My wife is currently visiting relatives over Xmas in Western Australia
and recently tried to use her daughters MICROS~1 Windows XP box to
talk to me via IRC.

What could be simpler, log onto the net, connect to a IRC server and
chat ?

Unfortunately it's too hard for XP because this box is riddled with
viruses and won't even stay up for more than 5 minutes!

Her daughter and family are the "Joe Sixpack" of computer users and
because they have no clue about PC's, their 6 month old XP box is
totally unusable already!

If they were using GNU/Linux, everyone would have a separate account,
personal data would be protected and that machine would in my opinion
still be working as it was designed now and years down the track.

Now I know the Wintrolls will jump in soon yelling "what about games",
"what about installing Windows crapware and crackware", but who cares ?

This family just do a little Internet browsing, email, word processing etc,
and if the kids can get free crap games, they'll try and load them on.
At least GNU/Linux will stop that kind of activity from destroying the
system because the kids will only be able to ruin *their* account with
malware *if* they can find some.

Next time I'm in Perth, I think that pc is going to become a Knoppix
GNU/Linux based pc, and I'll admin it from interstate, because it will
be reliable enough to connect to the net *everyday*.




-- 
              Kind Regards from Terry 
    My Desktop is powered by GNU/LinuX, Gentoo-1.4_rc2   
         New Homepage: http://milkstone.d2.net.au/          
 ** Linux Registration Number: 103931,  http://counter.li.org **

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 09:43:53 +1100, Terry wrote:

> My wife is currently visiting relatives over Xmas in Western Australia
> and recently tried to use her daughters MICROS~1 Windows XP box to
> talk to me via IRC.
> 
> What could be simpler, log onto the net, connect to a IRC server and
> chat ?
> 
> Unfortunately it's too hard for XP because this box is riddled with
> viruses and won't even stay up for more than 5 minutes!
> 
> Her daughter and family are the "Joe Sixpack" of computer users and
> because they have no clue about PC's, their 6 month old XP box is
> totally unusable already!
> 
> If they were using GNU/Linux, everyone would have a separate account,
> personal data would be protected and that machine would in my opinion
> still be working as it was designed now and years down the track.

Of course, they can easily have all that. The fact that it's not like that
by default is annoying and a bad (but understandable) design decision, but
it's pretty damn easy.

Step 1: Log in as administrator.
Step 2: Add passwords to all accounts. It will then go and set ownership on
files, and so on and so forth.
Step 3: Make all other accounts Limited Access, or put them in Power Users
or just Users.
Step 4: There is no step four.
-- 
People in the killfile (and whose posts I won't read) as of 12/31/2003
5:08:18 PM:
Peter Kohlmann, T.Max Devlin. Matt Templeton (scored down)

Milo T. wrote:

> On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 09:43:53 +1100, Terry wrote:
> 
>> My wife is currently visiting relatives over Xmas in Western Australia
>> and recently tried to use her daughters MICROS~1 Windows XP box to
>> talk to me via IRC.
>> 
>> What could be simpler, log onto the net, connect to a IRC server and
>> chat ?
>> 
>> Unfortunately it's too hard for XP because this box is riddled with
>> viruses and won't even stay up for more than 5 minutes!
>> 
>> Her daughter and family are the "Joe Sixpack" of computer users and
>> because they have no clue about PC's, their 6 month old XP box is
>> totally unusable already!
>> 
>> If they were using GNU/Linux, everyone would have a separate account,
>> personal data would be protected and that machine would in my opinion
>> still be working as it was designed now and years down the track.
> 
> Of course, they can easily have all that. The fact that it's not like that
> by default is annoying and a bad (but understandable) design decision, but
> it's pretty damn easy.
> 
> Step 1: Log in as administrator.
> Step 2: Add passwords to all accounts. It will then go and set ownership
> on files, and so on and so forth.
> Step 3: Make all other accounts Limited Access, or put them in Power Users
> or just Users.
> Step 4: There is no step four.

Step 5: Watch in horror how many programs cease to function correctly
because they assume to run with admin rights
Step 6: Return anyone to run with admin rights, no password
-- 
You're genuinely bogus.

begin  <920cc1-m7c.ln1@gronk.porter.net>,
	Terry <tjporter@gronk.porter.net> writes:
>
> My wife is currently visiting relatives over Xmas in Western Australia
> and recently tried to use her daughters MICROS~1 Windows XP box to
> talk to me via IRC.
> 
> What could be simpler, log onto the net, connect to a IRC server and
> chat ?
> 
> Unfortunately it's too hard for XP because this box is riddled with
> viruses and won't even stay up for more than 5 minutes!

[snip]

Hehe, I'm sure we all know of people in this mess, even the wintrolls
if they'd be honest.

My daughter has XP HE and SuSE on her main PC and Gentoo on a 2nd old
PC I bought and installed for her. Within the past 6 months she has
had to reinstall XP several times. She did it again just before Xmas
as 'things' just stopped working. Of course after the XP install the
MBR is overwritten so she can't boot into SuSE. Second nature for her
now to boot the SuSE boot CD and repair what XP destroyed.

I bought her a small KVM switch recently so that she could access both
PC's without swapping cables. Works perfectly. Cost SFr 120 (~$96) but
includes all cables. She's very happy with the Gentoo box and I'm sure
it won't be long before she stops using SuSE and leaves the dual boot
PC for her Windows loving husband. :-)

Fearing a spontaneous XP reboot, Peter K�hlmann mumbled this incantation:

> Milo T. wrote:
> 
>> Of course, they can easily have all that. The fact that it's not like that
>> by default is annoying and a bad (but understandable) design decision, but
>> it's pretty damn easy.
>> 
>> Step 1: Log in as administrator.
>> Step 2: Add passwords to all accounts. It will then go and set ownership
>> on files, and so on and so forth.
>> Step 3: Make all other accounts Limited Access, or put them in Power Users
>> or just Users.
>> Step 4: There is no step four.
> 
> Step 5: Watch in horror how many programs cease to function correctly
> because they assume to run with admin rights
> Step 6: Return anyone to run with admin rights, no password

My daughter brought her computer home this holiday, and I gave it a
thorough going over.  As part of this work, I logged on as
Administrator, and was greeted with "You have new updates to download".
There were a shitload of updates waiting.

Thus I had a conundrum.  Keep my daughter's own account as a Limited
account, and leave her machine unpatched, or change it to an Admin
account so that she can get the updates as they come out.

Real ease of use Bill Gates got workin' there.

-- 
No, I won't fix your Windows computer!

