Re: Linux servers hacked - who would have thought

[Guest norm]

Re: Linux servers hacked - who would have thought

 

Re: Linux servers hacked - who would have thought

 

Leythos wrote:

> In article <5imefqF3m3hpaU1@mid.individual.net>, louis@h4h.com says...

>> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message

>> news:MPG.212fc5ecf8f7e8289898fe@adfree.Usenet.com...

>>> In article <fa4qia$ins$1@aioe.org>, none@non.not says...

>>>> Leythos wrote:

>>>>> In article <fa4jmu$sfs$1@aioe.org>, none@non.not says...

>>>>>> Richard Urban wrote:

>>>>>>> So much for Linux (Ubuntu) being bullet proof.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Ubuntu servers hijacked. Used to launch attack.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2171318,00.asp

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> People have been saying right along that ***ALL*** operating systems

>>>>>>> are

>>>>>>> vulnerable!

>>>>>>>

>>>>>> I think we have a conflict here, Dick. You being one of the very MVPs

>>>>>> who ran alias out of this group for posting things 'off topic' about

>>>>>> ubuntu is now engaging in the same behaviour. Is it time you get run

>>>>>> out of the group for this too (in addition to your double standard

>>>>>> here)?

>>>>> I think it's good to point out when a OS that has been stated as being

>>>>> secure for the masses is show to have been rooted by the same stupidity

>>>>> that the masses with Windows have. Clearly Ubuntu was being claimed to

>>>>> be superior to Vista, and in fact it's not, it suffers from the same

>>>>> problems that all OS's suffer from - stupid users that ignore the

>>>>> decades of warnings.

>>>>>

>>>> How does this negate the fact that this MVP is being a hypocrate by

>>>> doing something that he ran another poster off of the group for?

>>> Because the MVP was refuting the claims in this group that were off-

>>> topic, showing that what was claimed is clearly not true, so that those

>>> that watched the OT mantra of linux zealots will see that it's not what

>>> they claim.

>> The article had nothing to do with a Linux security problem, it was clueless

>> admins at fault, allowing someone to use "brute force" to get in. Just how

>> often do we hear about security problems in Linux vs Windows, hmmm?

>

> And that would follow the ignorant masses problem that all OS's suffer.

> which is the point of my post. You have Zealots stating the XYZ is safer

> and that it can't be hacked and then when they are disproven, for the

> same reasons that many Windows boxes are hacked, they get disgruntled.

>

Maybe the correct comparison should be ubuntu server to windows server

rather than ubuntu server to the windows "for the masses".

 

--

norm

[Guest The poster formerly known as the poster formerly k]

Re: Linux servers hacked - who would have thought

 

Re: Linux servers hacked - who would have thought

 

HeyBub wrote:

> The poster fromerly known as 'The poster formerly known as Nina DiBoy'

> wrote:

>> Curtis D. Levin wrote:

>>> The poster formerly known as ??? wrote...

>>>> How does this negate the fact that this MVP is being a hypocrate by

>>>> doing something that he ran another poster off of the group for?

>>> Simple. The other poster was writing about Ubuntu, but

>>> probably wasn't pro vista.

>> Non-issue, has no bearing on this subject whether someone posting an

>> off topic post without even labeling it as an OT post is pro vista or

>> not.

>

> Well, isn't your complaining about the post being off-topic itself

> off-topic? It's off-topic squared.

>

> In other words, isn't a complaint about something being off-topic an example

> of hypocrisy?

>

>

 

And what does this post of yours complaining about my 'OT' post

accomplish? The same thing, but cubed.

 

--

Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:

http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

 

"Only religious fanatics and totalitarian states equate morality with

legality."

- Linus Torvalds

[Guest Leythos]

Re: Linux servers hacked - who would have thought

 

Re: Linux servers hacked - who would have thought

 

In article <eg9VVuR4HHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>,

noone@afakeddomain.net says...

> And that same zealotry mantra of the ignorant can be seen from the

> windows side too.

