Linux

On 02/04/2011 4:28 PM, Gordon wrote:
> On 02/04/2011 16:20, Boscoe wrote:
>
>>>
>>
>> He's a Linux troll
>
> Oh yeah? I'm also a Community Contributor on the MS Answers forums if
> you had the skills and intelligence to post there...

Gosh!! He has trouble doing up his shoe laces.

And here's a Linux kernel exploit with hundreds more if you care to look.

<http://www.linuxsecurity.com/content/view/154707>

On 02/04/2011 16:35, Boscoe wrote:
> On 02/04/2011 4:28 PM, Gordon wrote:
>> On 02/04/2011 16:20, Boscoe wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> He's a Linux troll
>>
>> Oh yeah? I'm also a Community Contributor on the MS Answers forums if
>> you had the skills and intelligence to post there...
>
> Gosh!! He has trouble doing up his shoe laces.
>
> And here's a Linux kernel exploit with hundreds more if you care to look.
>
> <http://www.linuxsecurity.com/content/view/154707>
>

<sigh> That's a vulnerability in Ubuntu 6.06 - that version is FIVE
YEARS OLD - I shouldn't think ANYONE is using it now. Can't you come up
with anything more recent? Like to list the vulnerabilities in XP?
That's the same age...

On 02/04/2011 4:41 PM, Gordon wrote:
> On 02/04/2011 16:35, Boscoe wrote:
>> On 02/04/2011 4:28 PM, Gordon wrote:
>>> On 02/04/2011 16:20, Boscoe wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He's a Linux troll
>>>
>>> Oh yeah? I'm also a Community Contributor on the MS Answers forums if
>>> you had the skills and intelligence to post there...
>>
>> Gosh!! He has trouble doing up his shoe laces.
>>
>> And here's a Linux kernel exploit with hundreds more if you care to look.
>>
>> <http://www.linuxsecurity.com/content/view/154707>
>>
>
> <sigh> That's a vulnerability in Ubuntu 6.06 - that version is FIVE
> YEARS OLD - I shouldn't think ANYONE is using it now. Can't you come up
> with anything more recent? Like to list the vulnerabilities in XP?
> That's the same age...


PMSL

It's a good job they fixed it on March 25, then. Priceless!!

Anyway, the kernel was vulnerable and there are a lot more recent
examples.

On 4/2/2011 10:58 AM, BillW50 wrote:
> In news:,
> Gordon wrote:
>> On 02/04/2011 12:38, Big Steel wrote:
>>
>>> You can keep that little pipe dream going about how Linux as an
>>> architecture to prevent malware. I no more belive than I believe you.
>>
>> Pipedream eh? So that's why well over 50% of the world's web servers
>> are Linux and yet, strange to seem, they don't get infected - the
>> Windows ones DO?
>
> Really? Then who are buying all of those Linux antivirus software then?
>
> Viruses and Worms:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...mputer_viruses
> Malware: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malware
> Viruses: http://vx.netlux.org/ (http://vx.netlux.org/vl.php)
>

Why do you respond to a preacher that is a child molester?

In news:,
Alias wrote:
> On 04/02/2011 05:34 PM, BillW50 wrote:
>> In news:4d973dfe$,
>> Alias wrote:
>>> On 04/02/2011 03:54 PM, BillW50 wrote:
>>>> In news:,
>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>> Never said that. What I *have* said is that Linux is bulletproof
>>>>> *compared* to Windows.
>>>>
>>>> A Linux virus gains root control by a simple buffer overflow. So
>>>> how is it bulletproof compared to Windows? Gee that is how Windows
>>>> viruses does it too. Maybe Linux should try another bulletproof
>>>> vest? ;-)
>>>
>>> You're an idiot.
>>
>> I know, you tell me that all of the time. ;-)
>>
>>>>> Having said that, those vulnerabilities were patched long ago,
>>>>> please try to keep up or can you with that big steel shoved up
>>>>> your sorry ass?
>>>>
>>>> Gee Windows doesn't get patches too? Funny that is what I thought
>>>> those Windows Updates are for. ;-)
>>>
>>> There are vulnerabilities dating back years that have never been
>>> patched. Linux patches when the patches are ready, not once a month.
>>
>> Really? Then why are there Linux anti-virus software then?
>
> To protect Windows computers connected to Linux computers.