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 21:28:41 -0600, Lin�nut wrote:

> Fearing a spontaneous XP reboot, Peter K�hlmann mumbled this incantation:
> 
>> Milo T. wrote:
>> 
>>> Of course, they can easily have all that. The fact that it's not like that
>>> by default is annoying and a bad (but understandable) design decision, but
>>> it's pretty damn easy.
>>> 
>>> Step 1: Log in as administrator.
>>> Step 2: Add passwords to all accounts. It will then go and set ownership
>>> on files, and so on and so forth.
>>> Step 3: Make all other accounts Limited Access, or put them in Power Users
>>> or just Users.
>>> Step 4: There is no step four.
>> 
>> Step 5: Watch in horror how many programs cease to function correctly
>> because they assume to run with admin rights
>> Step 6: Return anyone to run with admin rights, no password
> 
> My daughter brought her computer home this holiday, and I gave it a
> thorough going over.  As part of this work, I logged on as
> Administrator, and was greeted with "You have new updates to download".
> There were a shitload of updates waiting.
> 
> Thus I had a conundrum.  Keep my daughter's own account as a Limited
> account, and leave her machine unpatched, or change it to an Admin
> account so that she can get the updates as they come out.
> 
> Real ease of use Bill Gates got workin' there.

Presumably then, what you're saying is that unlike Windows, Linux lets you
install any patches out there without logging in as root?

Sounds kind of insecure to me.
-- 
People in the killfile (and whose posts I won't read) as of 12/31/2003
11:00:54 PM:
Peter Kohlmann, T.Max Devlin. Matt Templeton (scored down)

>>Thus I had a conundrum.  Keep my daughter's own account as a Limited
>>account, and leave her machine unpatched, or change it to an Admin
>>account so that she can get the updates as they come out.

Normally, if it's a computer run by a single person, you would add the 
users name to the Admin group of the local machine.

> Presumably then, what you're saying is that unlike Windows, Linux lets you
> install any patches out there without logging in as root?
> 
> Sounds kind of insecure to me.

You have to log in to perform updates using:

apt-get
synaptic ( which uses apt-get )
yum
up2date ( which uses yum )
rpm (most times)

The GUI based update tools prompt for root password.

What's cool about ReHat is they have a little taskbar icon when you are 
running with root privileges enabled on your personal account.

Milo T. wrote:

> Presumably then, what you're saying is that unlike Windows, Linux lets you
> install any patches out there without logging in as root?

You can, actually, by automating the process with scripts launched via a 
cron job.  Most of the time, though, I prefer to do them interactively. 
  That way, I can review everything beforehand, and make sure I know 
exactly what's going to be changed.

> Sounds kind of insecure to me.

Yes.  When things get updated automatically without human intervention 
and review, there is a security risk.  That's why I'd prefer to do 
everything interactively.



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Moshe Dayan wrote:

>>>Thus I had a conundrum.  Keep my daughter's own account as a Limited
>>>account, and leave her machine unpatched, or change it to an Admin
>>>account so that she can get the updates as they come out.
> 
> Normally, if it's a computer run by a single person, you would add the
> users name to the Admin group of the local machine.
> 

Says JBailo, the clueless one. So you are running your windows toy like
that. Figures

>> Presumably then, what you're saying is that unlike Windows, Linux lets
>> you install any patches out there without logging in as root?
>> 
>> Sounds kind of insecure to me.
> 
> You have to log in to perform updates using:
> 
> apt-get
> synaptic ( which uses apt-get )
> yum
> up2date ( which uses yum )
> rpm (most times)
> 

You left out some. Especially the automatic check-proggies

> The GUI based update tools prompt for root password.
> 

The non-GUI based too. But you wouldn't know

> What's cool about ReHat is they have a little taskbar icon when you are
> running with root privileges enabled on your personal account.

Cool...
-- 
Windows isn't unstable. It's spontaneous.

On 2004-01-01, Roy Culley <rgc@swissonline.ch> wrote:
> begin  <920cc1-m7c.ln1@gronk.porter.net>,
> 	Terry <tjporter@gronk.porter.net> writes:
>>
>> My wife is currently visiting relatives over Xmas in Western Australia
>> and recently tried to use her daughters MICROS~1 Windows XP box to
>> talk to me via IRC.
>> 
>> What could be simpler, log onto the net, connect to a IRC server and
>> chat ?
>> 
>> Unfortunately it's too hard for XP because this box is riddled with
>> viruses and won't even stay up for more than 5 minutes!
>
> [snip]
>
> Hehe, I'm sure we all know of people in this mess, even the wintrolls
> if they'd be honest.
>

Yes.  I do know a few people, who out of ignorance decided to get on to
the internet with their new XP box without inabling the ICF or
installing a 3rd party firewall.  Just happend to my brother-in-law...
What I find irksome is when it has happened to people I work with - who
I really thought knew better...

> My daughter has XP HE and SuSE on her main PC and Gentoo on a 2nd old
> PC I bought and installed for her. Within the past 6 months she has
> had to reinstall XP several times. She did it again just before Xmas
> as 'things' just stopped working. Of course after the XP install the
> MBR is overwritten so she can't boot into SuSE. Second nature for her
> now to boot the SuSE boot CD and repair what XP destroyed.
>

That's why I don't install the boot loader (in my case grub) to the MBR.
I let NTLDR load linux - that way, if I do have to reinstall something
(either Linux or Windows), they don't step on each other.

It works out much better, IMHO.

> I bought her a small KVM switch recently so that she could access both
> PC's without swapping cables. Works perfectly. Cost SFr 120 (~$96) but
> includes all cables. She's very happy with the Gentoo box and I'm sure
> it won't be long before she stops using SuSE and leaves the dual boot
> PC for her Windows loving husband. :-)

I've really got to get me one of those...
-- 
Tom Shelton

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 07:00:27 GMT,
 Milo T. <fantastical@malaprop.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 21:28:41 -0600, Lin�nut wrote:
>
>> Fearing a spontaneous XP reboot, Peter K�hlmann mumbled this incantation:
>> 
>>> Milo T. wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Of course, they can easily have all that. The fact that it's not like that
>>>> by default is annoying and a bad (but understandable) design decision, but
>>>> it's pretty damn easy.
>>>> 
>>>> Step 1: Log in as administrator.
>>>> Step 2: Add passwords to all accounts. It will then go and set ownership
>>>> on files, and so on and so forth.
>>>> Step 3: Make all other accounts Limited Access, or put them in Power Users
>>>> or just Users.
>>>> Step 4: There is no step four.
>>> 
>>> Step 5: Watch in horror how many programs cease to function correctly
>>> because they assume to run with admin rights
>>> Step 6: Return anyone to run with admin rights, no password
>> 
>> My daughter brought her computer home this holiday, and I gave it a
>> thorough going over.  As part of this work, I logged on as
>> Administrator, and was greeted with "You have new updates to download".
>> There were a shitload of updates waiting.
>> 
>> Thus I had a conundrum.  Keep my daughter's own account as a Limited
>> account, and leave her machine unpatched, or change it to an Admin
>> account so that she can get the updates as they come out.
>> 
>> Real ease of use Bill Gates got workin' there.
>
> Presumably then, what you're saying is that unlike Windows, Linux lets you
> install any patches out there without logging in as root?
>
> Sounds kind of insecure to me.


sudo apt-get update 
sudo apt-get -u upgrade

No root login. 