 

Yep, it's not something that is unique to ANY OS. I use to know a couple

network admins that logged in as a root level account on AIX for their

daily work - they said it made thing simpler :)

 

 

--

 

Leythos

- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.

- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a

drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"

spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

[Guest Frank]

Re: Linux servers hacked - who would have thought

 

Re: Linux servers hacked - who would have thought

 

The poster formerly known as the poster formerly known as Nina DiBoy wrote:

> HeyBub wrote:

>

>> The poster fromerly known as 'The poster formerly known as Nina DiBoy'

>> wrote:

>>

>>> Curtis D. Levin wrote:

>>>

>>>> The poster formerly known as ??? wrote...

>>>>

>>>>> How does this negate the fact that this MVP is being a hypocrate by

>>>>> doing something that he ran another poster off of the group for?

>>>>

>>>> Simple. The other poster was writing about Ubuntu, but

>>>> probably wasn't pro vista.

>>>

>>> Non-issue, has no bearing on this subject whether someone posting an

>>> off topic post without even labeling it as an OT post is pro vista or

>>> not.

>>

>>

>> Well, isn't your complaining about the post being off-topic itself

>> off-topic? It's off-topic squared.

>>

>> In other words, isn't a complaint about something being off-topic an

>> example of hypocrisy?

>>

>

> And what does this post of yours complaining about my 'OT' post

> accomplish? The same thing, but cubed.

>

 

I bet we're now gonna have a math quiz, right?

Damn!

Frank

[Guest Adam Albright]

Re: Linux servers hacked - who would have thought

 

Re: Linux servers hacked - who would have thought

 

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 19:54:14 -0700, Frank <fb@nospaner.cnm> wrote:

>>> Well, isn't your complaining about the post being off-topic itself

>>> off-topic? It's off-topic squared.

>>>

>>> In other words, isn't a complaint about something being off-topic an

>>> example of hypocrisy?

>>>

>>

>> And what does this post of yours complaining about my 'OT' post

>> accomplish? The same thing, but cubed.

>>

>

>I bet we're now gonna have a math quiz, right?

 

You wouldn't get very far in any math quiz since you can't get past 20

even with you barefoot. Just face facts Frankie, you're an idiot and

everybody knows it.

[Guest Clenna Lumina]

Re: Linux servers hacked - who would have thought

 

Re: Linux servers hacked - who would have thought

 

 

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message

news:MPG.21300b676c2f8ba4989906@adfree.Usenet.com...

> In article <eg9VVuR4HHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>,

> noone@afakeddomain.net says...

>> And that same zealotry mantra of the ignorant can be seen from the

>> windows side too.

>

> Yep, it's not something that is unique to ANY OS. I use to know a couple

> network admins that logged in as a root level account on AIX for their

> daily work - they said it made thing simpler :)

 

It really depends on the person, but in general over the years I found

Windows users for the most part to be less knowledgeable of how thier

computer works than a typical Linux or Unix user.

 

As for running as root, I'd never recommend doing it on a live system, but

on my personal Linux system I've been doing it for years. I do not let most

processes/services run as root, and in general run programs as normal users.

It just depends on what you do with the system, what your usage habits are

like, and how you set things up, and also is it your personal system + do

you know what you are doing. The latter tends not always apply to the joe

"home edition" Windows user.

[Guest Clenna Lumina]

Re: Linux servers hacked - who would have thought

 

Re: Linux servers hacked - who would have thought

 

 

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message

news:MPG.212fcfd4aba5db7c989902@adfree.Usenet.com...

> In article <5imefqF3m3hpaU1@mid.individual.net>, louis@h4h.com says...

>> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message

>> news:MPG.212fc5ecf8f7e8289898fe@adfree.Usenet.com...

>> > In article <fa4qia$ins$1@aioe.org>, none@non.not says...

>> >> Leythos wrote:

>> >> > In article <fa4jmu$sfs$1@aioe.org>, none@non.not says...

