounds to me that you're not exactly happy to be using WinXP.
If I were running XP I'd still call him a patronizing fuck because a patronizing fuck is what
he is. All I have currently available is Win98 (first edition) and Redhat. Windows XP Pro
is at this very moment ready to be installed on to my 3Ghz dream machine I have been
building over the last two weeks and am just waiting for my gfx card and memory to be
delivered. Yes, Lennier, a prime machine deserves a prime desktop OS and it is not
Win98 or Redhat, but XP Pro.
Oh oh oh! My drool worthy graphics card has just arrived.

Tony.
Anthony Neville
2003-08-23 03:43:02 UTC
Permalink
"Bobs" <***@extra.co.nz> wrote in message news:***@extra.co.nz...
[...]
What card is it?
http://www.msi.com.tw/program/products/vga/vga/pro_vga_detail.php?UID=477

It is supposedly very quiet; a mere 26db which I suspect is a little optimistic. Hell,
this card looks great with all the other stuff. I mean, no geek with any sense of esthetics
would put it in a case without a side window. You know what really hurts, though? I
have to wait until Wednesday, at least, until the memory arrives to fire up Collosus
for the very first time.

Can't wait to benchmark it against my Cirrus Logic 5465.

Tony.
cowboyz
2003-08-23 06:26:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Neville
[...]
What card is it?
http://www.msi.com.tw/program/products/vga/vga/pro_vga_detail.php?UID=477
It is supposedly very quiet; a mere 26db which I suspect is a little optimistic. Hell,
this card looks great with all the other stuff. I mean, no geek with any sense of esthetics
would put it in a case without a side window. You know what really hurts, though? I
have to wait until Wednesday, at least, until the memory arrives to fire up Collosus
for the very first time.
Can't wait to benchmark it against my Cirrus Logic 5465.
Tony.
being as you yet to finish the system how about sending me that card to make
sure it is working properly for you.

Don't bother sending a return address... I wont need it. ;-)

--
"It's what you learn after you know it all that counts."
Bobs
2003-08-23 01:57:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Neville
Post by Evil Bastard
To all people who absolutely must persist with windows and aren't yet
Could you PLEASE ALL FIX YOUR SECURITY! Like, NOW!!!!
You patronizing fuck. If this were a forum dedicated to computer newbies your
post would be forgivable. In posting here, where users know about firewalls,
ports, security updates, and viruses, it is an insult. Your lumping of ~all~
Windows users together is not appreciated, just as it would not be appreciated
to associate all linux users wiith obnoxious, geekish cliques of lumpen, mean
spirited 'Free software = freedom' zealots.
LOL!!! Well, said Anthony. I've been running Windows based pcs on the
internet since the mid 90's and never come close to a virus. The fact of
the matter is that these feral tree hugging beatniks are actually worse
than the Mac fantatics they so used to hate.

Ironic stuff really. Almost amusing.
Post by Anthony Neville
Tony.
--
Idiot: "You are what you eat"
Bobs: "Tell me, have you ever eaten pussy?"
Idiot: "Yeah. All the time"
Bobs: "Case closed"

(see Bobs' Book of Quotes)
Bobs
2003-08-23 02:17:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bobs
LOL!!! Well, said Anthony. I've been running Windows based pcs on the
internet since the mid 90's and never come close to a virus.
Funny that, but my firewall is blocking presently many viruses on an
hourly basis from attempting to gain access to my intranet.
Yes, that's because of newbies you sadpacker. Every O/S, including your
own hippy one, has flaws to exploit. If 99% of the population were
pathetic little linux geeks then it would be linux getting targeted. The
problem is making sure the newbies update their O/S from time to time
with the patches microsoft release for free.

The only solution for your problem is to ban anyone without computer
skills from using computers.
Lennier
--
Idiot: "You are what you eat"
Bobs: "Tell me, have you ever eaten pussy?"
Idiot: "Yeah. All the time"
Bobs: "Case closed"

(see Bobs' Book of Quotes)
Anthony Neville
2003-08-23 07:53:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Wilkinson
Hi there,
Post by Bobs
LOL!!! Well, said Anthony. I've been running Windows based pcs on the
internet since the mid 90's and never come close to a virus.
That's a pretty dumb assumption...who knows how many could have been
transmitted thru Outlook on his machine?
Jeeee Zuzzz... I don't ~have~ Outlook. Even the mere mention of office software
makes my eyes water with bordom. <yawWWWn> <--- See what you did?

Tony.
Chris Wilkinson
2003-08-23 22:19:25 UTC
Permalink
Hi there,
Post by Anthony Neville
Post by Chris Wilkinson
Hi there,
Post by Bobs
LOL!!! Well, said Anthony. I've been running Windows based pcs on the
internet since the mid 90's and never come close to a virus.
That's a pretty dumb assumption...who knows how many could have been
transmitted thru Outlook on his machine?
Jeeee Zuzzz... I don't ~have~ Outlook. Even the mere mention of office software
makes my eyes water with bordom. <yawWWWn> <--- See what you did?
Sorry dude, I must read the rest of the thread. Good to see you aren't
one of these dudes who gets excited at the mention of a new Office(TM)
package! ;-)

That still doesn't mean your PC hasn't seen a virus...