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/8/Kbd90bcYOAWPYRAp4VAKDSGxpRjDPVGPWE6hP0CRYHeeFDPACgvPFQ
YuQCWcgQdkw+zk8Y9M6yGcI=
=2lII
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
That's the difference between me and the rest of the world! Happiness isn't
good enough for me! I demand euphoria!	-- Calvin

Fearing a spontaneous XP reboot, Milo T. mumbled this incantation:

>> Thus I had a conundrum.  Keep my daughter's own account as a Limited
>> account, and leave her machine unpatched, or change it to an Admin
>> account so that she can get the updates as they come out.
>> 
>> Real ease of use Bill Gates got workin' there.
> 
> Presumably then, what you're saying is that unlike Windows, Linux lets you
> install any patches out there without logging in as root?

No.  I'm saying that Windows XP ought to give you notice of updates
while not logged in as an Administrator.  And then use the Run-As
feature.

> Sounds kind of insecure to me.

Already answered in someone's else's response.

Additionally, it would be nice if MS apps were like, say Mozilla
Firebird in how they are installed.  Put them where you like, and
create a shortcut.  No Registry updates, no putting DLLs in the system
area, no forcing the apps to be "installed" for every user account on
the machine.

In any case, the importance of patches in a Linux is, for whatever
reason, not nearly so critical as in Windows, as long as your Linux box
is running only workstation apps.

Really, for ease of maintenance, Linux beats Windows, hands down.

-- 
No, I won't fix your Windows computer!

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 21:28:41 -0600, Lin�nut <lin�nut@bone.com> wrote:


>My daughter brought her computer home this holiday, and I gave it a
>thorough going over.  As part of this work, I logged on as
>Administrator, and was greeted with "You have new updates to download".
>There were a shitload of updates waiting.
>
>Thus I had a conundrum.  Keep my daughter's own account as a Limited
>account, and leave her machine unpatched, or change it to an Admin
>account so that she can get the updates as they come out.
>
>Real ease of use Bill Gates got workin' there.

Why is that any different than Linux?

You have to be root to run YaST under SuSE?

flatfish+++

Peter K�hlmann wrote:

> Step 5: Watch in horror how many programs cease to function correctly
> because they assume to run with admin rights
> Step 6: Return anyone to run with admin rights, no password

You're right, Peter. I've seen this all too often when I install Windows and
set up users with anything less than admin priviledges. Office is notorious
for this behavior. In fact, I saw -- get this -- an A+ certified tech go
ape over this when he did an Office install over a network. It took fully
an hour or so for him to make it functional, only after having assistance
from one of his co-workers (who, by the way, loves Mandrake). 

(Of course, given the course curriculum for A+, the first tech thinks
Windows is the greatest thing since sliced bread. I demonstrated Mandrake
Linux for him and he had no clue about it.)

Happy New Year!

Jim Richardson wrote:

> sudo apt-get update
> sudo apt-get -u upgrade
> 
> No root login.

On my SuSE box that has to be specially configured and you need to provide a
password before the computer will execute the command. I don't think you
can just type "sudo [program] [param]" and have it run without some kind of
password.

J.

John wrote:

> Jim Richardson wrote:
> 
>> sudo apt-get update
>> sudo apt-get -u upgrade
>> 
>> No root login.
> 
> On my SuSE box that has to be specially configured and you need to provide
> a password before the computer will execute the command. I don't think you
> can just type "sudo [program] [param]" and have it run without some kind
> of password.


man sudoers


-- 
POOP
Registered Linux user #314060

POOP Inside�

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 19:32:20 GMT,
 John <spambegone@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> Jim Richardson wrote:
>
>> sudo apt-get update
>> sudo apt-get -u upgrade
>> 
>> No root login.
>
> On my SuSE box that has to be specially configured and you need to provide a
> password before the computer will execute the command. I don't think you
> can just type "sudo [program] [param]" and have it run without some kind of
> password.
>
> J.

Depends on how you configure it. On my machines, I have sudo configured
to allow my account, to sudo the above with no passwd, and on Kat's
account, to do the above after prompting for the password. 

Note that sudo, if set to ask for password, wants the password of the
account you are sudo'ing *from* not the password of the root account. 

For a really good website on how sudo works, and what you can do with
it,  visit <http://www.courtesan.com/sudo/> the guy knows a fair bit
about it, he wrote it. 


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/9IrRd90bcYOAWPYRAvoxAJ0e0GO8f3FRj7cYgMSsVxRXPemzXwCffb8J
QO05lA3FBXHDZdvJRlXzKqE=
=+gVl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in their home."
-- Ken Olson, President of DEC, World Future Society Convention, 1977

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 11:44:38 -0500,
 flatfish+++ <flatfish@linuxmail.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 21:28:41 -0600, Lin�nut <lin�nut@bone.com> wrote:
>
>
>>My daughter brought her computer home this holiday, and I gave it a
>>thorough going over.  As part of this work, I logged on as
>>Administrator, and was greeted with "You have new updates to download".
>>There were a shitload of updates waiting.
>>
>>Thus I had a conundrum.  Keep my daughter's own account as a Limited
>>account, and leave her machine unpatched, or change it to an Admin
>>account so that she can get the updates as they come out.
>>
>>Real ease of use Bill Gates got workin' there.
>
> Why is that any different than Linux?
>
> You have to be root to run YaST under SuSE?
>
> flatfish+++


man sudoers
man sudo

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/9IsGd90bcYOAWPYRAj0EAJsF9arVwJUFpRhP3VAjKz8mrdCo5wCgvFff
qMuGwBIKgu3L1Lh0MslaNMo=
=DpI4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Go sell crazy someplace else. We're all stocked up here

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 02:12:43 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:

<snip>
> 
> 
> sudo apt-get update 
> sudo apt-get -u upgrade
> 

Updating your system that way is a bitch on dialup users isn't it? 

