Use Linux/BSD

[dave]

Are you sure they borrowed it from FreeBSD? The latest "word on the street"
is that they stole it from SCO
.

The way SCO is filing lawsuits and telling it,
I wouldn't be too surprised if Darrel McBride
filed and claimed that the original UNIX source
code was illegally copied by a couple of
shady characters working at GTE before 1973.

Brian W. Kernighan and Dennis M. Ritchie.

 

[Conor]

Why Dixie? From The Rafters might not be AmeriKKKan. ( But it sounds a great
idea to write a Linux eradicating virus. Just have to find the Linuxfucks to
use it on. - There are 3 approx. to date I think..............)

1% of desktops use Linux abnd a majority of internet servers. Still,
anyone so ****ing retarded as to use BT Internet can't be expected to
have a clue.


--
________________________
Conor Turton
(e-mail address removed)
ICQ:31909763
________________________

 

[Dr Halonfires LesGirl]

On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 23:39:40 GMT, dave ([email protected]) said:

If you run as root, sure, you can blow up your entire
system. That's why most people who do run Linux on
production machines don't.


You don't need to educate me on using Linux, thanks very much.

My apologies.

Not all Linux boxes out there are going to be immune to root shell
vulns
from user accounts; same issue, if you don't keep patching and
updating,
you're open to viruses and hacking.

I agree.

but they do provide some sourcecode to developers. Developer
in the Linux community gets isolated pretty quick if he
starts churning out bad code.


I have to admit that that does help.... but it just cuts down the
numbers,
it doesn't STOP the vulnerabilities. Bugs in code still occur
(heavens, I reported a simple Linux kernel bug myself once, and I'm
no kernel hack) and
so there's always the dreaded updates.

Ah, you mean dependancy hell. Yes, I'm going through that right
now with a recent new install

Plus of course, you shouldn't hang too much on peer review, there's
been a
few interesting reports detailed in NewScientist about research
into the real-world success of peer review out there, and its less
than perfect. However, I _am_ a big open source advocate, and
prefer open source [and
source as opposed to executables] wherever possible; however I'm
also aware that it has its limitations too.

Peer review is only a beginning. However, I am of the
belief that if you refuse this type of scrutiny for
rediculous deadlines, your software is dead in either case, even
an operating system.

Just think what happens to him if started churning out viruses.


It wouldn't be that "him" that'd be writing them though would it,
it'd be people who've spotted a vuln that others haven't; or much
more likely,
someone who just uses a currently known and popular vuln that still
exists
on many unpatched systems.

I sorry, 'her/him/it' I forgot about being politically
correct


However, that vuln though small, eventually is removed. I am
not happy how hard it is to keep up with Linux for the newcomer,
but software writers already are beginning;

[ ie; swaret for Slackware, is just so cool ! ]

If a sysadmin finds a virus, he nixs it. So far, Sun,
as far as I know, is still around.

So far, Microsoft has proven again and again, that every product
they produce is nothing but a black hole. It merely continues to
suck, from code bloat.


Hehehe, I'd agree with that, I'm no Microsoft fan, to say the
least.


Bugs in software will always exist. But with Opensource,
they eventually get found and quickly eliminated.


Too late, if people don't then patch their systems, though.

I'll concede your point...

Hell, last year someone patched a OPENBSD ssh file with some
code update, and the primary developer THEO de RADDTT found
after he compiled the thing that it didn't work out at all,
and worse, it worked more like a virus.

Let's just say that he literally tore a strip off the
newsgroup, including the contributor.

total time on the CVS server: 18 hours.

Only 2 real casulities, and I was one of them. I merely
removed the diff, and recompiled an old .tgz.

[ Okay, and had 2 coffees, so what. ]


For a counter to that though...

Remember, the GNU FTP server was rooted from March, and they only
recently found out.

Back in march, corrected this month, and everyone opted
to pull the guts out, and use source instead from somewhere
else.

Better than waiting for MS 6 months for a code patch..

Face it, I just want to be an advocate of Linux, albiet

A VERY LOUD ONE...

Your poor sod. I bet you're a member of the Flat Earth Society too, and you
breed hamsters for a living.

 

[Dr Halonfires LesGirl]

Eeerm; you appear to have missed something.: It pertains to the fact that
my nick is Dr Halonfires LesGirl; does that give you a clue? 0/10 for
observation so far. Oh yeah; you use Linux. : That explains it.

 

[Dr Halonfires LesGirl]

I get a funny feeling this was a reply to dave's post?

 

[Dr Halonfires LesGirl]

dave wrote:

FromTheRafters wrote:



Cheaper than paying $50 USD for anything that
only lasts for a single year.