>> >> >> Richard Urban wrote:

>> >> >>> So much for Linux (Ubuntu) being bullet proof.

>> >> >>>

>> >> >>> Ubuntu servers hijacked. Used to launch attack.

>> >> >>>

>> >> >>> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2171318,00.asp

>> >> >>>

>> >> >>> People have been saying right along that ***ALL*** operating

>> >> >>> systems

>> >> >>> are

>> >> >>> vulnerable!

>> >> >>>

>> >> >> I think we have a conflict here, Dick. You being one of the very

>> >> >> MVPs

>> >> >> who ran alias out of this group for posting things 'off topic'

>> >> >> about

>> >> >> ubuntu is now engaging in the same behaviour. Is it time you get

>> >> >> run

>> >> >> out of the group for this too (in addition to your double standard

>> >> >> here)?

>> >> >

>> >> > I think it's good to point out when a OS that has been stated as

>> >> > being

>> >> > secure for the masses is show to have been rooted by the same

>> >> > stupidity

>> >> > that the masses with Windows have. Clearly Ubuntu was being claimed

>> >> > to

>> >> > be superior to Vista, and in fact it's not, it suffers from the same

>> >> > problems that all OS's suffer from - stupid users that ignore the

>> >> > decades of warnings.

>> >> >

>> >>

>> >> How does this negate the fact that this MVP is being a hypocrate by

>> >> doing something that he ran another poster off of the group for?

>> >

>> > Because the MVP was refuting the claims in this group that were off-

>> > topic, showing that what was claimed is clearly not true, so that those

>> > that watched the OT mantra of linux zealots will see that it's not what

>> > they claim.

>>

>> The article had nothing to do with a Linux security problem, it was

>> clueless

>> admins at fault, allowing someone to use "brute force" to get in. Just

>> how

>> often do we hear about security problems in Linux vs Windows, hmmm?

>

> And that would follow the ignorant masses problem that all OS's suffer.

> which is the point of my post. You have Zealots stating the XYZ is safer

> and that it can't be hacked and then when they are disproven, for the

> same reasons that many Windows boxes are hacked, they get disgruntled.

 

The article at the head of this post does NOT say a Linux system was hacked,

it said someone got in via brute force - trying password after password

until one works. It said the perp was trying for a long time, something that

should of never been allowed if someoen was watching things. That was a

failure on the admin's part, NOT the system. This is something that happens

infinately more on Windows boxes (though it's nto limited to them) and you

know it.

 

It's amazing how people like you just jump on the band wagon and show that

you haven't even read the article.

 

If you think Linux has been actually "cracked" then site an instance. Anyone

can site and try over and over, or evne run an pllication that permutates

over every combination, and/or runs through a dictionary file. I hardly call

that "cracking"... most would call that a admin asleep at the helm.

[Guest Wayne Poe]

Re: Linux servers hacked - who would have thought

 

Re: Linux servers hacked - who would have thought

 

 

"Curtis D. Levin" <cdlevin@spammelater.bellsouth.net> wrote in message

news:13oxi.30212$jH3.21153@bignews6.bellsouth.net...

>

> "Wayne Poe" <louis@h4h.com> wrote in message

> news:5imejlF3qjhjjU1@mid.individual.net...

>> "Curtis D. Levin" <cdlevin@spammelater.bellsouth.net> wrote in message

>> news:snmxi.6328$7e6.4084@bignews4.bellsouth.net...

>>> The poster formerly known as ??? wrote...

>>>> How does this negate the fact that this MVP is being a hypocrate by

>>>> doing something that he ran another poster off of the group for?

>>>

>>> Simple. The other poster was writing about Ubuntu, but

>>> probably wasn't pro vista.

>>>

>>> The issue posted here was to point out that Linux isn't

>>> bulletproof.

>>

>> For the most part it is. How ever the article wasn't about a security

>> problem in Linux, rather about admins at some data center not doing thier

>> jobs. That's a world of a difference.

>

> Not to me it isn't. Their machines were attacking others. That, is

> a security problem, by every definition of the word.