Kind regards,

Chris Wilkinson, Christchurch.
Howard Johnson
2003-08-24 05:10:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Neville
Post by Chris Wilkinson
Hi there,
Post by Bobs
LOL!!! Well, said Anthony. I've been running Windows based pcs on
the internet since the mid 90's and never come close to a virus.
That's a pretty dumb assumption...who knows how many could have been
transmitted thru Outlook on his machine?
Jeeee Zuzzz... I don't ~have~ Outlook. Even the mere mention of office
software makes my eyes water with bordom. <yawWWWn> <--- See what you
did?
Tony.
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
What were these doing in your headers then?
Hey thicko
Outlook is not Outlook Express
Outlook is a groupware client for Microsoft Exchange server, it includes
mail but not news. It is a component of Microsoft Office
Outlook Express is a mail and news client distributed with Windows
Howard Johnson
2003-08-24 09:55:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Howard Johnson
Outlook is not Outlook Express
No kidding.
However, most people call "Outlook Express" "Outlook".
Even if that were true, which it isn't, it would mean absolutely nothing.
unknown
2003-08-24 10:09:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Howard Johnson
Outlook is not Outlook Express
No kidding.
However, most people call "Outlook Express" "Outlook".
No they dont.
--
mlvburke@#%&*.net.nz
Replace the obvious with paradise to email me.
See Found Images at:
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke
Anthony Neville
2003-08-23 04:09:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Neville
Yes, Lennier, a prime machine deserves a prime desktop OS
Agreed...
Post by Anthony Neville
and it is not Win98 or Redhat, but XP Pro.
But I thought that you said a prime machiene deserves a prime desktop OS?
So why use WinNT5.x?
No no, the product is called Windows XP Professional, not Windows NT5. I'm buying XP
for it's stability, user friendliness, the vast amount of software available for XP, and because
I want to get back into gaming after eleven years, and because I have purchased $$$ of
software currently installed on Win98 that is also compatible with XP.

Tony.
Anthony Neville
2003-08-23 06:47:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Neville
So why use WinNT5.x?
No no, the product is called Windows XP Professional, not Windows NT5.
"WindowsXP" is how Micro$oft has advertized that particular version of NT.
WinNT by any other name is still WinNT.
Suit yourself. You call it WinNT, I will call it WinXP Pro.
Post by Anthony Neville
I'm buying XP for it's stability,
Linux 2.4.x has greater stability than WinNT.
If you think so, then you will be sticking with Linux 2.4. I'll have Windows XP Pro.
Post by Anthony Neville
user friendliness,
WinXP is a OS written for Dummies - Windows for Dummies.
If that's what you call "User Friendliness" then good luck to you.
All sorts of people can use Win XP; from computer geeks to people with
other interests, and dummies, too. Like I have stated previously, even my
big fat mate's big fat momma can use it.
Post by Anthony Neville
the vast amount of software available for XP,
There is likewise a vast amount of software written for *nix systems -
albeit different software
Nothing compared to what is available for XP.
Post by Anthony Neville
and because I want to get back into gaming
after eleven years,
Most likely the real reason for using WinXP.
They're all ~real~ reasons. Gaming is the ~major~ reason. I have purchased a
17" Hitachi CML174SXW B LCD which is said to be an excellent LCD for game
playing. There is also my extreme graphics card. I did not pay for this stuff just to
travel the web, perve at beautiful naked women, and post articles to usenet.
Post by Anthony Neville
and because I have purchased $$$ of software currently
installed on Win98 that is also compatible with XP.
A Windows Emulator would be just as useful to you, and cheaper than
actually buying WinXP.
Too many CPU cycles lost to the emulator. I want to get the full performance
from Windows software, so that rules out using Wine.

Tony.
Allistar
2003-08-23 22:22:47 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Post by Anthony Neville
Post by Anthony Neville
and because I have purchased $$$ of software currently
installed on Win98 that is also compatible with XP.
A Windows Emulator would be just as useful to you, and cheaper than
actually buying WinXP.
If yo run an emulator (like VMWare) you still need to pay for the guest
operating system license (for commercial OS's that is).
Post by Anthony Neville
Too many CPU cycles lost to the emulator. I want to get the full
performance from Windows software, so that rules out using Wine.
I use VMWare on my P4 2.4GHz Mandrake 9.1 box to run Windows 98 for that one
final piece of software that won't run on Linux and the performance it
totally acceptable. Funnily enough my computer actually runs faster now for
most things as the multithreading in Linux 2.4.x is orders of magnitude
over how Windows98 does it.
Post by Anthony Neville
Tony.
Enkidu
2003-08-24 06:16:00 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 16:32:27 +1200, Lennier
Post by Anthony Neville
If that's what you call "User Friendliness" then good luck to you.
All sorts of people can use Win XP; from computer geeks to people with
other interests, and dummies, too. Like I have stated previously, even my
big fat mate's big fat momma can use it.
And, if you want to reconfigure something that doesn't have a GUI, what
are you to do?
Like what, exactly?
Get out your binhex editor?
Use Regedit?
Or simply edit the plain text file?
Cheers,