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 13:03:02 -0800, Jim Richardson <warlock@eskimo.com> wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 11:44:38 -0500,
> flatfish+++ <flatfish@linuxmail.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 21:28:41 -0600, Lin�nut <lin�nut@bone.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>My daughter brought her computer home this holiday, and I gave it a
>>>thorough going over.  As part of this work, I logged on as
>>>Administrator, and was greeted with "You have new updates to download".
>>>There were a shitload of updates waiting.
>>>
>>>Thus I had a conundrum.  Keep my daughter's own account as a Limited
>>>account, and leave her machine unpatched, or change it to an Admin
>>>account so that she can get the updates as they come out.
>>>
>>>Real ease of use Bill Gates got workin' there.
>>
>> Why is that any different than Linux?
>>
>> You have to be root to run YaST under SuSE?
>>
>> flatfish+++
>
>
>man sudoers
>man sudo

Like I said, how is that any different than Windows?
The point is you have to be root/administrator to do certain things.
Just like with Linux.

flatfish+++ wrote:

> Like I said, how is that any different than Windows?
> The point is you have to be root/administrator to do certain things.
> Just like with Linux.
> 

You really are literate, aren't you, dumass?

With linux, you can be granted root privileges under your personal 
account -- temporarily, by logging in using su, or sudo, or by using the 
easy to use synaptic or up2date.   And again, with Fedora, a little key 
icon lights up in the task bar to show whether you are running with root 
privileges or not...

With windos, you have to add yourself to an admin group -- and then 
un-add yourself if you want to have any kind of security.

Linux has much higher ease of use when it comes to these things.

Liam Slider threw some tea leaves on the floor
 and this is what they wrote:

> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 02:12:43 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:
>
><snip>
>> 
>> 
>> sudo apt-get update 
>> sudo apt-get -u upgrade
>> 
>
> Updating your system that way is a bitch on dialup users isn't it? 

Depends.
If you run a cron job to dial in and do it when you're at work or
asleep, you won't really notice.

I'm a modem user and have built Gentoo and Deb systems this way, and
while using a modem can be painful, GNU/Linux does have various
strategies to lessen the pain.

-- 
              Kind Regards from Terry 
    My Desktop is powered by GNU/LinuX, Gentoo-1.4_rc2   
         New Homepage: http://milkstone.d2.net.au/          
 ** Linux Registration Number: 103931,  http://counter.li.org **

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 21:43:35 GMT, Usenet Council
<usenet@internet.net.gov.mil.org> wrote:

>flatfish+++ wrote:
>
>> Like I said, how is that any different than Windows?
>> The point is you have to be root/administrator to do certain things.
>> Just like with Linux.
>> 
>
>You really are literate, aren't you, dumass?
>
>With linux, you can be granted root privileges under your personal 
>account -- temporarily, by logging in using su, or sudo, or by using the 
>easy to use synaptic or up2date.   And again, with Fedora, a little key 
>icon lights up in the task bar to show whether you are running with root 
>privileges or not...
>
>With windos, you have to add yourself to an admin group -- and then 
>un-add yourself if you want to have any kind of security.
>
>Linux has much higher ease of use when it comes to these things.
>

Ever hear of runas?
SWITCHUSER?

Like I said...................

flatfish+++

flatfish+++ wrote:

> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 21:43:35 GMT, Usenet Council
> <usenet@internet.net.gov.mil.org> wrote:
> 
>>flatfish+++ wrote:
>>
>>> Like I said, how is that any different than Windows?
>>> The point is you have to be root/administrator to do certain things.
>>> Just like with Linux.
>>> 
>>
>>You really are literate, aren't you, dumass?
>>
>>With linux, you can be granted root privileges under your personal
>>account -- temporarily, by logging in using su, or sudo, or by using the
>>easy to use synaptic or up2date.   And again, with Fedora, a little key
>>icon lights up in the task bar to show whether you are running with root
>>privileges or not...
>>
>>With windos, you have to add yourself to an admin group -- and then
>>un-add yourself if you want to have any kind of security.
>>
>>Linux has much higher ease of use when it comes to these things.
>>
> 
> Ever hear of runas?
> SWITCHUSER?
> 
> Like I said...................
> 
> flatfish+++

Which has not very much to do with "monitoring" for those updates. Which run
under normal user accounts under linux. To *install* them, you su to root
If you can't do that easily under windows with a limited user account, it is
just not very useable. Because then you have to run as admin regularly just
to check for those precious updates
-- 
Klingon function calls do not have 'parameters' - 
they have 'arguments' - and they ALWAYS WIN THEM.

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 23:30:09 +0100, Peter K�hlmann <Peter.Koehlmann@t-online.de>
wrote:


>Which has not very much to do with "monitoring" for those updates. Which run
>under normal user accounts under linux. To *install* them, you su to root
>If you can't do that easily under windows with a limited user account, it is
>just not very useable. Because then you have to run as admin regularly just
>to check for those precious updates

How does SuSE update run as a normal user?
Maybe I have something configured wrong, but with my default install in order to
see what updates are available for SuSE 9.0, I have to start YaST and that needs
root to run.

Is there some daemon running that alerts the normal user that updates are out
there?

flatfish+++

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 15:06:12 -0600,
 Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 02:12:43 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:
>
><snip>
>> 
>> 
>> sudo apt-get update 
>> sudo apt-get -u upgrade
>> 
>
> Updating your system that way is a bitch on dialup users isn't it? 

Depends, if you are tracking stable, no, because the changes are few and
far between, Sid however, is a lot more active, and sometimes, I
download more than 100MB at a time when a lot of things change. 

If you are on dialup, you can do things like set up an rsync mirror, and
have it pull the updates whenever you are connected, in the background,
there are mechanisms to limit bandwidth usage, but I am not sure how
well they are integrated into rsync or apt. 

Of course, you can still install things from the CD, if you are
bandwidth limited, but obviously, you need the updated stuff, to do
updates. 



Of course, none of this is relevent to the question I answered, which
was about non-root accts performing upgrades, but your point is well
worth considering. 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/9KWSd90bcYOAWPYRAo/nAKDvrvCc21iJQ14cdsoXuX4jNuOBGQCeJnfy
aFdENlufFiJi44ZYtXa+J0A=
=S9Qd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
I'm learning real skills that I can apply throughout the rest of my life ...
Procrastinating and rationalizing.  -- Calvin

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 16:35:16 -0500,
 flatfish+++ <flatfish@linuxmail.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 13:03:02 -0800, Jim Richardson <warlock@eskimo.com> wrote:
>
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>>On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 11:44:38 -0500,
>> flatfish+++ <flatfish@linuxmail.org> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 21:28:41 -0600, Lin�nut <lin�nut@bone.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>My daughter brought her computer home this holiday, and I gave it a
>>>>thorough going over.  As part of this work, I logged on as
>>>>Administrator, and was greeted with "You have new updates to download".
>>>>There were a shitload of updates waiting.
>>>>
>>>>Thus I had a conundrum.  Keep my daughter's own account as a Limited
>>>>account, and leave her machine unpatched, or change it to an Admin
>>>>account so that she can get the updates as they come out.
>>>>
>>>>Real ease of use Bill Gates got workin' there.
>>>
>>> Why is that any different than Linux?
>>>
>>> You have to be root to run YaST under SuSE?
>>>
>>> flatfish+++
>>
>>
>>man sudoers man sudo
>
> Like I said, how is that any different than Windows?  The point is you
> have to be root/administrator to do certain things.  Just like with
> Linux.
>