 

Which could of been prevented if they weren't asleep at their posts.

> If someone else other than them is expected to do something

> about it, then what's the point? They manned up and said that

> they didn't apply the patches. That's their fault.

 

Patches or not, they neglected their duty as sysadmins.

> MS makes it easy. Microsoft update. Every day. Not so stupid now.

 

Which can force you to reboot if you're running as a non admin user on

Vista.

> Linux is good. Don't get me wrong. But it is fallible too.

 

I've bene using various distros and versions of Linux, for both

home/personal usage and as an admin of live servers, and I really haven't

found much fallible about it. The core is rock solid. What's fallible is

running out dated software with known security holes. A good sysadmin would

stay on top of that, and at the very least watch the logs, keep an eye on

who is and has bene connecting and such.

> Anyone who reads cert.org can tell you that. Luckily, most

> people who know how to do bad things don't do them to

> linux as frequently as they do them to us. Doesn't mean it

> can't be done. It can.

 

It can, but it's not so much Linux but either bad software or improperly

configured software. Again, that is a sizable difference when you compare to

all the security flaws at Window's core, which includes IE (ever since they

integrated it into Explorer back in Win 98.) Just look at how many exploits

are found at the _core_ and sometimes patches are then released to try to

fix them and sometimes new one arises. Problems at the core problems are

generally not an issue in Linux, but rather the different softwares that run

with in.

 

Bottom line, security patches help, doing your job as a system's

administrator is even better. There just sin't any substitute for that imho.

[Guest Frank]

Re: Linux servers hacked - who would have thought

 

Re: Linux servers hacked - who would have thought

 

Adam Albright wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 19:54:14 -0700, Frank <fb@nospaner.cnm> wrote:

>

>

>>>>Well, isn't your complaining about the post being off-topic itself

>>>>off-topic? It's off-topic squared.

>>>>

>>>>In other words, isn't a complaint about something being off-topic an

>>>>example of hypocrisy?

>>>>

>>>

>>>And what does this post of yours complaining about my 'OT' post

>>>accomplish? The same thing, but cubed.

>>>

>>

>>I bet we're now gonna have a math quiz, right?

>

>

> You wouldn't get very far in any math quiz since you can't get past 20

> even with you barefoot. Just face facts Frankie, you're an idiot and

> everybody knows it.

>

>

 

At least I don't have to resort to counting the pimples on my ass like

you do...you moron!

Frank

[Guest Alias]

Re: Linux servers hacked - who would have thought

 

Re: Linux servers hacked - who would have thought

 

The poster fromerly known as 'The poster formerly known as Nina DiBoy'

wrote:

> Richard Urban wrote:

>> So much for Linux (Ubuntu) being bullet proof.

>>

>> Ubuntu servers hijacked. Used to launch attack.

>>

>> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2171318,00.asp

>>

>> People have been saying right along that ***ALL*** operating systems

>> are vulnerable!

>>

>

> I think we have a conflict here, Dick. You being one of the very MVPs

> who ran alias out of this group for posting things 'off topic' about

> ubuntu is now engaging in the same behaviour. Is it time you get run

> out of the group for this too (in addition to your double standard here)?

>

 

I was not run off. I just got tired of the infantile behaviour on the

part of the Franks and Richard Urbans of the world and realized that

life is far too short to be playing the round and round with them. In

addition, as I never plan to buy Vista, I saw no reason to continue my

subscription to the Vista group. I must, however, have really pushed

some buttons for Richard Urban to post this obviously desperate message

about Linux being "hacked".

 

To clarify, I never said that Linux is "bullet proof". It's just a

helluva lot more bullet proof than Windows.

 

--

Alias

To email me, remove shoes

[Guest Mr. Arnold]

Re: Linux servers hacked - who would have thought

 

Re: Linux servers hacked - who would have thought

 

 

"The poster fromerly known as 'The poster formerly known as Nina DiBoy'"

<none@non.not> wrote in message news:fa513l$7j3$2@aioe.org...