Cliff

--

Signed and sealed with Great Seal of the Executive
Council of the Internet, by The Master of The Net.
unknown
2003-08-24 10:00:36 UTC
Permalink
There is likewise a vast amount of software written for *nix
systems - albeit different software
Post by Anthony Neville
Nothing compared to what is available for XP.
Everything which runs on the WIN32 and WIN16 platforms can be run
under Linux using an emulator.
Why would *anyone* want to run an OS just so they can emulate another OS
to run that OS'es applications?
Only in the Linux world...... ;-)
--
mlvburke@#%&*.net.nz
Replace the obvious with paradise to email me.
See Found Images at:
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke
Howard Johnson
2003-08-24 10:11:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
There is likewise a vast amount of software written for *nix
systems - albeit different software
Post by Anthony Neville
Nothing compared to what is available for XP.
Everything which runs on the WIN32 and WIN16 platforms can be run
under Linux using an emulator.
Why would *anyone* want to run an OS just so they can emulate another OS
to run that OS'es applications?
Only in the Linux world...... ;-)
We run VMware to switch between various versions of Windows to test our
application software
9x and nt 2k XP are definitely different operating systems.
There is also development work where hot switching between Linux and Windows
is an essential feature.
Allistar
2003-08-24 10:40:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
There is likewise a vast amount of software written for *nix
systems - albeit different software
Post by Anthony Neville
Nothing compared to what is available for XP.
Everything which runs on the WIN32 and WIN16 platforms can be run
under Linux using an emulator.
Why would *anyone* want to run an OS just so they can emulate another OS
to run that OS'es applications?
They don't run the first OS *JUST* to emulate another OS. They use the
primary OS for day to day work and the emulated OS for stuff that so far
only the emulated OS can do.

As far as my needs go there is more I can't do in Windows than I can't do in
Linux, which is one of the reasons I use Linux.

Allistar.
T.N.O
2003-08-24 21:31:24 UTC
Permalink
And, if you want to reconfigure something that doesn't have a GUI, what
are you to do?
chances are that his big fat mates big fat momma wont want to edit any
config files.
unknown
2003-08-23 00:13:55 UTC
Permalink
Max Burke wrote in message
But lets consider your 'alternative' for a moment.....
Firstly, it is no more secure and safe to use than Windows out of the
box; The user has to do just as much if not more, than any windows
user to make it secure.
This is an attribute that varies by distribution.
Just as Microsoft have changed their defaults so attachments are no
longer executed, Linux distribution vendors can tailor their default
installations
Of course; But how does the end user deal with security.
Secondly, it apparently (in all the various distros and apps) is
just as bug ridden as advocates of OSS/Linux (like you) like to
claim Windows and it's apps are.
Hard to do a comparison, you would have to pick a distribution with a
kernel and the exact same suite of default installation functions to
compare apples with apples.
If you wanted to compare all the applications written to run on
windows with their vulnerabilities and bugs with all the applications
written to run on Linux then you would have a huge number of bugs for
both.
Comparing software written by Microsoft with binary software packages
distributed by Redhat would also not be a valid comparison
"...if it's unfair to lump all open source software together for
bug-counting purposes, it's also unfair to do the same thing for all
Microsoft software. (Otherwise, to get an accurate assessment for Linux
systems, you'd have to include the bugs from open source browsers and
all other normal system add-ins or add-ons, on top of Linux's own bugs.)
Instead, to avoid an apples/oranges comparison, it's better to look at
specific brands, types, and builds of products across similar amounts of
time: That's the only accurate way to see how, say, operating systems
compare, or browsers compare, or E-mail programs compare, and so on.
http://www.informationweek.com
story 24/01/2003
http://www.partyvibe.com/flavour/linux/security.htm
http://www.linuxsecurity.com/advisories/index.html
http://www.opennet.ru/base/linux/
http://www.securityfocus.com/news/19
http://lists.debian.org/debian-security-announce/
Secondly, For all it's touted good points, OSS/Linux is simply NOT
ready for the ordinary computer users that most of us are. It is
a.) The average computer user to install configure and keep up to
date for ordinary everyday usage let alone keep secure; Computers are
supposed to be easy to use. Ordinary users should not have to
configure the 'inner workings' of the OS and applications just to
make them do what they're supposed to do. Ordinary users Dont and
WONT do that.
They just want to be able to press the on switch and to start typing
that letter/email, play that game, or surf the internet.... They're
simply NOT interested in have to configure and tweak to do that.
So, demonstrably is Windows at the moment.
Hardly; Anyone can buy a computer with Windows installed on it, take it
home, plug it in, switch it on and be using it just like they would with
any other home appliance.
It is technically possible to assemble open source components into a
distrubtion which is easy to use.
It may be technically possible to do that, but this is what WILL have to
happen for OSS/Linux to become a real alternative to Microsoft/Windows.
It certainly doesn't happen now.....
Mac OSX is the living proof.
How many Mac OSX users are there in the world.
There are many settings in Windows which require the use of regedit to
configure
Check out http://www.annoyances.org/
None of which are required to use *any computer* running Windows......
I did, and I still couldn't find a way to turn off the annoying and
redundant tooltips in xp which popup every time I hover over anything.
In KDE, I can turn them on or off with a click.
It's REAL EASY to do that.....