You asked if you had to be root to run YaST, I pointed out that no, you
don't have to be root to run YaST. 

sudo has several benefits. First, you don't need the root password to
use it, although it can be configured to ask for a password, the
password it's looking for is the password for the account you are
running from. Second, sudo logs everything it does, you can go back and
look at the logs to see who does what. This isn't too useful in the
context of a home machine with only one user, but it's very useful in an
office environment where several users have access to, and use, the same
account or machine. Third, sudo doesn't require you to log off, or
activate "fast user switching" or any other malarky, it simply runs the
command, as root, if your account has those priviledges. 

Note that sudo is totally unconcerned with ugo perms, you don't need to
give permissions to the user in the ugo for the command, and you can
write a script that allows the user to only perform a specifc subset of
a given command's task. For example, in the above apt-get example, you
could write a short wrapper than would run the command, with only those
options, and thus allow someone to update a system via the package
management system, but not permit them to install new programmes via the
package management system. I don't think that is doable in $OTHER_OS,
although since I so rarely use it, I could be wrong. 


So to summerise, sudo logs the action, allows you to give carefully
selected admin rights to carefully selected users, or groups, from
specific hosts, or in general. It doesn't require you to give out the
root password, and you can wrap a task in a script that will further
limit the account in a very fine grained way. 





-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/9KeDd90bcYOAWPYRAlXGAJ456IOxKWQmfhph9QYb8dh+ClwKEACdHMXb
Q/rOF8M3dG9fUKh9G23ojXw=
=OjWA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Ok, the guy who made the netfilter Makefile was probably on some really
interesting and probably highly illegal drugs when he wrote it.
	-- Linus Torvalds 

On 2004-01-01, flatfish+++ <flatfish@linuxmail.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 23:30:09 +0100, Peter K�hlmann <Peter.Koehlmann@t-online.de>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Which has not very much to do with "monitoring" for those updates. Which run
>>under normal user accounts under linux. To *install* them, you su to root
>>If you can't do that easily under windows with a limited user account, it is
>>just not very useable. Because then you have to run as admin regularly just
>>to check for those precious updates
>
> How does SuSE update run as a normal user?
> Maybe I have something configured wrong, but with my default install in order to
> see what updates are available for SuSE 9.0, I have to start YaST and that needs
> root to run.
>
> Is there some daemon running that alerts the normal user that updates are out
> there?
>
> flatfish+++

Actually, very much like windows really.  You may see an icon on the KDE panel
called SuSE watcher, which polls homebase for updates.  When updates are available
it turns red, with an exclamation mark.  Just click on it, and click on 
Start online updates in the dialog box.  You are then prompted for the 
root password.  It then goes ahead and updates.  very good really, and
much safer the the auto update from Microsoft for XP etc.

--
Mark Gary

flatfish+++ wrote:

> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 23:30:09 +0100, Peter K�hlmann
> <Peter.Koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Which has not very much to do with "monitoring" for those updates. Which
>>run under normal user accounts under linux. To *install* them, you su to
>>root If you can't do that easily under windows with a limited user
>>account, it is just not very useable. Because then you have to run as
>>admin regularly just to check for those precious updates
> 
> How does SuSE update run as a normal user?
> Maybe I have something configured wrong, but with my default install in
> order to see what updates are available for SuSE 9.0, I have to start YaST
> and that needs root to run.
> 

Figures that you screw up even a simple install as SuSE

> Is there some daemon running that alerts the normal user that updates are
> out there?
> 

You bet. Yes it is. It runs with normal user rights. When updates are
available, you supply the root passwd and off it goes. 
Now tell us again that your precious idiots OS is anything as easy like that

-- 
You're genuinely bogus.

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 15:04:35 -0800, Jim Richardson <warlock@eskimo.com> wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 16:35:16 -0500,
> flatfish+++ <flatfish@linuxmail.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 13:03:02 -0800, Jim Richardson <warlock@eskimo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>>On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 11:44:38 -0500,
>>> flatfish+++ <flatfish@linuxmail.org> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 21:28:41 -0600, Lin�nut <lin�nut@bone.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>My daughter brought her computer home this holiday, and I gave it a
>>>>>thorough going over.  As part of this work, I logged on as
>>>>>Administrator, and was greeted with "You have new updates to download".
>>>>>There were a shitload of updates waiting.
>>>>>
>>>>>Thus I had a conundrum.  Keep my daughter's own account as a Limited
>>>>>account, and leave her machine unpatched, or change it to an Admin
>>>>>account so that she can get the updates as they come out.
>>>>>
>>>>>Real ease of use Bill Gates got workin' there.
>>>>
>>>> Why is that any different than Linux?
>>>>
>>>> You have to be root to run YaST under SuSE?
>>>>
>>>> flatfish+++
>>>
>>>
>>>man sudoers man sudo
>>
>> Like I said, how is that any different than Windows?  The point is you
>> have to be root/administrator to do certain things.  Just like with
>> Linux.
>>
>
>
>You asked if you had to be root to run YaST, I pointed out that no, you
>don't have to be root to run YaST. 

Yes you do.
Logged in or su it's the same thing.
Click on the YaST icon and it will ask for your password.
That's my point.

>sudo has several benefits. First, you don't need the root password to
>use it, although it can be configured to ask for a password, the
>password it's looking for is the password for the account you are
>running from. Second, sudo logs everything it does, you can go back and
>look at the logs to see who does what. This isn't too useful in the
>context of a home machine with only one user, but it's very useful in an
>office environment where several users have access to, and use, the same
>account or machine. Third, sudo doesn't require you to log off, or
>activate "fast user switching" or any other malarky, it simply runs the
>command, as root, if your account has those priviledges. 

True and I agree with you.
My point was that certain things need root/admin to run.
Nothing more nothing less.
I agree Linux makes it more elegant.

>Note that sudo is totally unconcerned with ugo perms, you don't need to
>give permissions to the user in the ugo for the command, and you can
>write a script that allows the user to only perform a specifc subset of
>a given command's task. For example, in the above apt-get example, you
>could write a short wrapper than would run the command, with only those
>options, and thus allow someone to update a system via the package
>management system, but not permit them to install new programmes via the
>package management system. I don't think that is doable in $OTHER_OS,
>although since I so rarely use it, I could be wrong. 

