G
Gordon
Ground said:
You are obviously trying to run Linux (if you are trying at all, which I
doubt) on a P1 with 64 MB RAM......
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You are obviously trying to run Linux (if you are trying at all, which I
doubt) on a P1 with 64 MB RAM......
G
Ground Cover
Are you totally cluesless? Or just want to be taken for clueless? These are
newsgroups for Microsoft products. I suggest you post appropriately - at
COLA or some other Linux advocacy hole.
newsgroups for Microsoft products. I suggest you post appropriately - at
COLA or some other Linux advocacy hole.
G
Gordon
Ground said:Are you totally cluesless? Or just want to be taken for clueless? These
are newsgroups for Microsoft products. I suggest you post appropriately -
at COLA or some other Linux advocacy hole.
Why should I when you are spewing out lies and deception?
D
Don Taylor
Michael Stevens said:So why are you so blind to acknowledge that many Linux distros even though
being in such a minority of installed systems are still required almost
daily to download and apply security updates?
Why don't you overwhelmingly make your point to him in a way that he cannot
deny. Simply show a dozen url's, each of which shows the "almost daily"
requirement of downloads of security updates for a dozen versions of linus.
He certainly couldn't argue with that.
Show the required daily updates needed for OpenBSD. I DARE YOU. Go on.
Can you truthfully say it would not escalate to the level Windows is being
attacked if it was the dominate OS?
Half the people in this argument seem desperately want to defend the idea
that there is no difference in software quality, and especially that
Microsoft software is not worse in any way with respect to security.
When you open up the door that there might actually be better and worse
quality software, I think you desperately want to avoid bringing that up.
Do you really think the open source community would be better and faster
than MS implementing a bug free fix?
That is an open question. Open BSD seems to have one answer to that.
The real crisis with the internet is not the OS, but the criminal mentality
that is exploiting and manipulating the internet for personal greed. If you
think any Linux Distro that became the dominate OS would not be the target
of every scam artist computer hacker, you are truly in denial.
The real crisis with the internet began more than 25 years ago.
Back then we, and I include myself in that we, were white collar
professionals, who would never have dreamed of risking our reputation
by doing something stupid on the net, or they were students and
they knew what we would and did do to their little pecker if they
tried something stupid on the net. Because of that security wasn't
ever really thought about. Nobody encrypted passwords when they
were sent across the net. Nobody encrypted traffic. Nobody
guaranteed the validity of mail headers. Because nobody could
imagine this would ever be needed. We were all professionals.
Then we screwed up in a colossal way, we told the public about the net.
And that opened to every petty swindler and criminal on the planet.
THAT is the real crisis with the net. Criminal mentality has been
here for thousands of years. We just screwed up and let you have
the net. And in the end, it is going to be understood that the
price of giving you that was too high.
V
vernon
Ground Cover said:There's always someone recommending a Mac .. or Linux .. or FreeBSD etc.
etc. Heck, there are people out there recommending DOS.
Automatic Updates + Common Sense = Reasonable Security Level
It's sort of like the old joke.
Get an ugly wife.
Why?
If someone steals her, who cares.
Why do you drive around in that old clunker?
No one will steal it.
M
Michael Stevens
Don said:Why don't you overwhelmingly make your point to him in a way that he
cannot deny. Simply show a dozen url's, each of which shows the
"almost daily" requirement of downloads of security updates for a
dozen versions of linus.
He certainly couldn't argue with that.
Show the required daily updates needed for OpenBSD. I DARE YOU. Go
on.
Half the people in this argument seem desperately want to defend the
idea that there is no difference in software quality, and especially
that Microsoft software is not worse in any way with respect to
security.
When you open up the door that there might actually be better and
worse quality software, I think you desperately want to avoid
bringing that up.
That is an open question. Open BSD seems to have one answer to that.
The real crisis with the internet began more than 25 years ago.