> Leythos wrote:

>> In article <fa4jmu$sfs$1@aioe.org>, none@non.not says...

>>

>> Interesting to see that you felt it was important to direct this thread

>> to a group it wasn't part of.

>>

>> Richard posted to Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windows.vista.general

>>

>> And you've changed the thread to include:

>> microsoft.public.windowsxp.general

>>

>> Why did you feel the need to start trolling the group that way? Certainly

>> you just made it off-topic like you're complaining.

>>

>

> You are trying to change the subject again. Did you forget to take your

> ADD medication this morning?

 

The mob needs tar-and-feather and run you out of town too, because you're

nothing but a troll.

[Guest Robert Moir]

Re: Linux servers hacked - who would have thought

 

Re: Linux servers hacked - who would have thought

 

 

"Curtis D. Levin" <cdlevin@spammelater.bellsouth.net> wrote in message

news:snmxi.6328$7e6.4084@bignews4.bellsouth.net...

> The poster formerly known as ??? wrote...

>> How does this negate the fact that this MVP is being a hypocrate by doing

>> something that he ran another poster off of the group for?

>

> Simple. The other poster was writing about Ubuntu, but

> probably wasn't pro vista.

 

So you're saying you can talk about whatever you like as long as you're "Pro

Vista"?

 

I hope we don't get visited by a group of Vista loving pig infertility

clinic technicians, that's all I can say.

[Guest Leythos]

Re: Linux servers hacked - who would have thought

 

Re: Linux servers hacked - who would have thought

 

In article <5inaqfF3pv8spU1@mid.individual.net>, savagebeaste@yahoo.com

says...

> It's amazing how people like you just jump on the band wagon and show that

> you haven't even read the article.

>

> If you think Linux has been actually "cracked" then site an instance. Anyone

> can site and try over and over, or evne run an pllication that permutates

> over every combination, and/or runs through a dictionary file. I hardly call

> that "cracking"... most would call that a admin asleep at the helm.

 

Um, you didn't understand what I wrote - I use Windows and Linux and

enjoy both, but, it clearly shows how ignorant users can compromise a

system. The fault of a bad password is the same fault that windows users

suffer, complete incompetence and ignorance.

 

This clearly shows that a Linux box, under use/control by ignorant

users, can be compromised, and it's just that simple.

 

--

 

Leythos

- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.

- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a

drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"

spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

[Guest Leythos]

Re: Linux servers hacked - who would have thought

 

Re: Linux servers hacked - who would have thought

 

In article <ezzzSEW4HHA.3916@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>,

iamalias@shoesgmail.com. says...

> To clarify, I never said that Linux is "bullet proof". It's just a

> helluva lot more bullet proof than Windows.

 

In the hands of the ignorant masses, the article proves that it's not

more "bullet proof" than Windows. Password failures are one of the

largest causes of system compromise.

 

What the article proves is that any OS, in the hands of stupid/ignorant

people can be compromised and used by unauthorized people.

 

 

--

 

Leythos

- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.

- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a

drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"

spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

[Guest Alias]

Re: Linux servers hacked - who would have thought

 

Re: Linux servers hacked - who would have thought

 

Leythos wrote:

> In article <5inaqfF3pv8spU1@mid.individual.net>, savagebeaste@yahoo.com

> says...

>> It's amazing how people like you just jump on the band wagon and show that

>> you haven't even read the article.

>>

>> If you think Linux has been actually "cracked" then site an instance. Anyone

>> can site and try over and over, or evne run an pllication that permutates

>> over every combination, and/or runs through a dictionary file. I hardly call

>> that "cracking"... most would call that a admin asleep at the helm.

>

> Um, you didn't understand what I wrote - I use Windows and Linux and

> enjoy both, but, it clearly shows how ignorant users can compromise a

> system. The fault of a bad password is the same fault that windows users

> suffer, complete incompetence and ignorance.

>

> This clearly shows that a Linux box, under use/control by ignorant

> users, can be compromised, and it's just that simple.