See above.
I agree with you :)


>
>So to summerise, sudo logs the action, allows you to give carefully
>selected admin rights to carefully selected users, or groups, from
>specific hosts, or in general. It doesn't require you to give out the
>root password, and you can wrap a task in a script that will further
>limit the account in a very fine grained way. 

Agreed!

I'm not saying Linux can't do it better, all I am saying is that both Linux and
Windows have certain functions that require root/admin rights and that is my
point.

flatfish+++

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 18:40:04 -0500,
 flatfish+++ <flatfish@linuxmail.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 15:04:35 -0800, Jim Richardson <warlock@eskimo.com> wrote:
>
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>>On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 16:35:16 -0500,
>> flatfish+++ <flatfish@linuxmail.org> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 13:03:02 -0800, Jim Richardson <warlock@eskimo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>>On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 11:44:38 -0500,
>>>> flatfish+++ <flatfish@linuxmail.org> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 21:28:41 -0600, Lin�nut <lin�nut@bone.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>My daughter brought her computer home this holiday, and I gave it a
>>>>>>thorough going over.  As part of this work, I logged on as
>>>>>>Administrator, and was greeted with "You have new updates to download".
>>>>>>There were a shitload of updates waiting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thus I had a conundrum.  Keep my daughter's own account as a Limited
>>>>>>account, and leave her machine unpatched, or change it to an Admin
>>>>>>account so that she can get the updates as they come out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Real ease of use Bill Gates got workin' there.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is that any different than Linux?
>>>>>
>>>>> You have to be root to run YaST under SuSE?
>>>>>
>>>>> flatfish+++
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>man sudoers man sudo
>>>
>>> Like I said, how is that any different than Windows?  The point is you
>>> have to be root/administrator to do certain things.  Just like with
>>> Linux.
>>>
>>
>>
>>You asked if you had to be root to run YaST, I pointed out that no, you
>>don't have to be root to run YaST. 
>
> Yes you do.
> Logged in or su it's the same thing.
> Click on the YaST icon and it will ask for your password.
> That's my point.
>

No, YaST can be set up to use via sudo. 

>>sudo has several benefits. First, you don't need the root password to
>>use it, although it can be configured to ask for a password, the
>>password it's looking for is the password for the account you are
>>running from. Second, sudo logs everything it does, you can go back and
>>look at the logs to see who does what. This isn't too useful in the
>>context of a home machine with only one user, but it's very useful in an
>>office environment where several users have access to, and use, the same
>>account or machine. Third, sudo doesn't require you to log off, or
>>activate "fast user switching" or any other malarky, it simply runs the
>>command, as root, if your account has those priviledges. 
>
> True and I agree with you.
> My point was that certain things need root/admin to run.
> Nothing more nothing less.
> I agree Linux makes it more elegant.
>

yes, and less vulnerable to the 'sploit of the week club. 

>>Note that sudo is totally unconcerned with ugo perms, you don't need to
>>give permissions to the user in the ugo for the command, and you can
>>write a script that allows the user to only perform a specifc subset of
>>a given command's task. For example, in the above apt-get example, you
>>could write a short wrapper than would run the command, with only those
>>options, and thus allow someone to update a system via the package
>>management system, but not permit them to install new programmes via the
>>package management system. I don't think that is doable in $OTHER_OS,
>>although since I so rarely use it, I could be wrong. 
>
> See above.
> I agree with you :)
>
>
>>
>>So to summerise, sudo logs the action, allows you to give carefully
>>selected admin rights to carefully selected users, or groups, from
>>specific hosts, or in general. It doesn't require you to give out the
>>root password, and you can wrap a task in a script that will further
>>limit the account in a very fine grained way. 
>
> Agreed!
>
> I'm not saying Linux can't do it better, all I am saying is that both
> Linux and Windows have certain functions that require root/admin
> rights and that is my point.

of course, however, you can set it up with Linux so that you are far
less vulnerable to the type of problems that plague MS-Windows installs,
no matter what the market share is. 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/9Lkcd90bcYOAWPYRAjS0AKCuzqfCYDNhn4vF8Lyx6+bgZl2YhQCdFYAf
uvDAlAosoNAF+xDl0mZ3FAA=
=Xwg2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"Hacking's just another word for nothing left to kludge." - Anon.

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 09:43:53 +1100, Terry wrote:
> My wife is currently visiting relatives over Xmas in Western Australia
> and recently tried to use her daughters MICROS~1 Windows XP box to
> talk to me via IRC.
>
> What could be simpler, log onto the net, connect to a IRC server and
> chat ?
>
> Unfortunately it's too hard for XP because this box is riddled with
> viruses and won't even stay up for more than 5 minutes!

Unfortunately your wife's daughter is a moron for letting her computer
get that way.

> Her daughter and family are the "Joe Sixpack" of computer users and
> because they have no clue about PC's, their 6 month old XP box is
> totally unusable already!

Thanks for proving my point.


-- 
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
10:15AM  up 42 days, 12:26, 2 users, load averages: 0.03, 0.01, 0.00

General Protection Fault wrote:

> On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 09:43:53 +1100, Terry wrote:
>> My wife is currently visiting relatives over Xmas in Western Australia
>> and recently tried to use her daughters MICROS~1 Windows XP box to
>> talk to me via IRC.
>>
>> What could be simpler, log onto the net, connect to a IRC server and
>> chat ?
>>
>> Unfortunately it's too hard for XP because this box is riddled with
>> viruses and won't even stay up for more than 5 minutes!
> 
> Unfortunately your wife's daughter is a moron for letting her computer
> get that way.
> 

It is not his wifes daughter. And no, any XP connected to the internet the
way it was setup was a sure way to have it infected the minute you connect
for the first time. MS is changing *now* the settings for the firewall and
is even enhancing the firewall itself. After so mayn got burned

>> Her daughter and family are the "Joe Sixpack" of computer users and
>> because they have no clue about PC's, their 6 month old XP box is
>> totally unusable already!
> 
> Thanks for proving my point.
> 

He did not prove *your* point. He proved the point that XP is totally
unsuable for "Joe Sixpack" out of the box. At least out of the box it was
setup for exactly this group of users. This is the fault of whom? Of the
user without clues, or of MS to tell this group of users that XP is exactly
what the doctor prescribes for them, and then delivering this garbage?

-- 
Get the new Windows XP. Now with eXtra Problems included

Fearing a spontaneous XP reboot, General Protection Fault mumbled this incantation:

> Unfortunately your wife's daughter is a moron for letting her computer
> get that way.

Face, GPF, if that means a Windows user is a moron, then most Windows
users are... morons.