From Enkidu's reply to your post:
In XP, it's Right click desktop, Properties, Appearance, Effects, and
uncheck the top box.
b.) It is simply too hard for the ordinary user to make secure. They
dont want to have to configure and tweak the OS to make it secure;
They just want to install the security (preferably automatically)
and have their computer made secure by that security install.
Mandrake Lycoris Xandros Lindows etc offer profiles in their
configurations which have these attributes.
So does Windows....
It's called Automatic Update.
Thirdly, Unless and until OSS/LINUX offers the ease of use and 'out
of the box' experience that Windows users currently have it will
never be a suitable replacement for Windows......
What with so many different versions of the OS, it's applications,
and no generic support that covers ALL the variants of Linux, it
will never become an alternative for the ordinary computer user.....
Mac OSX again, add a nice GUI shell and configlets to FreeBSD and
there you go
How many Mac users are there in the world? With Apple's very restrictive
distribution policies, the Mac OS and hardware are simply not an
alternative to the ordinary/average computer owner/user.
And like it or lump it, the *ordinary computer user* who sees a
computer as just another home appliance or tool that they do their
work on (at work) are in the majority. They dont want to become
'computer geeks, they dont want to know how their computer OS works,
they dont want to have to configure and tweak the OS and Apps to
make them work or secure, they just want to have the computer do
what they want it to do, no matter what OS or application it's
running.....
Its a pity that Windows falls so far short of this ideal
It doesn't for the average/ordinary user. A computer with a Microsoft OS
on it is usually all they want and need....
Most of the millions affected by msblast are having to call on outside
expert help to recover the functionality of their home computers.
That's why they're ordinary/average users. They want the 'experts' to
do what they dont want to do.
They have the same 'attitude' about all their 'material possession's
like when their car breaks down, or their household appliances break
down. They call someone to fix it for them, because they dont need or
want to have to fix it themselves.
--
mlvburke@#%&*.net.nz
Replace the obvious with paradise to email me.
See Found Images at:
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke
unknown
2003-08-23 00:42:09 UTC
Permalink
I dont. And BTW did you know that my email client of choice (Outlook
express in case you're wondering) blocks *ALL* attachments by
default. With that and my anti virus realtime email scanner; and the
firewall email scanner, I dont get infected.
LOL - and what a performance hit you suffer as a consequence!
BS. No performance hit at all on my system......
What if you didn't want to run the GUI and only wanted to run the
system as a server?
Why would *I* want to do that?

snip.
What HTTP server are you using? IIS?
No. It's NOT installed.

I use Windows when I want to get things done. I use Linux when I want to
tinker.
--
mlvburke@#%&*.net.nz
Replace the obvious with paradise to email me.
See Found Images at:
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke
cowboyz
2003-08-23 06:51:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
What if you didn't want to run the GUI and only wanted to run the
system as a server?
Why would *I* want to do that?
Dunno. Perhaps if you're wanting to use your computer to do some work?
Besides, you do not have the option to turn the Windows GUI off.
Yes and while your complaining about that how about adding that I want to
know why my $20000 car can't go get my cows out of the paddock while my
$7000 motobike can.


--
"It's what you learn after you know it all that counts."
T.N.O
2003-08-24 07:05:03 UTC
Permalink
Besides, you do not have the option to turn the Windows GUI off.
Yeah you do, just gotta set the right setting.
Under Linux you not only can turn the GUI off, you can choose whichever
GUI you want!
Can in Windows too, type in "Shell replacement" into google and see what
pops up.
unknown
2003-08-23 00:59:06 UTC
Permalink
Secondly, it apparently (in all the various distros and apps) is
just as bug ridden as advocates of OSS/Linux (like you) like to
claim Windows and it's apps are.
Yes - there are bugs in Open Source software.
Of course there are..... ;-)
The interesting thing is that they are well publicised, and are
actively worked upon.
I should certainly HOPE so....
But what of all the ones that are not known about, not publicised,
and/or NOT being worked on?
Once a bug is know about in OSs - especially security bugs - they are
squashed very quickly.
BS.....
Because the truth is that open source doesn't cure cancer, doesn't lead
to a global gift economy, and doesn't produce perfect software on the
first, second, or even fifty-seventh try. Hell, I could put together a
laundry list right now of glaring flaws and shortcomings in Linux that I
blame squarely on open source development and developers. Jason Compton.
http://www.linux-mag.com/online/compton_c01_01.html
OSs does not have a vested interest in maintaining a facade of
invulnerability
BS!

I take it that YOU specifically, and OSS/Linux advocates generally will
from this day on (23/08/2003) will stop claiming that OSS/Linux is by
default more secure than any other OS and/or application?
Because so far any OSS/Linux advocate (including yourself) that makes
that claim is doing so simply because of their 'vested interest' in
maintaining that facade of invulnerability to defend their beliefs and
opinions that DONT match the reality of OSS/Linux vulnerabilities.
- it is totally up front about vulnerabilities that
are known to exist.
Not when advocates such as yourself claim OFTEN that they dont exist,
when they clearly DO.....
Why do you think that OSs is developing at such a lightening-fast
rate?
Perhaps the developers of OSS/Linux need to be paying more attention to
the bugs they're including in OSS/Linux instead of trying to make the
development so lightning fast.... You know, like they and you often say
Microsoft should do....
It's all very well having 'lightning fast development' but NOT at the
expense of shoddy programming that creates bugs and vulnerabilities that
the end users have to get fixed..... (and yes I do include Microsoft
and Windows in that requirement)
Micro$oft is simply unable to compete with the rate of development
that OSs is being developed at.
I guess that's why OSS/Linux is constantly playing catch-up with
Microsoft and Windows huh.....
This alone is but one reason to support OSs - solutions appear very
quickly indeed.
They're not much use to the ordinary user if they cant use them........