>

 

Your supercilious disdain for computer users is noted. Fact is that an,

as you call it, "ignorant user" is far safer running Linux than Windows.

This is an indisputable fact.

 

--

Alias

To email me, remove shoes

[Guest Alias]

Re: Linux servers hacked - who would have thought

 

Re: Linux servers hacked - who would have thought

 

Leythos wrote:

> In article <ezzzSEW4HHA.3916@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>,

> iamalias@shoesgmail.com. says...

>> To clarify, I never said that Linux is "bullet proof". It's just a

>> helluva lot more bullet proof than Windows.

>

> In the hands of the ignorant masses, the article proves that it's not

> more "bullet proof" than Windows. Password failures are one of the

> largest causes of system compromise.

>

> What the article proves is that any OS, in the hands of stupid/ignorant

> people can be compromised and used by unauthorized people.

>

>

 

Your disdain and snootiness is noted. It's an indisputable fact that a

user who isn't computer savvy would be far safer with Linux than with

Windows.

 

--

Alias

To email me, remove shoes

[Guest Curtis D. Levin]

Re: Linux servers hacked - who would have thought

 

Re: Linux servers hacked - who would have thought

 

 

"Wayne Poe" <louis@h4h.com> wrote in message

news:5inbtcF3qm784U1@mid.individual.net...

> It can, but it's not so much Linux but either bad software or improperly

> configured software. Again, that is a sizable difference when you compare

> to all the security flaws at Window's core, which includes IE (ever since

> they integrated it into Explorer back in Win 98.) Just look at how many

> exploits are found at the _core_ and sometimes patches are then released

> to try to fix them and sometimes new one arises. Problems at the core

> problems are generally not an issue in Linux, but rather the different

> softwares that run with in.

 

Yeah, and it was indeed an issue back then, especially with netscape.

 

IIRC, they got taken to court over that. But the biggest part of it

was that there was a lot of bad blood over it. Microsoft's point

was that it would be easier to use. But everyone cried monopoly.

 

SO Microsoft wanted to do something different. In the long

run, I think they accomplished what they set out to do, albeit

with some setbacks. But there's motive there. Impossible for me

to believe that there aren't dark forces at work against MS

and Vista even today. Serious programmers, not just hackers,

reverse engineering the code, looking for flaws, and/or creating

them even if they didn't exist. Criminal acts entirely. But no matter

what, Microsoft was the bad guy then.

 

Funny how things change.

> Bottom line, security patches help, doing your job as a system's

> administrator is even better. There just sin't any substitute for that

> imho.

That's the truest statement I've read in this thread so far.

 

Curtis

[Guest HeyBub]

Re: Linux servers hacked - who would have thought

 

Re: Linux servers hacked - who would have thought

 

The poster formerly known as the poster formerly known as Nina DiBoy

>> Well, isn't your complaining about the post being off-topic itself

>> off-topic? It's off-topic squared.

>>

>> In other words, isn't a complaint about something being off-topic an

>> example of hypocrisy?

>>

>>

>

> And what does this post of yours complaining about my 'OT' post

> accomplish? The same thing, but cubed.

 

I didn't 'complain,' I simply observed. And asked a question.

 

In my view, complaing about an OT post is, by definition, off-topic.

[Guest HeyBub]

Re: Linux servers hacked - who would have thought

 

Re: Linux servers hacked - who would have thought

 

Alias wrote:

>

> Your disdain and snootiness is noted. It's an indisputable fact that a

> user who isn't computer savvy would be far safer with Linux than with

> Windows.

 

Finally, you and I agree. A user who isn't computer savvy IS, in fact, safer

with Linux. Because he can't use it!

 

Face it, the command interface for Linux was designed by nerds who believed

the complexity of the MS-DOS command line was not arcane enough.

 

I think much of the push for Linux comes from geeks who can't get a date.