Back then we, and I include myself in that we, were white collar
professionals, who would never have dreamed of risking our reputation
by doing something stupid on the net, or they were students and
they knew what we would and did do to their little pecker if they
tried something stupid on the net. Because of that security wasn't
ever really thought about. Nobody encrypted passwords when they
were sent across the net. Nobody encrypted traffic. Nobody
guaranteed the validity of mail headers. Because nobody could
imagine this would ever be needed. We were all professionals.
Then we screwed up in a colossal way, we told the public about the
net. And that opened to every petty swindler and criminal on the
planet.
THAT is the real crisis with the net. Criminal mentality has been
here for thousands of years. We just screwed up and let you have
the net. And in the end, it is going to be understood that the
price of giving you that was too high.
Unfortunately, I don't have a current Linux distro available to corroborate
my observations, but if you do I am sure you can do it for me. I am only
pointing out that Linux is just as venerable to malicious programming
attacks as Windows, Mac, or any other OS that gets targeted. Linux because
of it's open source gets fixed much faster when the vulnerability is
discovered. But I am not exaggerating the reality. Linux users don't have
to wait until Tuesday or longer of the next week to get the fix.
Do you deny my statement that there is almost a daily Linux security update
download?
--
Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP
(e-mail address removed)
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com
For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader.
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/outlookexpressnewreader.htm
enstech.com/outlookexpressnewreader.htm
R
Ron Martell
http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/CRDY-6QKRSCShow the required daily updates needed for OpenBSD. I DARE YOU. Go on.
Note that this was identified on 2006-05-03 and an advisory still had
to be issued on 2006-07-05.
Real speedy fix, that one.
http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/CRDY-5U2QQK
Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2006)
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
"Anyone who thinks that they are too small to make a difference
has never been in bed with a mosquito."
N
NoStop
http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/CRDY-6QKRSC
Note that this was identified on 2006-05-03 and an advisory still had
to be issued on 2006-07-05.
Real speedy fix, that one.
http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/CRDY-5U2QQK
Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
What a Wintard! rsync is an application not developed by OpenBSD and on top
of that the security problem affected just a particular switch for that app
that isn't an offical part of rsync. Not only that, but rsync isn't
something that most OpenBSD users would probably use or even know about.
It's like a security flaw being discovered in a Nero option but blaming
MickeyMouse because it wasn't fixed promptly. Keep goggling, I'm sure
eventually you'll come across some way to correctly bash OpenBSD.
--
WGA is the best thing that has happened for Linux in a while.
The ULTIMATE Windoze Fanboy:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2370205018226686613
Is this a modern day equivalent of a Nazi youth rally?:
http://www.ntk.net/media/developers.mpg
A 3D Linux Desktop (video) ...
View Some Common Linux Desktops ...
http://shots.osdir.com/
G
Ground Cover
NoStop wrote:
It's part of the system so whether it is specifically kernel code or no
doesnt' matter. Most "Windows" patches have nothing to do with the kernel -
most have to do with apps and systems that run on the kernel.
That's the thing about UNIX / Linux trolls, any patch for their system
that's not kernel specific they disown, but any patch nessary for some
distance Windows app they're all over. You compare the two with uneven
scales.
If you were to be honest, you'd either look all the vulnerabilites in a
distro and all the vulnerabilities that come withe a Windows CD .. or you'd
look say at only kernel vulnerabilites in Linux, and only vulnerabilities
that are kernel based in Windows. But you people never weigh in evenly - you
always skew it.
It's part of the system so whether it is specifically kernel code or no
doesnt' matter. Most "Windows" patches have nothing to do with the kernel -
most have to do with apps and systems that run on the kernel.
That's the thing about UNIX / Linux trolls, any patch for their system
that's not kernel specific they disown, but any patch nessary for some
distance Windows app they're all over. You compare the two with uneven
scales.
If you were to be honest, you'd either look all the vulnerabilites in a
distro and all the vulnerabilities that come withe a Windows CD .. or you'd
look say at only kernel vulnerabilites in Linux, and only vulnerabilities
that are kernel based in Windows. But you people never weigh in evenly - you
always skew it.