COLA newsgroup subject line, 12-8-2002
OSS and Linux may save us from a new dark age.
--
mlvburke@#%&*.net.nz
Replace the obvious with paradise to email me.
See Found Images at:
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke
Chris Wilkinson
2003-08-23 22:26:42 UTC
Permalink
Hi there,
Linux, the kernel certainly only has open source development.
Glaring flaws and shortcomings ?
It seems to be quite a remarkable achievement to have kernel developers now
employed by osdl.org funded by Sun IBM Intel HP Dell CA Ericsson Alcatel
Nokia Cisco Hitachi Fujitsu Mitsubishi NEC Toshiba Suse Redhat Monta Vista
Transmeta VA
Perhaps they know something you don't Max
Perhaps its a recognition of the quality of their work? They have to
earn a crust also, but Linux/OSS is something they give back to us
for free...
There is plenty of closed source software that runs on Linux.
There is plenty of open source software that runs on Windows
Yes there is, but unless you are a professional user of some sort
you are hardly likely to need closed source stuff with Linux. The
quality of some OSS on a standard distro like Mandrake leaves some
closed source software wanting...

Kind regards,

Chris Wilkinson, Christchurch.
Howard Johnson
2003-08-23 23:53:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Wilkinson
Hi there,
Linux, the kernel certainly only has open source development.
Glaring flaws and shortcomings ?
It seems to be quite a remarkable achievement to have kernel developers now
employed by osdl.org funded by Sun IBM Intel HP Dell CA Ericsson Alcatel
Nokia Cisco Hitachi Fujitsu Mitsubishi NEC Toshiba Suse Redhat Monta Vista
Transmeta VA
Perhaps they know something you don't Max
Perhaps its a recognition of the quality of their work? They have to
earn a crust also, but Linux/OSS is something they give back to us
for free...
THey don't give a shit about us home users.
These guys want a common enterprise and embedded platform that doesn't have
a tax attached.
By participating they don't have to maintain the whole thing themselves.
There is operating system software functionality which is common to every
computer, and it makes sense for development costs to be disributed across
many stakeholders
Post by Chris Wilkinson
There is plenty of closed source software that runs on Linux.
There is plenty of open source software that runs on Windows
Yes there is, but unless you are a professional user of some sort
you are hardly likely to need closed source stuff with Linux. The
quality of some OSS on a standard distro like Mandrake leaves some
closed source software wanting...
nVidia drivers are one example that I can think of.
Ximian Connector
Various POS systems
STBs TiVOs embedded stuff
Stantons Final Scratch version of Traktor
Theres lots of binary only stuff that works on Linux

Just because open source GPL software development suits some applications
and business models, it is not a given that it will fit all of them
It suits Apple to put a closed source proprietary GUI on top of an open
source operating system
There is no way that software like Maya or Shake will benefit the developers
by being open source free software. It provides high value to a small number
of users.
Microsoft would like to perpetuate the myth that only free software runs on
Linux, and that free means "of no value" rather than "unencumbered".
T.N.O
2003-08-24 07:08:20 UTC
Permalink
I do say that RedHat 9 is more secure out of the Box than is WindowsXPPRO
- because it *IS* more secure!
If I choose to install RH9 tonight, run everything as root, and not patch
anything that needs patching, it is no more or less secure than Windows run
as the same.

Running Linux implies better security as the users(people who are likely to
use it) are more technically "with it".

Personally, I could secure a windows(or NT) box better than I could a Linux
box, simply because I know how.
David Pears
2003-08-24 09:48:53 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 20:21:35 +1200, Lennier
Post by T.N.O
If I choose to install RH9 tonight, run everything as root, and not patch
anything that needs patching, it is no more or less secure than Windows
run as the same.
But which idiot would do that if they were wanting a secure system?
Our server group run our Internet web server on Solaris. The same
group use Linux for the Intranet, but think that Linux isn't secure
enough for the outside world yet. But the same group also run some
Windows servers in our DMZ, which haven't been attacked successfully
in the time I've been keeping an eye on things. Are you saying these
guys are idiots?

David
Howard Johnson
2003-08-24 10:27:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Pears
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 20:21:35 +1200, Lennier
Post by T.N.O
If I choose to install RH9 tonight, run everything as root, and not patch
anything that needs patching, it is no more or less secure than Windows
run as the same.
But which idiot would do that if they were wanting a secure system?
Our server group run our Internet web server on Solaris. The same
group use Linux for the Intranet, but think that Linux isn't secure
enough for the outside world yet. But the same group also run some
Windows servers in our DMZ, which haven't been attacked successfully
in the time I've been keeping an eye on things. Are you saying these
guys are idiots?
They are probably wrong, but that doesn't make them idiots, they just
haven't worked on it yet
unknown
2003-08-23 01:05:43 UTC
Permalink
Secondly, For all it's touted good points, OSS/Linux is simply NOT
ready for the ordinary computer users that most of us are. It is
a.) The average computer user to install configure and keep up to
date for ordinary everyday usage let alone keep secure; Computers are
supposed to be easy to use.
You are correct - it *IS* hard for an average computer User to
install and configure software under Linux.
Which is why they wont see it as an alternative......
Users are not permitted to install or to adjust the system
Then how do all the OS tweaks and configuration changes get done?
- it is not
considered to be secure system administration to permit ordinary
users to have that sort of system-wide access.
That IS the default out of the box state isn't it?
Computers are supposed to be reliable and secure - Ease of use is
ancillary.
Hardly. Ease of use is the CRUCIAL requirement of the average user. The
security requirements should be taken care as an OS function (like
Windows Automatic update)
Reliability is a reality for Windows even when you claim it isn't.....
That said, RedHat, Mandrake, and Suse are all very easy to use and to
administer.
Not as EASY as Windows for the average user......