[Guest Alias]

Re: Linux servers hacked - who would have thought

 

Re: Linux servers hacked - who would have thought

 

HeyBub wrote:

> Alias wrote:

>> Your disdain and snootiness is noted. It's an indisputable fact that a

>> user who isn't computer savvy would be far safer with Linux than with

>> Windows.

>

> Finally, you and I agree. A user who isn't computer savvy IS, in fact, safer

> with Linux. Because he can't use it!

 

I know a 74 year old lady who is very happy with Ubuntu and she doesn't

even know what a terminal is for, much less a command line. Modern Linux

distros have GUIs that are very similar to Windows. She used to call

once a month to have malware removed. She doesn't have that problem anymore.

> Face it, the command interface for Linux was designed by nerds who believed

> the complexity of the MS-DOS command line was not arcane enough.

 

More like not powerful enough.

> I think much of the push for Linux comes from geeks who can't get a date.

 

Linux isn't just for geeks anymore, with or without dates.

--

Alias

To email me, remove shoes

[Guest Curt Christianson]

Re: Linux servers hacked - who would have thought

 

Re: Linux servers hacked - who would have thought

 

What I want to know is...can Linux help *get* me a date? <vbg>

 

--

HTH,

Curt

 

Windows Support Center

http://www.aumha.org

Practically Nerded,...

http://dundats.mvps.org/Index.htm

 

"Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com.> wrote in message

news:OjoTcda4HHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

| HeyBub wrote:

| > Alias wrote:

| >> Your disdain and snootiness is noted. It's an indisputable fact that a

| >> user who isn't computer savvy would be far safer with Linux than with

| >> Windows.

| >

| > Finally, you and I agree. A user who isn't computer savvy IS, in fact,

safer

| > with Linux. Because he can't use it!

|

| I know a 74 year old lady who is very happy with Ubuntu and she doesn't

| even know what a terminal is for, much less a command line. Modern Linux

| distros have GUIs that are very similar to Windows. She used to call

| once a month to have malware removed. She doesn't have that problem

anymore.

|

| > Face it, the command interface for Linux was designed by nerds who

believed

| > the complexity of the MS-DOS command line was not arcane enough.

|

| More like not powerful enough.

|

| > I think much of the push for Linux comes from geeks who can't get a

date.

|

| Linux isn't just for geeks anymore, with or without dates.

| --

| Alias

| To email me, remove shoes

[Guest Frank]

Re: Linux servers hacked - who would have thought

 

Re: Linux servers hacked - who would have thought

 

Alias wrote:

 

 

Your supercilious disdain for computer users is noted.

>Your supercilious disdain for Windows users is duly noted.

 

Fact is that an, as you call it, "ignorant user" is far safer running

Linux than Windows.

This is an indisputable fact.

 

>Fact is, that is not a fact at all but simply an ill informed ignorant

and arrogant assumption on your part.

Ignorance is bliss as you have so blissfully demonstrated.

Frank

[Guest Mike]

Re: Linux servers hacked - who would have thought

 

Re: Linux servers hacked - who would have thought

 

In article <5inac8F3pbpa4U1@mid.individual.net>,

"Clenna Lumina" <savagebeaste@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message

> news:MPG.21300b676c2f8ba4989906@adfree.Usenet.com...

> > In article <eg9VVuR4HHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>,

> > noone@afakeddomain.net says...

> >> And that same zealotry mantra of the ignorant can be seen from the

> >> windows side too.

> >

> > Yep, it's not something that is unique to ANY OS. I use to know a couple

> > network admins that logged in as a root level account on AIX for their

> > daily work - they said it made thing simpler :)

>

> It really depends on the person, but in general over the years I found

> Windows users for the most part to be less knowledgeable of how thier

> computer works than a typical Linux or Unix user.

 

Which is why Windows dominates (and OS X is gaining users) and Linux is

still going nowhere after 10 years of "This year is the year of LOTD!".

Linux is still for geeks and servers. People don't want/need to know

"how their computer works" any more than they want/need to know how

their TV, cell phone or microwave oven works. They just want to turn

it on and use it.