Windows Worms/Viruses/Trojans/Time Bombs = 70,000+
Unix worms/Viruses = 3


You're kidding right?



Do the math people...


I demand a recount!
...but have someone who can count higher than three do it okay?

I can count to more than 3.

So, are you planning on writing a virus for the rest of us
to experience with the LINUX OS today, so we can say 4,
or are you just whistling dixie?


A simple search turns up these:

Lixux.Vit.4096
Linux.Diesel
Linux.Jac.8759
Linux.Simile
Linux.Svat
Linux.Hyp.6168

That looks like more than three to me, and I haven't even
started on the worms yet. If you want to spew facts, make
them factual.

Well, for viruses, I can only recall
"Bliss" and "Stoag" off the top off my head

[ well okay, near the top, behind the metal plate ].

I agree with you, there are probably more. However, most
( not all ) Linux users know enough to protect themselves
from them by now, if not in the future.

I like Linux, but I get tired of Linux users who think that it
is somehow immune to viruses.

I never mentioned immune; I merely mentioned cheaper

Cheaper than paying $50 USD for anything that
only lasts for a single year.

If I have to pay $499 for Windows XP, why can't
I merely purchase a version of Slackware,
or OpenBSD, for $75 USD instead, and spend some
time patching it for the life of my computer instead?

Sounds like good business sense to me.

How about the yearly update ( lets say you go with
Norton's, which is recognised as the best ANTI-VIRUS
around for Windows. Yearly payment is the typical
contract. )

Hell, when I was using MS-Dos from ver 2.0-6.2, I was
using F-PROT, and it was a *hell* of a lot better
and cheaper ( free for single home user )
than Norton's AV and utilities back then.

It is resistant to escalation,
but is fully capable of running viral programs. It has in the
past, and is likely to have in the future, vulnerabilities within
the applications people choose to run on it. The user is the
weak link, and I keep seeing some very weak links posting
Linux bigotry.

Well, if the owner of a linux box is the sole user and complete
idiot and/or newbie, and does any or all of the following for
starters;

- and runs the thing with permission wide open, say world
writable? [ no sticky bit, runs with 777, etc, etc, ... ]

- doesn't apply a single patch, uses the originally installed
kernel

- cruises the net and porno sites with JAVA and
JAVASCRIPT enabled on his web browser,

- installs a ftp, webserver or other servers, and runs X
and telnet with no firewalling or daemon lockdown
[ like RPC ]

- downloads and installs binaries from unknown sources
from Russia, China, or the Balkan countries, including Poland.

- runs the system as root at all times.

- puts in the statement 'ALL' only in the hosts.allow,
and leaves the 'hosts.deny file blank;


Then sure, I agree with you.

After all, security is merely a matter of playing the odds.
Software viruses and worms are in
the wild, and it is merely a matter of *time* before
one's system gets hit with one of these.

As you and I know, Linux users are *worriers* in life,
and it is usually the *worriers* that survive the best.

To be honest, you do seem to have a pretty good grasp
of the safe computing practices for Linux, but don't fall
for the belief that Linux is somehow immune ~ it isn't.

Again, I never did say that; I said it was cheaper < hehe >


I was hoping to convert at least one person around here, like
Halon,

You see, I can't code, so I guess all that's left for me
is to be an abnoxious Linux advocate, as that's all I'll ever be

Cheers

Picking up the point re. Norton Antivirus; "How about the yearly update (
lets say you go withI would speculate that Vexira fits this bill better than Norton. :
Incidentally Vexira can be used with Linux as well as Windows. (Different
versions obviously.) Link to d/l and CentralCommand at my site.

 

[Dr Halonfires LesGirl]

What a strange fellow. : Now look here my good man please explain that
statement as to the use of BTinternet indicating that one is retarded.
(Another Linux user methinks!)

 

[Grazyna]

dave wrote in message

Well, if the owner of a linux box is the sole user and complete
idiot and/or newbie, and does any or all of the following for
starters;
[cut]

- downloads and installs binaries from unknown sources
from Russia, China, or the Balkan countries, including Poland.

Poland is definitely not a Balkan country. Not having a clue about Linux, I
wouldn't jump to any conclusions as to the accuracy of your other
statements, though ;-)).

 

[dave]

Eeerm; you appear to have missed something.: It pertains to the fact that
my nick is Dr Halonfires LesGirl; does that give you a clue? 0/10 for
observation so far. Oh yeah; you use Linux. : That explains it.

Well, if you're computer on Windows, it's fatboy.

Just like you...

 

[dave]

Your poor sod. I bet you're a member of the Flat Earth Society too, and you
breed hamsters for a living.