>> Her daughter and family are the "Joe Sixpack" of computer users and
>> because they have no clue about PC's, their 6 month old XP box is
>> totally unusable already!
> 
> Thanks for proving my point.

And it is a good point too, that Window's ease of use is a mirage, a
fabrication, an urban legend promulgated with the blessing of Microsoft.

-- 
No, I won't fix your Windows computer!

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 12:31:51 -0600, Lin�nut wrote:
> Fearing a spontaneous XP reboot, General Protection Fault mumbled this incantation:
>
>> Unfortunately your wife's daughter is a moron for letting her computer
>> get that way.
>
> Face, GPF, if that means a Windows user is a moron, then most Windows
> users are... morons.

No, she could be especially moronic.

>>> Her daughter and family are the "Joe Sixpack" of computer users and
>>> because they have no clue about PC's, their 6 month old XP box is
>>> totally unusable already!
>> 
>> Thanks for proving my point.
>
> And it is a good point too, that Window's ease of use is a mirage, a
> fabrication, an urban legend promulgated with the blessing of Microsoft.

I don't think users have a right to expect to use a computer without some
knowledge of maintenance.  Just like a car.

-- 
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
12:45PM  up 42 days, 14:56, 1 user, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00

In article <slrnbvbfb1.2301.generalpf@braids.ertw.com>, 
generalpf@braids.ertw.com says...

> No, she could be especially moronic.
> 
I'd say she is a typical Windows home user who will gladly click on 
anything sent to her e-mail inbox.


-- 
Conor

"Cogito Eggo Sum" - "I think, therefore I am a waffle"

On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 19:46:29 -0000, Conor <conor_turton@hotmail.com> wrote:

>In article <slrnbvbfb1.2301.generalpf@braids.ertw.com>, 
>generalpf@braids.ertw.com says...
>
>> No, she could be especially moronic.
>> 
>I'd say she is a typical Windows home user who will gladly click on 
>anything sent to her e-mail inbox.

Sad but so true :(

This group, like most tech groups on the net, is a little out of touch with the
reality that most people turn into idiots when put in front of a computer.
We assume, wrongly, that just because we know something is dangerous to do that
others will know as well.
The reality is that most people don't even know what usenet is let alone virii,
trojans and hackers.

flatfish+++

Fearing a spontaneous XP reboot, General Protection Fault mumbled this incantation:

>> And it is a good point too, that Window's ease of use is a mirage, a
>> fabrication, an urban legend promulgated with the blessing of Microsoft.
> 
> I don't think users have a right to expect to use a computer without some
> knowledge of maintenance.  Just like a car.

Tell that to Microsoft, then.  They need to practice truth in
advertising, and have a much better set of setup wizards.

Auto users don't expect the lock on their car to be nonfunctioning by
default.

-- 
No, I won't fix your Windows computer!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 16:18:29 GMT,
 General Protection Fault <generalpf@braids.ertw.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 09:43:53 +1100, Terry wrote:
>> My wife is currently visiting relatives over Xmas in Western Australia
>> and recently tried to use her daughters MICROS~1 Windows XP box to
>> talk to me via IRC.
>>
>> What could be simpler, log onto the net, connect to a IRC server and
>> chat ?
>>
>> Unfortunately it's too hard for XP because this box is riddled with
>> viruses and won't even stay up for more than 5 minutes!
>
> Unfortunately your wife's daughter is a moron for letting her computer
> get that way.
>
>> Her daughter and family are the "Joe Sixpack" of computer users and
>> because they have no clue about PC's, their 6 month old XP box is
>> totally unusable already!
>
> Thanks for proving my point.
>
>


Your point is that MS-Windows isn't suitable for Joe Sixpack? 

Sounds like they'd be better served by a Mepis Linux install. Easiest
install of any OS I've ever had. With all the protections that running
Linux with proper permissions setup brings. 


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/9eHRd90bcYOAWPYRAiJyAJ96KdfUnELQ811ygDrJMACDY+guiwCgx2Je
I5m/ZfYAnJRVlEGvXj5+R5E=
=Ji7d
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
One man's theology is another man's belly laugh.
	-- Lazarus Long

On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 13:25:38 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:
>
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 16:18:29 GMT,
>  General Protection Fault <generalpf@braids.ertw.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 09:43:53 +1100, Terry wrote:
>>> My wife is currently visiting relatives over Xmas in Western Australia
>>> and recently tried to use her daughters MICROS~1 Windows XP box to
>>> talk to me via IRC.
>>>
>>> What could be simpler, log onto the net, connect to a IRC server and
>>> chat ?
>>>
>>> Unfortunately it's too hard for XP because this box is riddled with
>>> viruses and won't even stay up for more than 5 minutes!
>>
>> Unfortunately your wife's daughter is a moron for letting her computer
>> get that way.
>>
>>> Her daughter and family are the "Joe Sixpack" of computer users and
>>> because they have no clue about PC's, their 6 month old XP box is
>>> totally unusable already!
>>
>> Thanks for proving my point.
>>
> Your point is that MS-Windows isn't suitable for Joe Sixpack? 

My point is that Joe Sixpack shouldn't be using a computer if he isn't 
going to take care of it.  Even if that computer runs Windows.

Having an operating system that any idiot can (and does) use set computer
science back as many years as Microsoft has been participating in it.

> Sounds like they'd be better served by a Mepis Linux install. Easiest
> install of any OS I've ever had. With all the protections that running
> Linux with proper permissions setup brings. 

-- 
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
 3:35PM  up 42 days, 17:46, 2 users, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 21:40:32 GMT, General Protection Fault
<generalpf@braids.ertw.com> wrote:


>My point is that Joe Sixpack shouldn't be using a computer if he isn't 
>going to take care of it.  Even if that computer runs Windows.

The problem is that most people are applications based, not operating system
based.
IOW the typical Aol'er thinks Windows is just another application.
This leads to the inevitable which is a system whose underpinnings are starting
to crumble with each pop-up that gets madly clicked on.
The computer has moved from a geeks tool to an appliance much like a TV has and
as such should require little or no maintenance above and beyond protecting it
against outside harm.
This is the direction that many modern automobiles have taken.
My new Jetta for example doesn't even have a dipstick to check the transmission
fluid.
Some cars have 100,000 mile service intervals for plugs and such.
Why can't an operating system be like that?

This is where Windows fails to deliver.

The amount of time spent PROPERLY securing and maintaining a secure, spyware
free Windows system is STAGGERING!!!!!!!

That's a bold statement, I know, but think about it.
How much time and how many programs are required to keep track of virii,
trojans,spyware and outbound programs dialing the mother ship?
Now figure the time wasted to maintain each of these programs in addition to
running them on the system.

It adds up real fast.