COLA newsgroup subject line, 12-8-2002
OSS and Linux may save us from a new dark age.
--
mlvburke@#%&*.net.nz
Replace the obvious with paradise to email me.
See Found Images at:
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke
back again
2003-08-23 09:02:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Computers are supposed to be reliable and secure - Ease of use is
ancillary.
Hardly. Ease of use is the CRUCIAL requirement of the average user.
Which is quite funny when you consider that the Macintosh had a minority
share of the market even in the days of shitty DOS based software (eg.,
Wordperfect 5.x).
Chris Wilkinson
2003-08-23 05:59:48 UTC
Permalink
Hi there,
But if we all switch to open source the virus writers will target it, and
you'll be affected too.
Perhaps true, but if we binned Windows altogether and ran the same OSS
on Linux (as I do), then security becomes far less of a concern due to
the inherently more secure structure of Linux systems...

Kind regards,

Chris Wilkinson, Christchurch.
Matthew Farrenkopf
2003-08-23 07:01:18 UTC
Permalink
Secondly, For all it's touted good points, OSS/Linux is simply NOT ready
for the ordinary computer users that most of us are. It is simply to
a.) The average computer user to install configure and keep up to date
for ordinary everyday usage let alone keep secure; Computers are
supposed to be easy to use. Ordinary users should not have to configure
the 'inner workings' of the OS and applications just to make them do
what they're supposed to do. Ordinary users Dont and WONT do that.
They just want to be able to press the on switch and to start typing
that letter/email, play that game, or surf the internet.... They're
simply NOT interested in have to configure and tweak to do that.
b.) It is simply too hard for the ordinary user to make secure. They
dont want to have to configure and tweak the OS to make it secure; They
just want to install the security (preferably automatically) and have
their computer made secure by that security install.
Thirdly, Unless and until OSS/LINUX offers the ease of use and 'out of
the box' experience that Windows users currently have it will never be a
suitable replacement for Windows......
What with so many different versions of the OS, it's applications, and
no generic support that covers ALL the variants of Linux, it will never
become an alternative for the ordinary computer user.....
And like it or lump it, the *ordinary computer user* who sees a computer
as just another home appliance or tool that they do their work on (at
work) are in the majority. They dont want to become 'computer geeks,
they dont want to know how their computer OS works, they dont want to
have to configure and tweak the OS and Apps to make them work or secure,
they just want to have the computer do what they want it to do, no
matter what OS or application it's running.....
I stumbled onto this conversation while searching for something else.
The above comments are very interesting.

Background: I use Windows 2000 both at work and at home. I have a
Linux server, kernel 2.4.9, that was RedHat 7.2 that I upgraded
myself. It is my primary firewall and file server. Yes, my
preference is Linux. However, I know how to run Windows and
manipulate it, having started with 3.0 and its .ini files, up through
the 9x series and now to 2000 (and some XP experience).

Three comments that apply to all flavors of computers:

* Unless the computer you're using is a homebrew from the base up, and
you've written all the software, there's going to be someone writing
software to try to cause havoc to your machine. DOS, Windows, Linux,
OS/2 . . . they may not all be viruses in the strict sense (they could
be worms or Trojan Horse programs). Mac, Intel, Alpha, Amiga . . . no
platform is immune if it has any kind of a significant installed base
at all.

* To reasonably believe that a person can just sit down and use a
computer without knowing anything is absolutely ludicrous, IMHO.
Anyone that can do it is the exception rather than the rule. Almost
anything manufactured comes with directions of some sort. Even candy
bars and milk cartons say "Open here ->". To the experienced, the
direction is pointless. But for someone unfamiliar with it, the
direction may be necessary. Thus, to presume that a person can sit
down in front of a computer and start using it is not realistic. I
believe this is a fallacy propagated by the GUI-based operating
systems (Windows, OS/2, even Mac). If a person has never used a
computer, they're going to either need to read the manual or have
someone guide them through it.

* To say that it is too hard for the user to properly secure the
system, IMHO, is to insult the user and propagate the self-fulfilling
prophecy that the user is stupid. When the user finds a need to do
something, they'll figure out how to do it. They may not do it today,
tomorrow, or next week, but once the realize the importance of it,
they'll figure out how to do it. If that means calling technical
support, then that's what they'll do. But they'll do it. And they
can do it. We've taught people to be scared of the manuals. And yet,
they exist precisely to help people. But people need to read them.
If the simplest things need instructions, then computers need
instructions. And when the user decides he/she needs to read the
instructions, he/she will read the instructions.

Now, to address the points you've listed above:

2a. Computers are supposed to be easy to use is a fallacy. Is a car
"easy to use?" A person has to go through, typically, months of
training in order to be able to use it properly. They have to be
licensed to use it. Should computer users be licensed? I'm not
saying that. I'm saying that, for something that gets used every day
and is a regular part of most peoples' lives, it's not something that
one can just sit down and use. Computers are complex pieces of
equipment that can perform numerous tasks. Why do we have to believe
that computers are supposed to be easy to use?