Really? And they never scan for Linux viruses as long as they are at it?
Say Alias. you wouldn't be lying to us once again, would you? ;-)

>>>> So when did Linux become Gold and there is no more holes in Linux
>>>> to be found? I missed that announcement, so can you show it to us?
>>>> Because the last I heard is that Linux had holes in it since the
>>>> beginning, three years ago, today and long into the future.
>>>
>>> What, exactly, do you not understand about the words "compared to"?
>>
>> Compared to what? Windows? Well from my personal experience, Windows
>> viruses are not a personal threat to me because I have been running
>> Windows since '93 and I never had one yet.
>
> LOL! Liar. Anti virus and anti malware programs are only as good as
> their definitions which always come *after* the fact.

Yes and often within hours of the fact too. But that doesn't make me a
liar.

> You're probably infected and don't even know it.

No probably not. I have been through this before with you but it never
sinks in. I have seen lots of other Windows systems infected, but it is
because those users don't listen too well. You know like you don't.

Anyway I told you it is virtually impossible to get infected while
running Microsoft EWF. As all it can do is to infect the RAM (most can't
do that anyway). So when you reboot, all gone viruses (like if there
were any in the first place).

And if you didn't like EWF or something, there are also lots of other
things like sandboxes and the like. That way if you are not too bright
and often get infected a lot, this will help a great deal. As virtually
all viruses are stuck just able to play in the sandbox and nowhere else.
You can think of it like a virus prison if you like.

>> Take a tip from this guy.
>>
>> Viruses don't harm, ignorance does!
>> http://vx.netlux.org/
>
> Never heard of the drive by malware, eh? Everyone act surprised.
> http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...on_cyberattack

Sure I have. Ever hear of Maxthon v2? Stops zero day viruses before your
AV gets updated. Oh sorry, that won't run under Linux. Windows only. ;-)

>> Linux is said to not have the number of viruses because Linux is so
>> tiny in comparison. So why bother writing Linux viruses when most
>> people use Windows anyway? There is no question inn my mind that if
>> the roles were reversed and 99% were using Linux. You can bet Linux
>> would have tons more viruses than Windows did.
>
> That's the FUD that MS wants you to believe and you swallow it hook,
> line and sinker.

Really? As the tiny number of Linux users increase slightly, so does the
number of Linux viruses. Yet isn't Linux supposed to be safer today? And
to get the idea of how Linux can be infected, here is a good read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...mputer_viruses

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era)
Centrino Core Duo 1.83G - 2GB - Windows XP SP3

On 04/01/11 10:43 am, ray wrote:

>>> Linux has always intrigued me and I have tried many distros.
>>>
>>> I now have a computer with eSATA. I had a spare hard disk and eSata
>>> enclosure.
>>>
>>> To pass my time I tried Linux again tonight.
>>>
>>> I tried Ubuntu, Mint gnome and Mint debian based.
>>>
>>> Honestly Linux missed the boat just as IBM missed the boat with OS2.
>>>
>>> I am firmlly entrenched in windows 7 at home and xp at my office.
>>>
>>> xxx

>> Missed the boat with WHAT?

> Evidently, marketing. IMHO, that was IBM's shortcoming with OS2 - they
> had a better product.

OS/2 was also sabotaged by other divisions within IBM. A few days before
Warp 4 was due for release I went into an Egghead Software store and
asked about it, thinking that perhaps they had already received stock
and might be willing to sell me a copy early. They told me, "The IBM guy
was here just a few days ago and said that the whole OS/2 project had
been canceled." Of course that store did have Warp 4 on the advertised
date and I bought it.

I understand that there may be competition between divisions of a large
corporation, but that was ridiculous. I can understand that if I went
into a Buick dealership and said I was trying to decide between a Buick
and Chevrolet they would tell me about the wonderful advantages I would
get from spending the extra money for a Buick, but would they tell me
that Chevrolets were crap and were about to be discontinued? Similarly
for Mercury vs. Ford.