I currently have the following, and I somewhat know what I am doing:

Hardware firewall with stateful packet inspection (for all OS's obviously).
Antivir anti-virus.
Zonealarm Integrity Desktop Client for outbound mother ship phone homes.
Adaware Professional for spyware.
Norton 2004 Antivirus, but I don't use it.
Panicware Popup Stopper for IE when I am forced to use IE.

Why?
Why?
Why do I need all this crap and why do I have to continually spend time and
money updating these things?

When I boot to Linux it's a pleasure because I don't worry about all this stuff.
I don't run as root and have only installed the chkrootkit program to confirm
that I have not done something stupid because I am far from a Linux expert.

>Having an operating system that any idiot can (and does) use set computer
>science back as many years as Microsoft has been participating in it.

I don't agree as I think the computer has become just another household
appliance.
I would say that an operating system should not sacrifice security for ease of
use.
Never ever.

flatfish+++

Peter K�hlmann threw some tea leaves on the floor
 and this is what they wrote:

> General Protection Fault wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 09:43:53 +1100, Terry wrote:
>>> My wife is currently visiting relatives over Xmas in Western Australia
>>> and recently tried to use her daughters MICROS~1 Windows XP box to
>>> talk to me via IRC.
>>>
>>> What could be simpler, log onto the net, connect to a IRC server and
>>> chat ?
>>>
>>> Unfortunately it's too hard for XP because this box is riddled with
>>> viruses and won't even stay up for more than 5 minutes!
>> 
>> Unfortunately your wife's daughter is a moron for letting her computer
>> get that way.

Perhaps, but in that case, it's mostly morons who use MICROS~1 Windows.

>> 
>
> It is not his wifes daughter.

Yeah it is, not that it matters, she could be anyone.

> And no, any XP connected to the internet the
> way it was setup was a sure way to have it infected the minute you connect
> for the first time.

Just as Flatfish found when he did his "virgin XP" post a while back.

> MS is changing *now* the settings for the firewall and
> is even enhancing the firewall itself. After so mayn got burned

Exactly.

>
>>> Her daughter and family are the "Joe Sixpack" of computer users and
>>> because they have no clue about PC's, their 6 month old XP box is
>>> totally unusable already!
>> 
>> Thanks for proving my point.

What point, you have no point Wintroll, just endless apologies for that
junk you love so much, MICROS~1 XP. 

>> 
>
> He did not prove *your* point. He proved the point that XP is totally
> unsuable for "Joe Sixpack" out of the box. At least out of the box it was
> setup for exactly this group of users. This is the fault of whom? Of the
> user without clues, or of MS to tell this group of users that XP is exactly
> what the doctor prescribes for them, and then delivering this garbage?

Exactly, and that's *the* point.


-- 
              Kind Regards from Terry 
    My Desktop is powered by GNU/LinuX, Gentoo-1.4_rc2   
         New Homepage: http://milkstone.d2.net.au/          
 ** Linux Registration Number: 103931,  http://counter.li.org **

Conor threw some tea leaves on the floor
 and this is what they wrote:

> In article <slrnbvbfb1.2301.generalpf@braids.ertw.com>, 
> generalpf@braids.ertw.com says...
>
>> No, she could be especially moronic.
>> 
> I'd say she is a typical Windows home user who will gladly click on 
> anything sent to her e-mail inbox.

Especially if it looks like a genuine MICROS~1 "update" bwahahahha!

If she doesn't, her kids will.

-- 
              Kind Regards from Terry 
    My Desktop is powered by GNU/LinuX, Gentoo-1.4_rc2   
         New Homepage: http://milkstone.d2.net.au/          
 ** Linux Registration Number: 103931,  http://counter.li.org **

Jim Richardson threw some tea leaves on the floor
 and this is what they wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 16:18:29 GMT,
>  General Protection Fault <generalpf@braids.ertw.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 09:43:53 +1100, Terry wrote:
>>> My wife is currently visiting relatives over Xmas in Western Australia
>>> and recently tried to use her daughters MICROS~1 Windows XP box to
>>> talk to me via IRC.
>>>
>>> What could be simpler, log onto the net, connect to a IRC server and
>>> chat ?
>>>
>>> Unfortunately it's too hard for XP because this box is riddled with
>>> viruses and won't even stay up for more than 5 minutes!
>>
>> Unfortunately your wife's daughter is a moron for letting her computer
>> get that way.
>>
>>> Her daughter and family are the "Joe Sixpack" of computer users and
>>> because they have no clue about PC's, their 6 month old XP box is
>>> totally unusable already!
>>
>> Thanks for proving my point.
>>
>>
>
>
> Your point is that MS-Windows isn't suitable for Joe Sixpack? 
>
> Sounds like they'd be better served by a Mepis Linux install. Easiest
> install of any OS I've ever had. With all the protections that running
> Linux with proper permissions setup brings. 

And inbuilt spam protection!

Here is an email from a Windows user I recently gave Mepis too:-

....
btw mepis has built in spam detection, it successfully filtered about 60
spam out of about 68. Slowed down email download a fair bit though.

Terry: You mean with Mozilla email or something like that ?

It's actually configured in mepis, I get this message with any email it 
considers spam:
Spam detection software, running on the system "mepis1", has
identified this incoming email as possible spam.
The original message has been attached to this so you can view it
(if it isn't spam) or block
similar future email.
I
f you have any questions, see
the administrator of that system for details.
.....



-- 
              Kind Regards from Terry 
    My Desktop is powered by GNU/LinuX, Gentoo-1.4_rc2   
         New Homepage: http://milkstone.d2.net.au/          
 ** Linux Registration Number: 103931,  http://counter.li.org **

In article <1bjbvvsrmfai29ig0u0smgsgi32mq7qif7@4ax.com>,=20
flatfish@linuxmail.org says...

> >I'd say she is a typical Windows home user who will gladly click on=20
> >anything sent to her e-mail inbox.
>=20
> Sad but so true :(
>=20
> This group, like most tech groups on the net, is a little out of touch wi=
th the
> reality that most people turn into idiots when put in front of a computer=
..
> We assume, wrongly, that just because we know something is dangerous to d=
o that
> others will know as well.
> The reality is that most people don't even know what usenet is let alone =
virii,
> trojans and hackers.
>=20
Exactly. I used to be freelance and did alot of work for small local=20
companies. Despite telling people 1000 times "DO NOT OPEN ATTACHMENTS=20
EVEN FROM PEOPLE YOU KNOW" unless expected, even to the point of taping=20
a peice of paper to the monitor,they continued to. I eventually got so=20
sick of banging my head against a wall that I chucked the lot and threw=20
=A310,000 a year away; it was stressing me out that much.

--=20
Conor

"Cogito Eggo Sum" - "I think, therefore I am a waffle"