2b. Computers should set up the security on installation. User needs
change. They may go from not having a network connection to having a
high-speed DSL or broadband connection. Security parameters must
change. To assume that the operating system will know how to
configure the parameters properly and automatically is, in my mind, a
stretch. Even a user going from dialup to high-speed has different
needs. Whereas the user may not have concerned him/herself with
firewalls in the past for "just a dialup connection," now he/she will
need firewall protection on a consistent basis. How is the operating
system to know this automatically? A new network connection may be to
an intranet or directly to a high-speed external connection. To say
that the operating system should be able to determine the correct
security settings automatically, without having the user do anything .
. . well, that just won't work.

3. Out of the box use is a fallacy as well. Take two people, both
with a little computer knowledge (enough to perform the most basic
operations of at least turning it on, booting the operating system,
and logging in). Since Windows and Linux are the sacrifical animals
in this thread, let's take one machine loaded with Windows and one
machine loaded with Linux. Both have been loaded with ports of an
application. The Windows version is GUI-based. The Linux version can
be GUI-based or text-based. Take your pick.

I theorize that the person running the Windows version will be able to
get the program up, running, and doing perhaps very basic useful tasks
immediately. The person running the Linux version will probably have
to spend some time reading the manual first. But ultimately, when it
comes to doing anything more than the basic operations, both users
will put in approximately the same amount of time trying to get to a
point where they can do something more advanced. People don't
recognize how much time they're putting into it because they don't
consider reading the help menus and purchasing "The Idiot's Guide to .
. ." or ". . . For Dummies" as reading the manual. They don't
consider going for training in the application (for the Windows port)
to be "training" per se. Yet, if you total up the time it takes to be
able to accomplish said advanced task, it will take both approximately
the same time to learn enough to be able to do it. In addition, those
people using the Linux port will say that they had to read the manual
or take a training course. My guess is that the Windows user will
gloss over those facts -- because the Windows version is supposed to
be "easy to use."

A few days ago, I upgraded Windows 2000 to service pack 4. When I
finally logged off the machine (today, the Windows machine), I
received an error saying that it could not write my roaming profile.
Puzzled, and knowing that I hadn't changed any of Samba's
configuration on my Linux box, I went poking around the server for
unexpected changes -- perhaps (although I felt unlikely) someone had
hacked my machine. I didn't find anything suspicious. I didn't
expect that upgrading to service pack 4 had changed anything.

And yet it did. It took me Googling through the newsgroups in search
of someone else that had the same problem in order to determine that
there was a new setting (it was either new or it had been changed from
its default) as to whether Windows 2000 should ignore the permissions
for the roaming profile directory. The error message was basically
unhelpful, and essentially told me to contact my network
administrator. I don't consider the operating system making changes
to my security settings automatically, and without notifying me, to be
helpful or user-friendly at all. Total diagnostic time, from first
noticing the error to implementing a solution, was almost an hour. It
would have been helpful for the operating system to display something
about the settings changes it made, or additions of new security
settings, when it installed the service pack. It thought it knew
best, and it was wrong (IMHO).

Until a computer can understand the intent and purpose behind the
request made to it, it cannot meaningfully presume the settings
necessary for the user. When we get to the point where we can say to
the computer, in these words, "Protect the system so that anything we
want to send on the network goes out but don't allow anything to come
in unless we've created the connection," then maybe a person will be
able to sit down and just "use the computer" without any further
knowledge. Until then, the user must know what to do with the
computer and how to protect it in order to prevent outside attacks.
On the surface, it feels like Linux is more difficult to configure in
this manner. And yet, when I compare the man pages I've had to go
through and the help menus I've had to read on Windows in order to
know where to go to configure something, well . . . the two are pretty
much a wash.

And if someone did scientific comparisons between the two setups --
objective comparisons -- I'm guessing you'd find similar results
between the two comparisons. Windows is easier to set up in some
ways, Linux (or UN*X) easier in others. Couple those with the
necessity of reading documentation, I'm reasonably sure you'll find,
ultimately, that there's not much difference between the two -- except
that Windows has a much larger installed base of users. That's all.

'nuff said.

Matt
Howard Johnson
2003-08-23 21:09:23 UTC
Permalink
Once a bug is know about in OSs - especially security bugs - they are
squashed very quickly.
And everyone knows what the fault is and where to find the fix? Or do
you know only if you are part of the "community"?
Thats what a distribution is, a support community support service.
Several distributions have fully automatic updating and security advisories
available.
Debian has them on distributed local mirrors.
Just being a devil's advocate here. I want to try Linux, I do; but I
want to keep my Windows, and setting up a dual-boot Linux/XP system
looks risky without a *complete* and careful backup and purchase of
Partition Magic or similar at about $US80, for a single use. So much
for "free" software!
Steve B.
Partition magic isn't free software, you expect free software to make
modifications to your Microsoft Windows installation, how about you ask
Microsoft for it.
Mandrake has a partition editor built into the installer I believe
You can use a utility called fips included in most distributions to split
your partition table
You can install Linux on a second drive, sorry I don't know where you get
"free" drives from, or try it out without installing anything by downloading
and burning a copy of Knoppix.
You can find a warez copy of Partition Magic by googling for fosi
whoa
2003-08-23 22:21:32 UTC
Permalink
Secondly, it apparently (in all the various distros and apps) is just as
bug ridden as advocates of OSS/Linux (like you) like to claim Windows
and it's apps are.
Yes - there are bugs in Open Source software.
The interesting thing is that they are well publicised, and are actively
worked upon.
Once a bug is know about in OSs - especially security bugs - they are
squashed very quickly.
Yeah I know, about 6 e-mails a day, yes, a day (you want copies?) from
***@mandrakeonline.net fixing everything from "Updated cups
packages fix Denial of Service vulnerability" to "Updated openssl packages
fix timing-based attack vulnerability" .
Some packages even get fixes over the top of fixes. Wow, can you in your
wildest dreams imagine MS issuing this number of fixes? Or fixing the fixes
that didn't fix what they were supposed to?