No to both answers;

However, I'll entertain the idea that your
completely idiotic. I mean, after all, did
you know that just over 30% of Windows XP is
is UNIX code?

Why did you think MS purchased a SCO license
for UNIX ?

You think a company like MS, throws money away
every day?

 

[dave]

What a strange fellow. : Now look here my good man please explain that
statement as to the use of BTinternet indicating that one is retarded.
(Another Linux user methinks!)

FACE that sad, simple truth Fatboy;

Running a computer with Windows, is like inhaling
flatulence instead of air;

 

[Dr Halonfires LesGirl]

1. Learn to spell "you're"

2 Windows is an amalgamation of C++, Java,assembler, Unix etc etc.

3.What exactly is your point?

 

[Dr Halonfires LesGirl]

Like I said; you use Linux.....

 

[Dr Halonfires LesGirl]

dave wrote in message

Well, if the owner of a linux box is the sole user and complete
idiot and/or newbie, and does any or all of the following for
starters;
[cut]

- downloads and installs binaries from unknown sources
from Russia, China, or the Balkan countries, including Poland.

Poland is definitely not a Balkan country. Not having a clue about
Linux, I wouldn't jump to any conclusions as to the accuracy of your
other statements, though ;-)).

Don't let the ignorance get to you girl. : It's another Linux user. : Linux
makes you stupid.

 

[Dr Halonfires LesGirl]

LOL probably something to do with the substandardness of Linux.

 

[kurt wismer]

Dr Halonfires LesGirl wrote:
[snip]

LOL probably something to do with the substandardness of Linux.

y'know, you really shouldn't smear the good name of linux just because
of a few dolts that latched on to it for all the wrong reasons... it's
actually quite a good OS...

 

[Dr Halonfires LesGirl]

Windows Worms/Viruses/Trojans/Time Bombs = 70,000+
Unix worms/Viruses = 3

You're kidding right?

Do the math people...

I demand a recount!
...but have someone who can count higher than three do it okay?

Hehehe. Good point actually, I gather there's a lot more than 3
linux worms/viruses/rootkits out there. (A rough/messy/inaccurate
bodgit count
from 'ravav -V | grep -i "linux" | wc' [1] gives 22, however that's
going to be out wildly I suspect, but probably in the too small,
rather than too large,
as most of the virus names in the list there don't seem to be
prefixed by their target OS.)

In my response to dave via "Dr Halonfires LesGirl" whose post
showed up on my server prior to daves post, I admitted that he
seemed to have at least half a clue ~ but then he had to go and
call me a "redneck" GRRRR we hillbillies *hate* to be called
rednecks. ;o)

He is giving Linux users a bad name, and lowering the overall
Linux userbase IQ. He seems to be one of those all too often
seen "Hey! Look at me! I one of those super elite Linux users!"
types. He needs that other half clue badly though.

You appear to be likening all Linux users to a collective reminiscent of the
Borg. Will dave's idiosynchracy lower the collective intelligence of the
"Borg" Linux users to such depths that they will no longer be able to
maintain their bullshields, eventually being forced to admit that Linux is a
waste of time? I notice he has that ever-present Linux-user dilemma which
you so well point out as "He needs that other half clue badly though."

 

[FromTheRafters]

Dr Halonfires LesGirl wrote:
[snip]

LOL probably something to do with the substandardness of Linux.

y'know, you really shouldn't smear the good name of linux just because
of a few dolts that latched on to it for all the wrong reasons... it's
actually quite a good OS...

I agree, but as it becomes simpler to use, its users become simpler.
(not in the sci-fi "brainsucking" way, but in the expanding userbase)
Maybe the 'Open Source' aspect will help it to avoid the pitfalls that
Windows was unable to.

 

[Conor]

LOL probably something to do with the substandardness of Linux.

ROFL, how to make ones self look stupid in one sentence.

--
________________________
Conor Turton
(e-mail address removed)
ICQ:31909763
________________________

 

[Conor]

What a strange fellow. : Now look here my good man please explain that
statement as to the use of BTinternet indicating that one is retarded.
(Another Linux user methinks!)

BT=AOL for all intents.

BT Internet is overpriced.
BT Internet couldn't run a usenet server if the fate of the world
depended on it.
BT Internet mail is a rumour. People once claimed to be able to connect
to the service but it has since been proved that the claimees were in
fact patients from a local mental institution.

As to "Another Linux User methinks" you're way off on that one. Sure I
use it but if you actually knew how to use that ****ed up News client
you're using you'd see I'm using Microplanet Gravity. Even you're not
so stupid as to be unable to work out the rest.


--
________________________
Conor Turton
(e-mail address removed)
ICQ:31909763
________________________