 

Mike

[Guest Alias]

Re: Linux servers hacked - who would have thought

 

Re: Linux servers hacked - who would have thought

 

Mike wrote:

> In article <5inac8F3pbpa4U1@mid.individual.net>,

> "Clenna Lumina" <savagebeaste@yahoo.com> wrote:

>

>> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message

>> news:MPG.21300b676c2f8ba4989906@adfree.Usenet.com...

>>> In article <eg9VVuR4HHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>,

>>> noone@afakeddomain.net says...

>>>> And that same zealotry mantra of the ignorant can be seen from the

>>>> windows side too.

>>> Yep, it's not something that is unique to ANY OS. I use to know a couple

>>> network admins that logged in as a root level account on AIX for their

>>> daily work - they said it made thing simpler :)

>> It really depends on the person, but in general over the years I found

>> Windows users for the most part to be less knowledgeable of how thier

>> computer works than a typical Linux or Unix user.

>

> Which is why Windows dominates (and OS X is gaining users) and Linux is

> still going nowhere after 10 years of "This year is the year of LOTD!".

> Linux is still for geeks and servers. People don't want/need to know

> "how their computer works" any more than they want/need to know how

> their TV, cell phone or microwave oven works. They just want to turn

> it on and use it.

>

> Mike

 

I see you're only familiar with old Linux versions. The new ones can do

almost everything with a GUI. Ubuntu, for example, is MUCH easier to

install than Windows will ever be and ticking boxes next to the programs

you want and then clicking on "Apply" doesn't exactly require a degree

in computer science.

 

But, what the hell, I'll bite: what would confuse people in Ubuntu? Name

one thing. You claim that Linux is only for geeks so you must have proof,

 

--

Alias

To email me, remove shoes

[Guest Stephan Rose]

Re: Linux servers hacked - who would have thought

 

Re: Linux servers hacked - who would have thought

 

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 12:09:10 -0400, Mike wrote:

> In article <5inac8F3pbpa4U1@mid.individual.net>,

> "Clenna Lumina" <savagebeaste@yahoo.com> wrote:

>

>> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message

>> news:MPG.21300b676c2f8ba4989906@adfree.Usenet.com...

>> > In article <eg9VVuR4HHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>,

>> > noone@afakeddomain.net says...

>> >> And that same zealotry mantra of the ignorant can be seen from the

>> >> windows side too.

>> >

>> > Yep, it's not something that is unique to ANY OS. I use to know a couple

>> > network admins that logged in as a root level account on AIX for their

>> > daily work - they said it made thing simpler :)

>>

>> It really depends on the person, but in general over the years I found

>> Windows users for the most part to be less knowledgeable of how thier

>> computer works than a typical Linux or Unix user.

>

> Which is why Windows dominates (and OS X is gaining users) and Linux is

> still going nowhere after 10 years of "This year is the year of LOTD!".

> Linux is still for geeks and servers. People don't want/need to know

> "how their computer works" any more than they want/need to know how

> their TV, cell phone or microwave oven works. They just want to turn

> it on and use it.

 

If you want to go by that then *any* operating system that doesn't come

pre-installed (note the keyword there) is only for geeks and servers.

 

To install an OS requires a person to know how their computer works else

they wouldn't know what drivers to install, how to configure it, and so

on. That applies to any version of Windows as much as it applies to Linux

or any other operating system.

 

I mean why (among other potential reasons) do you think people like Dell

and HP use "restore disks/partitions" instead of giving people the

software on individual CDs? The majority of people wouldn't be able to

reinstall and configure everything manually, windows or not.

 

So really, it boils down to that for the masses, the system needs to come

pre-installed, pre-configured and ready to use. At that point in time, any

system that comes with an OS in that needs, no matter what said OS may be,

is going to work for the user as long as the software available for said

OS meets all the users needs.

 

--

Stephan

2003 Yamaha R6

 

君のこと思い出す日なんてないのは

君のこと忘れたときがないから