Linux

In ,
Gordon wrote:
On 02/04/2011 17:08, BillW50 wrote:


Ok sounds good to me and I ran Ubuntu Live v8.xx and some things
didn't work like the WiFi, webcam, and stuff.

Gosh - that's over TWO YEARS OLD.....

Gee Gordon... you are really sharp today. Yes this happened about two
years ago. I hear tell that Ubuntu continues to do this practice. Say
since I already had to restore my system three times already from
Ubuntu. How about you try it this time with the latest version? ;-)

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

In ,
Alias wrote:
On 04/02/2011 05:34 PM, BillW50 wrote:
In ,
Alias wrote:
On 04/02/2011 03:54 PM, BillW50 wrote:
In ,
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..._cyberatt ack

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

On 04/02/2011 07:02 PM, BillW50 wrote:
In ,
Gordon wrote:
On 02/04/2011 17:08, BillW50 wrote:


Ok sounds good to me and I ran Ubuntu Live v8.xx and some things
didn't work like the WiFi, webcam, and stuff.

Gosh - that's over TWO YEARS OLD.....

Gee Gordon... you are really sharp today. Yes this happened about two
years ago. I hear tell that Ubuntu continues to do this practice. Say
since I already had to restore my system three times already from
Ubuntu. How about you try it this time with the latest version? ;-)


How about you try it without nuking your swap file and then STFU.

--
Alias

On 04/02/2011 07:03 PM, BillW50 wrote:
And if you didn't like EWF or something, there are also lots of other
things like sandboxes and the like.

Yeah, like Linux.

--
Alias

On 04/02/2011 07:03 PM, BillW50 wrote:
In ,
Alias wrote:
On 04/02/2011 05:34 PM, BillW50 wrote:
In ,
Alias wrote:
On 04/02/2011 03:54 PM, BillW50 wrote:
In ,
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..._cyberatt ack

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


Yawn.

--
Alias

On 02/04/2011 18:02, BillW50 wrote:


Yes this happened about two
years ago.

So try something UP TO DATE instead of whining about what happened TWO
YEARS ago....

On 4/2/2011 1:33 PM, Gordon wrote:
On 02/04/2011 18:02, BillW50 wrote:


Yes this happened about two
years ago.

So try something UP TO DATE instead of whining about what happened TWO
YEARS ago....

Preacher, you are suppose to be better than this? You are suppose to act
like a man of the cloth.

In ,
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

In ,
Gordon wrote:
On 02/04/2011 18:02, BillW50 wrote:


Yes this happened about two
years ago.

So try something UP TO DATE instead of whining about what happened TWO
YEARS ago....

Why? Ever since then I will *never* run Ubuntu Live on a Windows machine
ever again. And the rumor mill says it still happens today. But I will
not try it. As I have better things to do than to test buggy Linux OS.

And so what it happened two years ago? It should have never happened
ever! I don't care if it was yesterday, two years ago, or 1852. Linux
has no business whatsoever touching anything in a Windows partition. All
that does is to turn people off of Linux. And you wonder why more people
are not using Linux eh? As it is all of these nonsense things people are
not willing to put up with that turns them away from Linux.

--
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.....

On 4/2/2011 5:31 PM, flatfish+++ wrote:
On Sat, 02 Apr 2011 17:16:19 -0400, Big Steel wrote:

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.....

Ahlstrom is a boob.
The worst form of Linux advocate because he is just so petty and
unbelievable.

He just hasn't been the same since his master Roy left.

I think he needs to level set and start over again.
Maybe God will grant him a new life.

Anything has to be better than what he is living now.



It's just like when I got tired of Big Blue and decided to make my
conversion over the PC(s) and client/server using MS. I was able to do
it and didn't take a pay cut either. If he hates MS so much, why can't
he convert over to Linux and make a living from Linux?

If he was making a living from Linux and had completely converted over
from MS, that's one thing. But he can't even do it. He wants to run his
mouth about the very horse that feeds the clown?

He is totally ridiculous and laughable

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".

The claim was Linux doesn't get viruses. So I guess that was just a lie,
eh? So what else is new?

And what is even more laughable is considering the small number of
applications that runs under Linux. How many games can Linux run now?
About 300 isn't it?

Laughable in the extreme.

What is even more laughable is the Commodore 64 was said to run 20,000
applications if I remember right. And was popular for 10 years before it
died out. And Linux has been around for 19 years (almost twice as long).
And I don't think it has caught up to the success of the Commodore 64 yet.

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.

McAfee is one of the worst. I guess the IT department isn't that bright
where you work at, eh?

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

All I had to show was Linux can and does get viruses. Nothing more. If
you want more, I charge by the hour. ;-)

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 702G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Xandros Linux (build 2007-10-19 13:03)