What really gets me, if OSS is so good, why are there so many fixes? And
this is for MD9, very quickly replaced by MD9.1. If OSS is so good, why so
many upgrades, so quickly? Why aren't we all still on RH1.0? MD1.0? Oh, I
know "the OSS community works together" to " give us safe, trustworthy
computing". Well, I'll give them one thing. They must be very good at what
they do, because they sure get a lot of practice at it.

I don't think XP is the best. I don't think it is even good. But as a
desktop-ordinary-user-click-and-go-OS it's a long way ahead of whatever is
in second place. (Probably W98SE.)
Howard Johnson
2003-08-23 22:40:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by whoa
Yeah I know, about 6 e-mails a day, yes, a day (you want copies?) from
packages fix Denial of Service vulnerability" to "Updated openssl packages
fix timing-based attack vulnerability" .
Some packages even get fixes over the top of fixes. Wow, can you in your
wildest dreams imagine MS issuing this number of fixes? Or fixing the fixes
that didn't fix what they were supposed to?
Do they actually apply to your installation, and is the nature of the
vulnerability likely to be exploited in your environment ?
Linux distributions usually contain heaps of various servers that you don't
get with a Microsoft operating system
I wouldn't expect Microsoft to have the variety of software available,
otherwise there wouldn't be anything left for Windows application vendors to
develop
I would expect a third party print server developer to issue a fix, but it
would be unlikely to be distributed through Windows update, yet a third
party print server architecture, one of several options, does get its fixes
distributed by each of the Linux distributions that package it.
I wouldn't expect Microsoft to distribute fixes and advisories for something
like Trillian or mirc, but this is exactly what the Linux distributers do.
Free.
Enkidu
2003-08-24 06:11:09 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 17:28:30 +1200, Lennier
Micro$oft's OS is not secure - any idiot can delete all sorts of stuff
which will be deleterious to the functioning of the system.
Well, they can if you are running Win98.....

Cheers,

Cliff
--

Signed and sealed with Great Seal of the Executive
Council of the Internet, by The Master of The Net.
Howard Johnson
2003-08-24 09:54:07 UTC
Permalink
WindowsNT is probably different - but it should be different as it's a
completely different OS.
It is the current version of Windows.
The multi user OS with the security and the journalling file system
The OS that you are not able to address because you are obsessed with
wittering on about linux vs win 9x
Nathan Mercer
2003-08-24 10:03:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Enkidu
Micro$oft's OS is not secure - any idiot can delete all sorts of stuff
which will be deleterious to the functioning of the system.
Well, they can if you are running Win98.
Or any version of Windows.
No, only in Win9x. NT is secure in this regard, and consequently is Windows
2000, XP, Server 2003
Just because your perception of Windows is from a warped mind 5 years ago.
WindowsNT is probably different - but it should be different as it's a
completely different OS.
Peter
2003-08-24 19:16:28 UTC
Permalink
NT is secure in this regard, and consequently is Windows 2000, XP,
Server 2003
If NT et al is secure as you say, then ordinary users don't have write
permission to system files, and hence any malware they trigger couldn't
infect the system. Yet viruses and worms do infect NT systems via ordinary
users.

How come?
(There's obviously something I'm missing here.)


Peter
Allistar
2003-08-24 08:36:36 UTC
Permalink
Just being a devil's advocate here. I want to try Linux, I do; but I
want to keep my Windows, and setting up a dual-boot Linux/XP system
looks risky without a *complete* and careful backup and purchase of
Partition Magic or similar at about $US80, for a single use. So much for
"free" software!
A suitable version of Partition Magic is often bundled with a new HDD.
I find it best to do a through defragmentation prior to reconfiguring
partitions on an HDD.
An official distribution of RedHat 9 is available at Quay Computers for a
very reasonable price.
I recomend that one should ALWAYS have one's HDD divided into multiple
partitions in any case - at least one for system, one for swap and one for
data archival - even when using Windows.
When using Linux one must have at least 2 Linux partitions. I recommend
having at least 4 Linux partitions - one for / one for /boot one for /var
and one for /home.
That way if one wants to wipe the system and do a complete reinstall (like
when doing a major version upgrade) one can reformat the system partition
knowing that all one's user's data is safe.
I would also locate websites in the /var partition as well, for the same
reason.
I'm sure, and would hope, that someone will correct me if this is not the
case.
Often /usr is recommended to be on a different partition as well. I can't be
fussed with all of that, although I do recommend having at least /home on a
different partition (for the reason you stated).

Why would you put websites in /var instead of /home/apache or /home/www
etc.?
Lennier
Allistar.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...