D
Donald McDaniel
NoStop wrote:
It's part of the system so whether it is specifically kernel code or no
doesnt' matter. Most "Windows" patches have nothing to do with the kernel -
most have to do with apps and systems that run on the kernel.
That's the thing about UNIX / Linux trolls, any patch for their system
that's not kernel specific they disown, but any patch nessary for some
distance Windows app they're all over. You compare the two with uneven
scales.
If you were to be honest, you'd either look all the vulnerabilites in a
distro and all the vulnerabilities that come withe a Windows CD .. or you'd
look say at only kernel vulnerabilites in Linux, and only vulnerabilities
that are kernel based in Windows. But you people never weigh in evenly - you
always skew it.
This is pretty much the same attitude that Maccies have when writing
about Windows. "If it's not a Mac, it must be trash", is their
attitude.
==
Donald L McDaniel
Please Reply to the Original Thread.
========================================================
N
NoStop
Then why is it that the damn system has to be rebooted after a criticalNoStop wrote:
It's part of the system so whether it is specifically kernel code or no
doesnt' matter. Most "Windows" patches have nothing to do with the kernel
- most have to do with apps and systems that run on the kernel.
patch is applied? Those Windoze dlls are certainly part of Windoze. I'm not
talking about patches to Windoze Paint. I'd expect those not to be
"critical" unless they can indeed impact the kernel space itself.
That's the thing about UNIX / Linux trolls, any patch for their system
that's not kernel specific they disown, but any patch nessary for some
distance Windows app they're all over. You compare the two with uneven
scales.
If you were to be honest, you'd either look all the vulnerabilites in a
distro and all the vulnerabilities that come withe a Windows CD .. or
you'd look say at only kernel vulnerabilites in Linux, and only
vulnerabilities that are kernel based in Windows. But you people never
weigh in evenly - you always skew it.
--
WGA is the best thing that has happened for Linux in a while.
The ULTIMATE Windoze Fanboy:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2370205018226686613
Is this a modern day equivalent of a Nazi youth rally?:
http://www.ntk.net/media/developers.mpg
A 3D Linux Desktop (video) ...
View Some Common Linux Desktops ...
http://shots.osdir.com/
D
Don Taylor
Ron Martell said:Note that this was identified on 2006-05-03 and an advisory still had
to be issued on 2006-07-05.
Real speedy fix, that one.
It would be really interesting to know how long it takes ALL
the various OS vendors from the time something is reported
to them until the time flaws are fixed and released.
which links to
http://www.openbsd.org/pkg-stable.html
This appears to be actually tangible information from a credible
source, unlike the undending "yes it is", "no it isn't", "yes it
is", "no it isn't" with nothing to back it up, listing flaws
found and fixed in the half year between stable releases, if I
understand it correctly. Thank you for some useful info.
That appears to at least give some support to the repeated claim that
some unspecified version of linux "required nearly daily updates."
D
Don Taylor
What a Wintard! rsync is an application not developed by OpenBSD and on top
of that the security problem affected just a particular switch for that app
that isn't an offical part of rsync. Not only that, but rsync isn't
something that most OpenBSD users would probably use or even know about.
It's like a security flaw being discovered in a Nero option but blaming
MickeyMouse because it wasn't fixed promptly. Keep goggling, I'm sure
eventually you'll come across some way to correctly bash OpenBSD.
But, to be excessively fair here, OpenBSD seems to want to hold
the claim of being substantially more secure than ANY other OS.
They claim to consider things to be completely unacceptable
security problems when other folks perhaps don't even consider
things 20x that severity to be a problem, or just point fingers
at someone else. And they seem to claim that they are much more
up front about announcing problems, rather than just quietly
shelving the problem and you never even know.
So OpenBSD pointing out an rsync massive f&*k-up, as some have
suggested we ALL start calling these "glitches", seems to
enhance their position, not detract from it.