Perce

In news:in7l2i$m6g$,
Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
> OS/2 was also sabotaged by other divisions within IBM. A few days
> before Warp 4 was due for release I went into an Egghead Software
> store and asked about it, thinking that perhaps they had already
> received stock and might be willing to sell me a copy early. They
> told me, "The IBM guy was here just a few days ago and said that the
> whole OS/2 project had been canceled." Of course that store did have
> Warp 4 on the advertised date and I bought it.
>
> I understand that there may be competition between divisions of a
> large corporation, but that was ridiculous. I can understand that if
> I went into a Buick dealership and said I was trying to decide
> between a Buick and Chevrolet they would tell me about the wonderful
> advantages I would get from spending the extra money for a Buick, but
> would they tell me that Chevrolets were crap and were about to be
> discontinued? Similarly for Mercury vs. Ford.
>
> Perce

Of course there would be divisions. Why wouldn't there be? After all,
IBM sunk 2 billion dollars into OS/2 and the more they threw down the
hole, the worse OS/2 got. And of course when Gates broke away from IBM,
IBM stopped selling IBM machines with Windows on them. And what
happened? This hurt IBM's own PCs. They were not selling with OS/2 on
them. As people wanted Windows instead. IBM finally had to save their PC
division and to start putting Windows back on their machines.

Oh course, IBM started OS/2 in the beginning to kill off Microsoft and
Windows. And they were going to use Microsoft to write OS/2 and to use
it to kill them. There is a nifty internal IBM video (which was leaked
and played on PBS) about OS/2. How the plan was that OS/2 would replace
MS-DOS and Windows. And once virtually everybody was running only OS/2
and Microsoft was history. Then they would make OS/2 only compatible
with real IBM PCs only. Thus now killing off all of the clone
manufactures as well.

Gates didn't like this plan at all (of course). And IBM and Microsoft
became sworn enemies. And this probably started to fracture the
divisions within IBM. Which I totally get. As IBM's OS/2 division lofty
goal was blowing up in their face and was taking down the rest of IBM
too.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era)
Centrino Core Duo 1.83G - 2GB - Windows XP SP3

On 4/02/11, Alias posted:
> On 04/02/2011 12:09 PM, BillW50 wrote:
>> I have at least a dozen computers right in this
>> room alone.

> Why do you have so many?

His heating furnace is out of order.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

Alias wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 04/02/2011 07:03 PM, BillW50 wrote:
>
>> Really? As the tiny number of Linux users increase slightly, so does the
>> number of Linux viruses. Yet isn't Linux supposed to be safer today? And
>> to get the idea of how Linux can be infected, here is a good read.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...mputer_viruses
>
> Yawn.

Indeed. A handful of "issues" compared to "Typhoid Microsoft".

Laughable in the extreme.

I work at place that's pretty strict. Both Linux and Windows are required
to run a McAfee "Host based security system". However, Linux is exempt from
the "anti-virus" requirement.

"BillW50"'s silly link shows why; he's not a very sharp tool, is he?

--
Why use Windows, since there is a door?
(By , Andre Fachat)

On 4/2/2011 2:25 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> Alias wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On 04/02/2011 07:03 PM, BillW50 wrote:
>>
>>> Really? As the tiny number of Linux users increase slightly, so does the
>>> number of Linux viruses. Yet isn't Linux supposed to be safer today? And
>>> to get the idea of how Linux can be infected, here is a good read.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...mputer_viruses
>>
>> Yawn.
>
> Indeed. A handful of "issues" compared to "Typhoid Microsoft".
>
> Laughable in the extreme.
>
> I work at place that's pretty strict. Both Linux and Windows are required
> to run a McAfee "Host based security system". However, Linux is exempt from
> the "anti-virus" requirement.
>
> "BillW50"'s silly link shows why; he's not a very sharp tool, is he?
>

Oh, we have a chime-in from Ahlstrom the hypocrite that makes his living
using MS solutions and he is talking smack as usual. He doesn't use
Linux at all to make his living.

Laughable.....